“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 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

    > Thirdly, Abraham posited a methodology for inquiry but did not apply it.

    Seriously? **That’s** your big beef? You (clearly) don’t care whether Monckton’s claims are even remotely plausible; you don’t care whether Abraham’s criticisms are trenchant; you **just care whether Abraham precisely followed his stated methodology or not**?

    Folks, amongst other things, we have a process troll on our hands.

  2. #2 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    >Folks, amongst other things, we have a process troll on our hands.

    A very [distored process](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575482) troll.

  3. #3 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    >Folks, amongst other things, we have a process troll on our hands.

    Make that, a very [distorted process](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575482) troll.

  4. #4 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    You have proved time and time again that you are a pathological distorter of the truth. Post [266](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575283) is back and is clearly authored by Paul UK.

    Your false claim is significantly more than mere rubbish, it it patently dishonest. My [275](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575701) post directly answers questions and points raised by Paul UK and nobody else.

    That you and Paul UK would claim otherwise only serves to highlight how utterly morally bankrupt you are. Neither of you deserve any civility whatsoever. The same applies to such potty-mouthed buffooons as truth machine, SteveC, and to a much lesser extent, jakerman.

    Lotharsson, the linked video might help you overcome your [compulsive lying](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ScC-kJJY0). There may be hope for you yet. Good luck.

    The rest of you potty-mouthed buffoons should not be allowed access to a computer until you can do some with a least a modicum of civility. Grow up.

  5. #5 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    Windy writes:

    >*You have proved time and time again that you are a pathological distorter of the truth.* [...]Your false claim is significantly more than mere rubbish, it it patently dishonest. [...] That you and Paul UK would claim otherwise only serves to highlight how utterly morally bankrupt you are. Neither of you deserve any civility whatsoever. The same applies to such potty-mouthed buffooons as truth machine, SteveC, and to a much lesser extent, jakerman.

    Enough wiggling Windy,

    Do you or do you not beleive Monckton substantiated his claim that the MWP was warmer than today?

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

    > You have proved time and time again that you are a pathological distorter of the truth.

    Ooooooh, am I? Do tell! “Time and time again” should mean you can quote, I don’t know – half a dozen, ten, twenty instances? Fortunately we have a publicly visible record right here, so you’ll be able to quote and link to them to show how precisely how they are distortions.

    Actually, your charge is stronger than that – “pathological” implies very frequent to universal distortion. You really need to prove that just about each and every comment I make is a distortion of the truth.

    Go for it!

    Or is your claim itself a distortion of the truth?

    > Post 266 is back and is clearly authored by Paul UK.

    I see the source of my misunderstanding – you wrote a comment that looked to be falsely quoting Paul, further encumbered by linking to the wrong comment, and then claimed you weren’t falsely quoting Paul without adequately explaining that point. Fair enough, and apologies for the mistaken interpretation.

    But you’re throwing a little tantrum if you argue that I’m a “pathological distorter of the truth” who needs hypnosis therapy for “compulsive lying” and is “utterly morally bankrupt” merely because I misunderstood something you wrote very unclearly. Although at least the charge – coming from you, especially in a post where you tell others to “grow up” – was highly amusing, so all was not lost ;-)

    And I should probably refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy by demanding civility from others but declaring that some of us deserve none whatsover – especially since one of my earlier comments is still in moderation…

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2010

    So, back to the questions which I predict you mostly won’t answer.

    1) How much of the rest of Abraham’s presentation is valid critique of Monckton – and what does it say about the strength of Monckton’s case?

    2) The first three Abraham slides on Monckton’s MWP argument clearly show he’s relying on a fallacy to argue that the IPCC “erased the MWP” (between the 1990 and 2001 report). Given that I don’t recall you arguing this point, what impact does that have on the rest of Monckton’s MWP argument – essentially that “the IPCC erased the MWP because it refutes AGW” argument – when the case for the predicate that the IPCC “erased” the MWP is itself mendacious?

    3) Who said that critics of Monckton must be sticklers for the 8-ball/pool “call your shot or it doesn’t count” rule? And why should such a claim not be met with gales of uproarious laughter? How **exactly** does Abraham enhancing the methodology he stated up-front – in cases when it is clear it won’t be sufficient – **invalidate** his conclusions?

    4) How exactly does Schweingruber’s paper on historical climate in **West Central Asia** support Monckton’s claim that the IPCC suppressed evidence of a (**synchronous hemispherical/global**) MWP? And if Abraham updated his presentation to additionally point this out, would you agree that it was valid criticism?

    5) How exactly does David Frank writing (and if you read his e-mail carefully, he does so based on a recent **compilation of “pretty much all possible estimates for temperature change over the last 1000 years”**) that Monckton is wrong about the MWP…not severely damage Monckton’s broader claims about the MWP? (One might also be tempted to consider that a compilation of almost all temperature estimates covering the date range of the MWP bears on the claim that “700 scientists support an MWP” – and even be moved to wonder why Monckton doesn’t present any compilation, aggregate or survey paper to support his claim.)

    And in what strange parallel universe does countervailing evidence NOT EXIST because it wasn’t referenced in the original argument?

    6) If a warmer (synchronous global) MWP means climate sensitivity is likely to be even **higher** than scientists currently think, which Monckton conclusions does that invalidate or weaken, and by how much?

    7) When will you apply your considerable analysis powers to a similar critique of Monckton’s presentation? And when you do, what do you expect to find?

  8. #8 cohenite
    June 10, 2010

    I’m bored with the MWP; let’s talk about warming rates in the last 150 years:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg

    I’m also bored with Monckton, let’s talk about a real royal:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html#ixzz0qPHhpOBc

    Is that you at the bottom right of the second photo jakerman?

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2010

    > My personal view is that Huang et al (2008) does not at refute Huang et al (1997) it just moves the LIA, MWP, and HM down by about a degree.

    Apart from the interesting hubris embedded in that declaration, I’ve got to say I’m still struggling to understand how Passing Wind can argue that (in the context of Monckton’s reference to Huang 1997) with a straight face. Or even argue that Huang – the scientist – supports a (synchronous hemispherical/global) MWP that is warmer than today.

    Huang 2008 (as cited by Abraham) seems to pretty clearly say otherwise, and that seems sufficient to refute Monckton’s use of Huang as a scientist supporting the MWP.

    But even with Passing Wind’s …shifting…standards for refutation of denialism aside (i.e. changing from dealing with Monckton’s claim that [700 *scientists* support the MWP](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2566905) to refuting the individual papers as in the quote at the start of this comment)…if you take a quick look at Huang 2008 it CLEARLY says that you cannot use Huang 1997 (as Monckton does) to compare current and MWP temperatures:

    > Below we … show why the results of HPS97 cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century.

    This clearly contradicts the Passing Wind quote (when used in support of Monckton’s claims) at the start of this comment, no?

  10. #10 Passing Wind
    June 10, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    >I see the source of my misunderstanding – you wrote a comment that looked to be falsely quoting Paul, further encumbered by linking to the wrong comment, and then claimed you weren’t falsely quoting Paul without adequately explaining that point. Fair enough, and apologies for the mistaken interpretation.

    I see what you mean now. Clearly I too am partially responsible for the misunderstanding. I also agree that pathological liar is too strong a label, and using it reflects poorly on me. Shall we call this issue dropped?

    I pretty much have had an absolute gutful of the personal attacks and potty-mouthed language that passes as discourse on this site. I have tried to remain civil, but the constant harassment makes it a difficult task, and clearly I could also do better.

    Let’s hope other will do the same.

    p.s. I will answer your post @293 later tomorrow, as I have another engagement to attend to.

  11. #11 jakerman
    June 10, 2010

    Shorter cohers:

    >Look over here, .

    Poor cohers, watching as his poster boy’s false claims are exposed.

    BTW cohers, do you support Moncktons claims about ocean acidificiation being a non issue?

  12. #12 cohenite
    June 10, 2010

    Yep.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

    I’d put up some Pete Ridd references too but until you tell me which one you are in the audience listening [sic] to bonny prince charlie I won’t bother.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2010

    > Shall we call this issue dropped?

    Sure, no problem.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    June 10, 2010

    Passing Wind complains about personal abuse and potty language he has experienced on Deltoid. Fair enough. So what has Passing Wind said about J.P. Abraham’s presentation? Here are some excerpts from Passing Wind on Deltoid:

    1. Dribble (?!)
    2. Some of his ‘evidence’ is laughable and would not get a passing grade for a first year paper.
    3. Abraham’s infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior…
    4. Abraham has failed and were [sic] supposed to applaud him for this rubbish.

    And so on…

    I have seen the entire presentation and, give or take a few mute points that PW has raised, it is a demolition job. Monkcton ought to go intoi hiding for a while to let the dust settle.

    Those in denial with respect to AGW have a variable bag of tricks, but one of their most tried and trusted methods is to take single, often minor flaws in the work of a climate researcher, and to use that as a means of debunking the entire field. The ‘hockey stick’ graph is a case in point. Published in Nature in 1998, it has become an icon in the denialist’s arsenal. Forget the fact that climate change was on the scientific radar for at least ten years before Mann et al’s paper was published, it has become something of an icon.

  15. #15 jakerman
    June 10, 2010

    Everett bases his diagnosis on the question of wheather or not CO2 rising fater or slower than projected rates.

    >*However there are some major problems with the science. The wisdom at the time of the IPCC 2007 report was that half of CO2 emissions would remain in the atmosphere and that we would have 712 ppm (IS92a) by 21002. This would require the atmosphere to more than double the present rate of growth of CO2 to 3.05 ppm, yet the growth rate seems to be leveling off, if not declining*

    Everett erroneously says that CO2 is not rising as fast as expected and hence he projecte concentrations of 560ppm CO2 by 2100.

    >*The CO2 scenarios are literally falling flat and need revision. [...] Using the average rate of increase for the past 10 years (1.87/year), and assuming a straight-line
    growth, my projection for 2100 is 560 ppm.

    Everett’s eyeballing technique and lack of rigour has misled him. CO2 growth rates are tracking on the highest predicted emissions scencarios. (See figure 1 (page 9) of the [Copenhagen Diagnisis](http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/)).

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2010
  17. #17 cohenite
    June 10, 2010

    Everett doesn’t eyeball anything; he specifically compares the IPCC forecasts with actual NOAA measurements in Fig’s 1 and 2; IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is monotonic something found in the Knorr paper which Everett refers to. The point is, even if CO2 levels do reach IPCC forecasts [which I hope they don't as I have uranium and thorium shares] the oceans will not become more acidic but less akaline; it is a logarithmic scale.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2010

    > IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is **monotonic**…

    [In heavy Spanish accent:] “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    > …the oceans will not become more acidic but less akaline…

    [In heavy Spanish accent: as above]

    Less alkaline is precisely what people are worried about when they talk about “ocean acidification”. (In common terminology “more acidic” and “less alkaline” mean the same thing.)

    You don’t seem to know even the basics behind what you’re talking about.

  19. #19 jakerman
    June 10, 2010

    Cohers writes:

    >Everett doesn’t eyeball anything; he specifically compares the IPCC forecasts with actual NOAA measurements in Fig’s 1 and 2;

    You really are a desperate cohers. Everett puts two charts of different scales side by side and eyeballs them. And unsurprising given the scale difference, he gets it wrong. [I referred you to the comparison](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577919) of actual versus the scenarios on the same chart.

    Cohers continues:

    >IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is monotonic something found in the Knorr paper which Everett refers to.

    Please show me where in the Knorr paper the ‘actual growth’ is shown to be different to that in the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

  20. #20 P. Lewis
    June 10, 2010

    pH and synonymous terms, for the hard of understanding or for those for whom semantics is a game:

    —> increasing alkalinity —>

    < --- decreasing alkalinity <---

    1 ———– 7 ———– 14

    —-> decreasing acidity —->

    <—- increasing acidity <—-

    [Hope the formatting doesn't go awry! In which case, the above will look pretty stoopid.]

  21. #21 jakerman
    June 10, 2010

    [Here is](http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf) the Knorr paper to help cohers and any interested readers.

  22. #22 Marco
    June 10, 2010

    @Jeff Harvey #210:
    I’ve been in a brief discussion with someone else who pointed to Glassman’s piece. While I do not recommend to read all of it (it’s in part Scafetta-with-a-twist), you could read the section on CO2 increase (not) being anthropogenic. It’s semantics trying to claim the IPCC says something that is incorrect (and if it says what Glassman claims, it actually *is* incorrect based on the literature), followed by loads of numbers and analyses thrown around to confuse the ignorant reader. Ultimate conclusion Glassman draws? CO2 increase is not caused by anthropogenic emissions, but by the ocean outgassing.

    Glassman also wrote another piece about that CO2 increase, in which the Mauna Loa record is considered suspicious, since it’s on a volcano and right next to an outgassing ocean…that’ll give you an idea on the circular reasoning of this Glassman. Heck, even Eschenbach has recently argued the increase in CO2 *is* anthropogenic (with a somewhat coherent argumentation).

  23. #23 Marco
    June 10, 2010

    @cohenite, regarding CO2 growth rates:
    Using data from Mauna Loa, I found the following 10-year average growth rates:

    1960-1969 0.85
    1970-1979 1.27
    1980-1989 1.59
    1990-1999 1.5
    2000-2009 1.98

    With one exception, every decade shows a higher average of per-year CO2 increase. Note also for the last 10 years of 10-year periods we get this:
    1990-1999 1.50
    1991-2000 1.54
    1992-2001 1.60
    1993-2002 1.81
    1994-2003 1.91
    1995-2004 1.87
    1996-2005 1.93
    1997-2006 1.98
    1998-2007 2.00
    1999-2008 1.87
    2000-2009 1.98

    Hmmm…what to conclude? Well, a linear increase with 1.87 (the lowest value of the last five 10-year periods) would be kind of a cherry pick. And that with temperatures that have not increased as much as in the previous decade.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    June 10, 2010

    [Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577976).

    Several people have already pointed out that you’re wrong, and wrong again, but it really deserves to be repeated for emphasis of the sheer lack of understanding involved on your part.

    IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is monotonic something found in the Knorr paper which Everett refers to.

    [Inigo was a perceptive man](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)… H/T Lotharsson.

    You are simply showing more of your scientific/mathematical ignorance. An accelerating trajectory can indeed be [monotonic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function), and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic.

    The point is, even if CO2 levels do reach IPCC forecasts [which I hope they don't as I have uranium and thorium shares] the oceans will not become more acidic but less akaline; it is a logarithmic scale.

    [P. Lewis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2578059) very considerately drew a simple diagram that even one as scientifically uneducated as yourself should be able to follow. However, given that you may not be convinced of your own inadequate knowledge, perhaps you could explicitly detail exactly how it is that your statement is correct, and H+ ion concentration does not increase as pH decreases.

    You may like to revise the discussion on the very entertaining [Tim Curtin Mark II thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s.php), and especially the posts following [the one I made at #74](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s.php#comment-2502186).

    The thread provides bucketloads of hilarity, reflecting Curtin’s complete unfamiliarity with simple high school chemistry. I note that you appeared several times on that thread, so I am just that little more surprised that you thought to push that clumsy line of Denialatus gobbledegook here.

    Seriously, if you can’t get introductory curve construction and introductory chemistry correct, you have no business attempting to comment on something as complex as climatology, and you certainly have no business being involved politically in the field, in the manner that you are.

    Cohentite, and Curtin… it’s really not rocket science, boys. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend?

  25. #25 MFS
    June 10, 2010

    Cohenite,

    Imaging you are a marine calcifying organism, such as the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, or Gephyrocapsa oceanica. You live happily in a slightly alkaline ocean, pH 8.1. The pH of that ocean you live in has been constant or nearly so for most of your evolutionary history, you like it, it’s comfortable, it feels like home. It is, for your intents and purposes, and those of all other marine microbes perfect, because you have evolved for it to be perfect. The point those hoomans have determined by convention to be neutral is lower than your environment, at 7.

    Then the pH starts to drop (acidify, or become less alkaline, but be careful of your semantics, alkalinity means something else entirely – the buffering capacity as opposed to the H+ ion concentration – , which is why we use the term acidity), at an unprecedented rate. Suddendly the carbonate-bicarbonate-carbonic acid equilibrium changes, and drops below the aragonite saturation horizon, and inches closer and closer to the calcite saturation horizon. In terms of our convention, it has become closer to neutral, or less alkaline. In terms of marine life in the ocean, the concentration of H+ ions has increased and the water has become more acidic, it all depends on your point of view. Bugger, you can’t move home when the neighbourhood goes to the dogs! You shells start to become malformed, and weigh less, they provide less protection against photodamage and predators. In fact there is evidence this may already be happening. Poor Ehux. Well, moving on, why should we care?

    This is important because the calcite and aragonite shells of coccolithophores, pteropods, and forams, falling as marine snow, form a large part of the permanent export of inorganic carbon (from CO2) from the atmosphere to the oceand and through to the lithosphere (rock). If they are disadvantaged enough to decrease in abundance compared to other (non-calcifying) organisms that can take advantage of the changing conditions, we will lose a negative feedback that permanently takes CO2 out of the system.

    As to logarithmic pH scales, dude! Really? Who’d have thought! And the point is?

  26. #26 P. Lewis
    June 10, 2010

    MFS is, of course, technically correct on alkalinity. Basicity would have been a better choice perhaps in my little diagram, except then with regard to seawater we are talking of carbonates/bicarbonates neutralisation and so we’re back to alkalinity.

    And to pick up on another point MFS makes, the reason we talk of acidity/acidification is because the pH is defined in terms of the [H+], or more strictly perhaps [H3O+]. There is also the point that CO2 in solution is an acid and in adding it to seawater it is acting as an acidifier to acidify (i.e. add acid to) that seawater.

    Anyone trying to convince someone that the oceans aren’t acidifying because the sea is only getting less alkaline is [some uncharitable epithet of your choice] morally bankrupt.

  27. #27 Stu
    June 10, 2010

    >You are simply showing more of your scientific/mathematical ignorance. An accelerating trajectory can indeed be monotonic, and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic.

    Shooting down denialist talking points like Cohenite’s really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Step 1 – Identify that the denialist is ignorant, and is pontificating on a term or subject that they don’t understand: 350 milliseconds

    Step 2 – Identify an internet source that shows the denialist to be wrong: up to 2 minutes, depending on how technical the subject is. In this case, I’m guessing about 3 seconds if Bernard’s got a fast connection.

    Step 3 – Link to source and post comment: 10 seconds. 20 if you take the time to write anything more than a brief summary of your rebuttal.

    Easy? Yes. Satisfying? Sometimes. But in the end, Cohenite isn’t going to change his mind. You can only educate a troll so far, and even then he’ll probably repeat the mistake here or somewhere else in the future. I suppose one function it provides is you’ve got yet another post to link to if anyone ever doubts that Cohenite is wrong.

    NB: Step 4 – ??? and step 5 – PROFIT!!! are not included in this offer.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    June 10, 2010

    Stu.

    [Exactly](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2580247).

    Nothing else needs to be said except that if it’s so easy to learn, why is it that the denialists refuse to do so?

    Is it really better to look stupid than to concede that they have screwed up the science? Even in the pursuit of their ideological ends?

  29. #29 jakerman
    June 10, 2010

    >*Nothing else needs to be said except that if it’s so easy to learn, why is it that the denialists refuse to do so?*

    They learn, but they have different selection criteria to those practicing genuine truth seeking.

    They end up with a rich knowledge of unrepresentative cherry picked factoids.

  30. #30 Passing Wind
    June 11, 2010

    Monckton cited Noon et al (2003) as supporting evidence, see Abraham’s [slide 23](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/).

    Noon et al 2003:

    >P.E. Noon et al., “Oxygen Isotope (Δ18o) Evidence of Holocene Hydrological Changes at Signy Island, Maritime **Antarctica**,”
    The Holocene, vol. 13, no. 2, March 2003, pages 251–263.

    Abraham uses a quote about the _**arctic**_ from Viv Jones’s website as evidence Moncktom misrepresented a paper about the _**antarctic**_

    >The Arctic is currently undergoing rapid climate warming

    Somewhat poles apart, eh? (pun intended)

    [Smol et al (2005)](http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/12/4397.pdf), of which Vivienne Jones is a co-author states:

    >Although the instrumental record of temperature across the Arctic is incomplete and generally of short duration, warming appears to be concentrated in the decades between approximately anno Domini 1915–1940 and approximately anno Domini 1965–2000 (5). However, proxy data indicate that much of the Arctic began to warm considerably earlier, in the mid-19th century (6)

    But I guess that part most relevant for you is this:

    >These data show that striking and often unprecedented ecological changes have occurred within the last ~150 years, following several millennia of relatively stable communities.

    No support for a MWP in the Arctic from Vivienne Jones.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    June 11, 2010

    > Abraham uses a quote about the arctic from Viv Jones’s website as evidence Moncktom misrepresented a paper about the antarctic.

    Yes, I noticed that – it was one reason I felt Abraham could have done better in his MWP section.

  32. #32 Passing Wind
    June 11, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    It’s a question of probity.

    I’m trying to get Abraham to provide question and answer pairs from his emails with Schweingruber and Keigwin to eliminate cherry picking or out of context quoting too. I see no reason to contact the authors directly as I doubt Abraham has fabricated emails.

    I am waiting for Monckton to release his “defense letter” to Abraham so I can apply exactly the same analysis to his work. Except in his case, I’ll also compare what he presented in St Paul with his rebuttal.

    I was chatting to a Geophysicist friend last night, and conversation came around to temperature reconstructions from boreholes. His comments were hardly complementary, as he thinks they overstate certainty, but will read Huang et al (97, 00, & 08) and report back.

  33. #33 Passing Wind
    June 11, 2010

    A update regarding Abraham’s email correspondence with Keigwin 1996, and Monckton.

    John Cook, over at [skepticalscience.com](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Warm-Period.html) posted an update in response to a request from me for the full email exchange with Keigwin. So far, John has posted the email to Keigwin.

    >Dear Dr. Keigwin,

    >Pardon this interruption but I am a professor of thermal sciences and I frequently give public lectures on global warming. I noticed that recently, Christopher Monckton has been giving presentations where he uses your research to suggest that the MWP was significantly warmer than today and that the recent warming is not of concern. I don’t believe that is your conclusion but I wanted to verify this. Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?

    >Thank you very much

    >Dr. John Abraham
    University of St. Thomas
    School of Engineering
    jpabraham@stthomas.edu

    Before you get too excited thinking this totally vindicates Abraham’s claim, I would like you to reflect on how loosely Abraham frames the argument. If one hadn’t seem Monckton’s presentation, and Keigwin claims to have never heard of him, one might think Monckton’s presentation was solely about, or focused on Keigwin’s work, rather than a reference out of 9 or was it 700 – take your pick.

    Please also note that Abraham does not provide Keigwin with any more supporting information, such as a [link to the video presentation](http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5324) or a transcript.

    Abraham also **misrepresents** the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim _**the recent warming is not of concern**_, a statement Monckton does not make in the video (32:40 to 37:39). Monckton is using it, along with the 9/700 others to claim there was a MWP until the IPCC **disappeared it.**

    So when Keigwin writes back and says **”You are absolutely right”**, what question is he answering? The only possible answer is he is responding to is __**”I don’t believe that is your conclusion [that the recent warming is of no concern] but I wanted to verify this.”**_. Which is correct because that was not what [Keigwin's paper](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=3842&pid=12455&tid=282) concluded. It did not claim the current warming was of no concern. There is a letter by Deming explaining the scope and applicability of his work [included here](http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/pdf/Misleading.pdf) as an attachment.

    Monckton is arguing that the IPCC conspired to eliminate the MWP? A claim Monckton repeats at 32:40, and very much the central theme of Monckton’s MWP argument. Which is, in a nutshell:

    Starts @32:40

    1975 – Ken Overpeck contacts Deming to _**”get rid of the medieval warm period”**_ See [David Deming's US Senate testimony](http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543). Monckton claims:
    >”Not we have to check whether there was one. Check how big it was. Check where it happened and where it didn’t. No. We have to get rid of it.”

    1990 – IPCC graph includes a MWP much warmer than then.

    2001 – Goodbye MWP, hello hockey stick. Also usual critique of same using M+M argument/evidence.

    Now Monckton’s evidence that the MWP exists in the literature:

    > And now here is the truth about the MWP. Here are just a few papers, 8 or 9 of them out of the papers contributed over the last 20 years by more than 700 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries establishing that the medieval warm period **was real**, **was global**, and **was warmer than the present**. That is the scientific consensus, if you do science by consensus, that the UN says it does. But on the question of the medieval warm period the UN refuses to accept the scientific consensus. Instead it uses made up graphs.

    Ends @37:59 – 5 minutes, 19 seconds in total.

    Does Keigwin 1996 support Monckton’s claims or not?

    On the question that IPCC deliberately disappeared the MWP? Of course not – N/A as it predates the hockey stick.

    On the question of was the MWP real? Keigwin 1996 does claim the existence of the MWP.

    On the question of was it global? Keigwin 1996 was not a global study – it only covered the Sargasso Sea.

    On the question of was it warmer than present? Keigwin 1996 indicates the MWP was about a degree or so warmer.

    So the only points I can score to Abraham regarding Keigwin is that Monckton incorrectly displaying Keigwin’s graph of Sargasso Sea temperature as support for his claim the MWP was global. An error Monckton could correct by simply stating his global MWP claim is made up from many global, as well as local reconstructions, like Keigwin 1996, and Esper and Schweingruger 2003.

    Apologies for the lengthy argument. I wanted to capture as much of the subtlety as possible.

  34. #34 truth machine
    June 11, 2010

    Is Gaping Asshole still here trying to defend Monckton?

    I wanted to capture as much of the subtlety as possible.

    Heh heh.

  35. #35 Passing Wind
    June 11, 2010

    truth machine,

    Thank you kindly for taking the time to acknowledge my posed comments, and I also thank you for your comments.

  36. #36 jakerman
    June 11, 2010

    >Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern,

    Windy, gone back to poor old habits.

    You misrepresent Monckton by isolating your sample to a few slide. Those paying attention could have little doubt that Abraham surmised Monckton’s case accurately.

    We know this because Monckton certainly does make claims such as refered to by Abraham. See Monckton’s concluding sentances ([here @4:28 sec](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTshxSPMAcI&feature=related)). Its the basis of his presentations.

  37. #37 Passing Wind
    June 11, 2010

    jakerman @ 324

    >We know this because Monckton certainly does make claims such as refered to by Abraham. See Monckton’s concluding sentances (here @4:28 sec). Its the basis of his presentations.

    Err. That’s Monckton’s Sydney presentation, not the St Paul presentation. I am not misrepresenting Monckton as I present Monckton’s MWP section in full.

    Monckton’s case is that the IPCC caused the MWP to disappear, and here are 9/700 paper proving it existed in the literature before the 2001 hockey stick. Abraham claims Monckton is wrong about the IPCC by showing the multi-proxy IPCC Northern Hemisphere graph but does not address Monckton’s claims Overpeak tried to influence Deming to delete the MWP. Neither does he address any of the so-called climate-gate emails not available at the time of Monckton’s St Paul lecture. He could have emailed Deming and Overpeck, and others discussing same in stolen/leaked emails as he emailed others for opinion.

    Would you be happier if I concluded in @ 321 that Monckton lied claiming Keigwin 1996 supported the existence of a warmer than today global MWP?

    If so, the point would still be trivial, as I explained above. As well, Monckton need only state that one reason IPCC authors claim the MWP was not global is that virtually all the studies are local – (except of course HPS97 & 08 which are clearly global). But add up all the local studies and you get a global picture. If he adds that line, then Keigwin is more than valid support for a warmer MWP, albeit Keigwin’s contribution is only local.

    I’d seem Monckton’s presentation before. I though it comparable with its **liberal use of facts** as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”. I did side with it slightly more than Gore’s because I don’t like horror films and I do like happy endings. If you find Monckton loose with facts, where do you stand regarding Al Gore?

  38. #38 cohenite
    June 11, 2010

    I do so enjoy my occasional soirees at Deltoid; lest I be accused of not caring about the liitle beasties, “coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, or Gephyrocapsa oceanica”, gasping in the human caused acid/putrification of the oceans, let me say that the atmospheric amount of CO2 is about 720GT and the ocean amount is about 37400GT; there is little evidence that the oceans are saturated, although a study by Park et al found some overturning circulation reduction on the edges of the Japanese sea. So, while the cute little things have to toughen up a bit they should be reassured that there is considerable slack left in the system before the oceans become an excellent dumping ground for the victims of Dexter and other criminal types.

    If one accepts that all the 20thC increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic then the significance of the Knorr paper is that while ACO2 emissions have been increasing in a non-monotonic fashion and there has been a slight rate of increase in the Keeling curve:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

    of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years. I guess that conforms to BJ’s witty admonition that, “An accelerating trajectory can indeed be monotonic, and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic.” That is, while ACO2 emissions are increasing and atmospheric CO2 is increasing the proportion of ACO2 in the atmosphere is constant; now, which of those 3 variables [sic] are monotonic?

  39. #39 jakerman
    June 11, 2010

    >Err. That’s Monckton’s Sydney presentation, not the St Paul presentation. I am not misrepresenting Monckton as I present Monckton’s MWP section in full.

    Errr. Your logic is laughable! Are you seriously claiming the Abraham is wrong to state that Monckton’s argument is tht AGW is not a problem?

    What is your evidence for this? You haven’t got Monckton’s presentation which Abraham attended, and it would be remarkable if Monckton didn’t make this his central claim in that presentation give that is basically his central claim when ever he speaks.

    You deserve ridicule.

  40. #40 jakerman
    June 11, 2010

    Cohers, where is your apology for [misstating Everett's evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2578028)?

    Never mind, its a denialist trait to fail to correct errors.

  41. #41 Passing Wind
    June 11, 2010

    Dear jakerman,

    Thank you for taking the time to read my posting and follow up with constructive criticism. Rarely does one get to enjoy open and fair discussion online without opponents resorting to puerile remarks in place of reasoned argument.

    >What is your evidence for this? You haven’t got Monckton’s presentation which Abraham attended…

    And where does Abraham claim he attended [Monckton's Bethel University Minnesota](http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5324) lecture on the 14th of October?. Feel free to quote the slide number if you have it. As you can see, I do have a copy of Monckton’s presentation, The section of Monckton’s presentation regarding the disappearance of the MWP is between 32:40 and 37:59, and corresponds to Abraham’s slides 22 to 32 inclusive.

    It was remiss of me to link to Monckton’s video presentation only once, see [@321](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2581533). A quick Google search for “MONCKTON ST PAUL LECTURE” or MONCKTON ST PAUL PRESENTATION”, or even “MONCKTON BETHEL PRESENTATION” would have returned the video either first or within the top 4 results. Not hard to find at all.

    Does this mean perhaps that you have been arguing Abraham’s case without having possession of Monckton’s presentation to compare it too? It does appear to be the case, doesn’t it. One might go so far as to suggest you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    Once again, jakerman, thank you for your questions and the opportunity to respond and engage in open and frank discussion.

  42. #42 cohenite
    June 11, 2010

    jakerman, Everett does compare an anomaly graph with an absolute value graph; so what? He also says the average increase in CO2 over the last 10 years is 1.87ppm; NOAA says 1.98ppm but with an uncertainty of 0.11ppm; maybe Everett deducted the uncertainty; why don’t you ask Abrahams to ask him?

  43. #43 jakerman
    June 11, 2010

    So you have no evidence that Abraham is misrepsenting Monckton?

    And I on the other hand have provided you with evidence that supports Abraham’s view of Moncktons claims.

    Let me repeat, **What is your evidence that Abraham is misrepresenting Monckton on this point?**.

  44. #44 jakerman
    June 11, 2010

    >jakerman, Everett does compare an anomaly graph with an absolute value graph; so what?

    Did Everret get an an accurate answer with [his sloppy method](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577919), or did his lack of rigor mislead him?

  45. #45 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    jakerman,

    Once again thank you for your question. Regretfully, I must point out that repeatedly asking the same question and expecting to get a different answer is pure folly. My post @ 321 contains more than enough evidence that Abraham is misrepresenting Monckton.

    >Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons’s sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false [See slide 115](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) [CM 23] for a problematic example.

    You bizarrely claim this is demonstrably false and propose slide 115 as supporting evidence. Please specify what point you are trying to make with regard to slide 115 because Abraham does not present any evidence in his final slide. The only point he seems to make is to assure viewers that he did the hard work so they do have to.

    You were wrong to claim I did not have a copy of Monckton’s presentation because it is freely available. And you are avoiding answering if you have seen both presentation and compared them. You have not answered where in Abraham’s presentation he claims to have attended Monckton’s lecture as you have asserted above.

    Conveniently, you ignore posts like the one showing Abraham’s error regarding Viv Jones’s web quote. Why are such clear errors by Abraham acceptable to you?

    It seems you don’t expect Abraham’s work should be held up to the same standards he demands from Monckton, or the standards you are trying to apply to me.

    It’s a two way street, jakerman. You keep making brash statements then skirt away from the answers claiming some mute point hasn’t been addressed. In fairness, answer the question put to you.

  46. #46 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Windy, [your link](http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5324) to Monckton’s talk proves my case. At 1:34 min Monckton suma up his case and tells the audience there is no problem with the climate.

    You own Abraham an apology.

  47. #47 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    >*Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons’s sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false See slide 115 [CM 23] for a problematic example.*

    That is an error in my citation, but not my point. The slide that [demonstrates your referencing claim wrong](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) is Abraham’s 109 [Monckton's 23].

    If you went through the pretension you would have found others yourself.

    Now how about that [apology you owe Abraham](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583478)?

  48. #48 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    ROFL

    jakerman,

    Surely you didn’t have to watch Monckton all the way to end to figure out he doesn’t think the climate is a problem? You must have been enjoying yourself.

    Monckton has expressed his opinion

    >**”that there is no problem with the climate”**

    I might add, that it is a view supported by many others, and would be an entirely appropriate view even in complete isolation, regardless of what view you, or I may hold.

    Now, answer the questions put to you in response to you claims, or talk to the hand.

  49. #49 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    ROTFL

    Windy’s sudden swithch:

    >*Surely you didn’t have to watch Monckton all the way to end to figure out he doesn’t think the climate is a problem?*

    No Windy, I aready knew this. [Only a moron would argue that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2581533):

    >*Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern*

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > If one hadn’t seem Monckton’s presentation, and Keigwin claims to have never heard of him, one might think Monckton’s presentation was solely about, or focused on Keigwin’s work, rather than a reference out of 9 or was it 700 – take your pick.

    This is a total red herring – it does not show that Abraham’s presentation implies in any way that “Monckton’s presentation was solely about/focused on Keigwin’s work”. Nor does it matter whether Keigwin thought that or not, as it has no bearing on the question asked of Keigwin, nor the answer.

    > So when Keigwin writes back and says “You are absolutely right”, what question is he answering?

    Common interpretation of English is that Keigwin was responding to the question he was asked, namely:

    > [I don't believe these are your beliefs, but...] Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?

    Common construction of English, when faced with a multi-component question for which you cannot give the same answer to all of them is to give multiple answers and explain which part(s) each one applies to. But if you apply the same answer to each part, you may shorten this by only providing a single answer, as in the example “you are correct”.

    There’s still no evidence that Abraham is misinterpreting Keigwin.

    > …by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern,…

    You’re desperate if you think that line of argument will hold water. The entire thrust of every single Monckton presentation is “don’t worry, business as usual, and here’s a reason why – and if you don’t believe that here’s another…and if that isn’t convincing here’s one more …and would you believe this one?”

    > Keigwin 1996 does claim the existence of the MWP.

    You have to be very careful with the term “MWP”. Some use it to mean a few centuries where different regions at different times appear to have experienced unusually warm conditions. Others use it to mean a synchronous warming experienced globally or at least hemispherically. There are people who are more than happy to show evidence of the former and imply it’s evidence of the latter. Especially when they’re trying to argue that it has some bearing on the serious of the scientific case for concern over AGW.

    > An error Monckton could correct by simply stating his global MWP claim is made up from many global, as well as local reconstructions, like Keigwin 1996, and Esper and Schweingruger 2003.

    No he can’t – because to draw the conclusion that fixes Monckton’s error you HAVE TO have good reason to believe that the chronologies derived from separate methods and separate geologies have sufficient resolution to show that the warming was synchronous around the globe, and follow other good practices in creating global temperature reconstructions from a set of regional records. Monckton has not done this.

    I strongly suspect this is precisely why Monckton does NOT cite any such reconstruction study by qualified scientists – because when they produce them, they find that the synchronous level of warming was not very significant at all. (Maybe someone with more insight into the field than I can comment.)

    > Monckton’s case is that the IPCC caused the MWP to disappear,…

    Do you accept that this is a lie, given that the northern hemisphere **reconstructions** used in the 2001 report had not happened when the original “MWP” graph that Monckton cited was produced for the 1990 report?

    And – [as I have asked before](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577691) – where does that lie alone leave Monckton’s case?

    > …and here are 9/700 paper proving it existed in the literature before the 2001 hockey stick.

    You appear elsewhere to accept that many of these are regional in extent – a fact that Monckton failed to point out – and yet you argue that their existence proves what Monckton claims. That’s a scientific argument for which you have provided no evidence – as Monckton failed to do.

    How many of the “700 scientists” are left after purely regional results are removed? Why didn’t Monckton say? Is his use of “700” misleading? How many hemispherical or global reconstructions are there before the 2001 IPCC report – and what do they say, what are their uncertainties and how robust are they believed to be, and how do they compare to the 2001 IPCC report – and particularly the gray region of the chart (Abraham’s slide 23) which shows **uncertainties** in the reconstruction? Were there good reasons for giving more weight to some over others? And finally, how has the science of such reconstructions progressed in the almost 10 years since that report?

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > It seems you don’t expect Abraham’s work should be held up to the same standards he demands from Monckton, …

    Well, in some respects I for one don’t – and if you do, you’re committing a fallacy.

    Monckton is attempting to make a case. To do this he needs all the parts of his case that are essential to that case to hold up to scrutiny. All you have to do to refute his argument is to demonstrate that enough of it doesn’t hold water. You don’t have to refute every single claim, you don’t have to “call your shot” first, and you don’t need every single objection you make to survive scrutiny, as long as those that do mean that Monckton’s case does not survive.

  52. #52 cohenite
    June 12, 2010

    jakerman, since you are the authority on both Monckton and the IPCC reports perhaps you can answer this: at 1.15 Monckton says that j* = σT4 does not appear anywhere in those IPCC reports; is that correct?

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > I might add, that it is a view supported by many others, and would be an entirely appropriate view even in complete isolation, …

    Weird – so you’re arguing Monckton’s view is entirely appropriate; it’s just a shame that he tried to *justify* it with scientific claims that don’t appear to be true or accurate? Or did I misread that?

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > …at 1.15 Monckton says that j* = σT4 does not appear anywhere in those IPCC reports…

    cohenite, since you’re such a climate science authority, perhaps you could specify precisely how the equation Monckton refers to applies? (And why one should believe that the appearance or otherwise of the equation in the IPCC report means anything like what Monckton claims it means?)

  55. #55 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Silence? Or how about [that apology](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583478) you own Abraham?

  56. #56 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Cohers I see you’ve [confirmed my expectations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583073).

  57. #57 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    Keigwin’s response, **”You are absolutely right”** can only be in reply to a statement of fact. Of which, there are three statements of fact contained in the body of the email.

    >1. **”Pardon this interruption but I am a professor of thermal sciences and I frequently give public lectures on global warming.”**
    >States a) Abraham is a professor that, b) frequently gives GW lectures.

    >2. **”I noticed that recently, Christopher Monckton has been giving presentations where he uses your research to suggest that the MWP was significantly warmer than today and that the recent warming is not of concern.”**
    >States a) Monckton has been giving presentations. b) Uses Keigwin’s research to suggest the MWP was significantly warmer than today, and c) that the recent warming is of no concern.

    >3. **”I don’t believe that is your conclusion but I wanted to verify this.”** States Abraham does not believe that is the conclusion Keigwin.

    The final sentence, which is composed of a two closed questions, asks:
    > 4.**”Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?”**

    Could be answered by Yes and Yes. No and No, No and Yes, and Yes and No. No other permutations exist. **You are absolutely correct** is not a suitable answer to a two-part closed question. It is, of course, a suitable answer to any of the three proceeding questions, with the most likely candidate being the third question.

    Simply stated, **You are correct to say my 1996 paper did not conclude that the MWP was significantly warmer than today or that the current warming is of no concern.**

    It’s worth noting that Abraham has amped up Monckton’s claim that the MWP was warmer than today, to **significantly warmer**. Also, if you would care to take a look at [Keigwin's 1996 graph](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=3842) is **significantly warmer** than the 1996 present it applied to. Keigwin’s graph shows current temperature at 22.8, and peak MWP at about 24.2 – 1.4 C warmer. What isn’t so clear is exactly where year zero BP is. Even if year zero was 1900, 1.4 C gives us plenty of latitude for observed warming since then and still allow the MWP to qualify as warmer than today – 2010.

    Here are some quotes from [Keigwin 1996](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=3842&pid=12455&tid=282)

    >These results are exciting for a few reasons. First, events as young and as brief as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have never before been resolved in deep sea sediments from the open ocean.

    > The Sargasso Sea data indicate that the Medieval Warm Period may have actually been two events separated by 500 years, perhaps explaining why its timing and extent have been so controversial.

    >Second, it is evident that the climate system has been warming for a few hundred years, and that it warmed even more from 1,700 years ago to 1,000 years ago.

    And some quote from Keigin in a [letter to ExxonMobil](http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/pdf/Misleading.pdf) dated December 2000.

    >I should point out here, a key element in this discussion centers on the Medieval Warm Period. Most authors would acknowledge that this interval was probably warmer in the North Atlantic region, but few feel strongly that it was global. My data make it seem that it was warmer then than now, but it is very misleading to use those data to argue against important climate changes that began a century ago.

    Read the letter for yourself.

    Enough for today.

  58. #58 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Windy, disappointing that you just run from [your misrepresentation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583527).

    After arguing black is white for a day, you just ignore your error when its exposed for what it is.

  59. #59 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    >Weird – so you’re arguing Monckton’s view is entirely appropriate; it’s just a shame that he tried to justify it with scientific claims that don’t appear to be true or accurate? Or did I misread that?

    It is entirely appropriate to hold view contrary to the main stream, and it’s a shame that some of his arguments are poorly put and sometimes rely on a narrow interpretation of the literature.

    Some people believe in God, yet cannot justify their beliefs with scientific claims, although occasionally some try.

    jakerman is still taking to the hand.

  60. #60 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Windy [argues black is white](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2582990) for [more than](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583064) 20 hours!

    Then Windy finally [calls himself out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583512):

    >*Surely you didn’t have to watch Monckton all the way to end to figure out he doesn’t think the climate is a problem?*

    Leaving the obvious response:

    >No Windy, I aready knew this. Only [a moron would argue]((http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2582990)) that:

    >*Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern*

    Where is your apology to Abraham? I assumed you had some honor. Your credibility has is no coming back from this gaff unless you accept it and apologize

  61. #61 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    jakerman,

    How desperate are you that you have to quote yourself to stay in the conversation.

    You’re like the little kid that gets picked last to be on the footy team, and then nobody will pass the ball to him anyway.

    Answer the questions put to you. Or go away.

  62. #62 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Windy, another shameful attempt at evasion.

    I guess you are satisfied with zero credibility. This episode can [follow you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583709) everytime you post.

    I suggest you make your apology so you can move on.

    (BTW I don’t know what questions you are referring to, but I bet they are an attempt to distract from [the point I've taken you to issue on](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2582990)).

    Stop wiggling Windy you are evolving from a train crash to an epic fail.

  63. #63 J Bowers
    June 12, 2010

    Passing Wind: “1975 – Ken Overpeck contacts Deming to “get rid of the medieval warm period” See David Deming’s US Senate testimony. Monckton claims:

    >”Not we have to check whether there was one. Check how big it was. Check where it happened and where it didn’t. No. We have to get rid of it.”

    1990 – IPCC graph includes a MWP much warmer than then.”

    So Deming gave that testimony in 2006 about a conversation from 1995 (am I correct in that? It’s not 1975?).

    Deming says in his 2006 testimony…

    “Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies.”

    But that can’t be correct. The work was published in the peer reviewed literature, which in itself means that there was much criticism, surely? As we all know, it is possible to overturn 100 years of previous work with a single paper unless others publish debunking the new paper. If there was no such follow up then that gives credence to the conclusion that the new paper has overturned 100 years worth of previous scientific thought on a subject, for the time being at least.

    I suspect your argument, and Monckton’s, is pure straw man.

  64. #64 J Bowers
    June 12, 2010

    I’ll also add that it’s actually wrong to state that MBH “got rid of” any warmer Medieval Warming Period.

    It was still there in the error bars which, IIRC, encompassed both North’s reconstruction and Wegman’s. One of the main reasons that MBH were so novel in their approach, which North commends them for because it was groundbreaking, was because they clearly showed their error estimates openly and honestly. All prior reconstructions of the MWP did no such thing.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > You are absolutely correct is not a suitable answer to a two-part closed question.

    Don’t be silly – it’s quite clear from the context. The answer is to the **whole inquiry** which incorporates the question and the assumptions Abraham has about Keigwin’s beliefs. This is how practically any disinterested party would interpret it. Only someone desperately trying to frame the correspondence away from its plain reading would attempt to “parse” (in the political spin doctor sense) it the way you do.

  66. #66 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    J. Bowers,

    Thank for picking up the typo. You are indeed correct. The year was of course 1995, as Deming confirms in his testimony I linked to.

    >The work was published in the peer reviewed literature, which in itself means that there was much criticism, surely?

    All peer review should do is eliminate obvious errors. It should never stand in the way of theories properly argued. It should not, in theory be possible to overturn a previous held belief with a single paper, but blocking such a paper is not within the realm of peer review.

    Part of the reason sceptics feel Mann Hockey stick was political was the speed at which it was accepted.

    Special relativity was published in 1905, but wasn’t [generally accepted until 1911](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity)

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > It was still there in the error bars…

    …which is why [I asked Passing Wind about them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583542) – with no answer thus far – never mind to [several other relevant questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577691).

  68. #68 J Bowers
    June 12, 2010

    Passing Wind: “Part of the reason sceptics feel Mann Hockey stick was political was the speed at which it was accepted.

    Special relativity was published in 1905, but wasn’t generally accepted until 1911″

    Well, unless you’ve done statistical comparisons for changes in speed of access to scientific papers since 1905, I suggest your reasoning is probably flawed.

    As for bringing up Einstein and special relativity, it underwent precisely the same types of attacks that MBH has been undergoing even during the 1920’s. http://www.jossgarman.com/?p=584

    “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”

    — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Marcel Grossmann in 1920.

  69. #69 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Windy is relieved to be owning up to typo’s if it means he can distract from issues of substance. Because on [issues of substance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583709), he’s ducking and running.

  70. #70 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    J. Bowers,

    >As for bringing up Einstein and special relativity, it underwent precisely the same types of attacks that MBH has been undergoing even during the 1920’s.

    Which explains why Mann’s hockey stick was accepted immediately by the IPCC.

  71. #71 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    jakerman,

    Once again, I thank you for your comments, and remind you if you want to be considered in this discussion, answer the questions put to you, or keep out of it.

    Your obfuscation tactics are plainly not working.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > …answer the questions put to you, or keep out of it.

    Wow, who died and made you king of the blog?

    And that’s … bold, coming from someone who’s [not answering the questions put to them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583854).

  73. #73 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    Windy,

    I’ve already stated that I’m not sure what questions you are referring to, but that I bet they are are an attempt to distract from the [shame you are trying to deny](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583709).

    Notice how I keep linking you back to the issue of substance. If your questions were more than an attempt at distraction you’d have done the the same before I called you out. Now you’re going to have to link to these question and we’ll see if I’m right.

  74. #74 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    jakerman,

    I didn’t realise that your lack of comment on my posts was an indicator that you didn’t actually read them. Here are links to the posts addressed to you containing questions for you.

    [@329](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583223) and
    [@333](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583456)

    While your at it, you might as well comment on the substance of the discussion.

    [@321](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2581533)
    and
    [@345](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583660)

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    June 12, 2010

    [Cohenite protests](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583051):

    …lest I be accused of not caring about the liitle [sic] beasties, “coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, or Gephyrocapsa oceanica”, gasping in the human caused acid/putrification [sic] of the oceans…

    Cohenite, your poorly-veiled sarcasm indicates that you certainly do not give a flying fuck about these planktonic species, which only serves to demonstrate, to anyone with half a clue about such species’ profound significance to humanity, your insincerity in matters remotely relating to ecological sustainability.

    Fail.

    …let me say that the atmospheric amount of CO2 is about 720GT and the ocean amount is about 37400GT; there is little evidence that the oceans are saturated…

    It is completely irrelevant to carbonate biochemistry whether or not the oceans are “saturated”. Shifts in carbonate solubility equilibria that do not encompass a “saturation” solubility point, and concordant shifts in H3O+ concentrations, still have significant and profound direct effects for a wide range species, and for species that are trophically dependent upon them. The fact that you do not have the biological understanding, training, or experience to appreciate this only shows the vacuity of your ignorant proclamations.

    Fail.

    So, while the cute little things have to toughen up a bit they should be reassured that there is considerable slack left in the system before the oceans become an excellent dumping ground for the victims of Dexter and other criminal types.

    They “have to toughen up a bit”?! Excuse me, but they don’t have any reason to have to do anything according to the whim of denialist humans. They succeed or fail according to what circumstance throws at them, and if they fail… well, guess what – we fail with them, whether or not you understand that this will be so.

    That humans have the choice in this instance to determine whether or not such primary trophic-level species go belly-up, and that a significant subset of humanity seems determined to make such a choice in complete and abject ignorance of basic ecological truth, says a lot about the short-sightedness of the “clever” ape…

    …and about people who exhibit cavalier disregard for the significance of the ecological webs upon which humanity so unavoidably depends.

    Fail.

    If one accepts that all the 20thC increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic then the significance of the Knorr paper is that while ACO2 emissions have been increasing in a non-monotonic fashion and there has been a slight rate of increase in the Keeling curve:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MaunaLoaCarbon_Dioxide-en.svg

    of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years. I guess that conforms to BJ’s witty admonition that, “An accelerating trajectory can indeed be monotonic, and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic.” That is, while ACO2 emissions are increasing and atmospheric CO2 is increasing the proportion of ACO2 in the atmosphere is constant; now, which of those 3 variables [sic] are monotonic?

    It’s intriguing to see that you have apparently eventually learned about monotonicity, without even blinking about, nor any mentioning of, your previous ignorant use of the concept.

    It’s entertaining to see that you subscribe to the idea that the proportion of human CO2 emissions sequestered each year has remained constant over the span of more than a century. Obviously chemical equilibria and anthropogenic manipulations of the biosphere have no place in Cox PhysicsTM, any more than they do in Curtin PhysicsTM.

    It’s laughable that you now pose the question about which “variables [sic]” [sic] are monotonic, with its underlying scientific non sequitur.

    Fail.

    Fail.

    Fail.

  76. #76 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    [Q1 @329](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583223) And where does Abraham claim he attended Monckton’s Bethel University Minnesota lecture on the 14th of October?

    As I suspected its just bluster you raise a redundant question, as [the point at issue](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2582990) has been answered, [you called out your own erroneous claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583709).

    Incidentally, I got the idea that Abraham attended the Moncktion interview [from this](http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-outside-its-alternate.html) among other things.

    Question 2:

    >*Conveniently, you ignore posts like the one showing Abraham’s error regarding Viv Jones’s web quote. Why are such clear errors by Abraham acceptable to you?*

    Another attempt to change the subject and avert attention from your false claim.

    As it happens If Monckton is claiming global warming in the MWP and cherry picks the and author’s paper on the Antarctic, Abraham is quite right to point out the opposite is the case in the authors finding in the Arctic.

    Now enough with the redundant distractions. You owe Abraham and apology for the claim I have been justly holding your account to:

    >*Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern*

  77. #77 luminous beauty
    June 12, 2010

    [Passing wind](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583660) quotes Keigwin:

    >I should point out here, a key element in this discussion centers on the Medieval Warm Period. Most authors would acknowledge that this interval was probably warmer in the North Atlantic region, but few feel strongly that it was global. My data make it seem that it was warmer then than now, but __it is very misleading to use those data to argue against important climate changes that began a century ago.__

    Own goal.

  78. #78 Eli Rabett
    June 12, 2010

    cohenite again misleads. Most of the carbon in the ocean is in the deep ocean (35,ooo E9 tons), not the upper ocean above the thermocline. As a matter of fact the amount of carbon in the upper ocean is a of the same order (1200 E9 tons) as in the atmosphere (720 E9 tons).

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/carbon_res_flux.gif

    The rapid (a few years) interchange between the atmosphere, the upper ocean and the biosphere tightly link concentrations in the three upper reservoirs. A pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere, quickly gets cut in half but the equilibration with these other two reservoirs.

    The flow into the lower ocean, and from there into the lithosphere (the rocks), is limited by the biological pump

    The biological pump (things that make shells dying and the shells dropping) is the primary thing that moves carbon from the upper to the lower ocean. Fortunately there are some creatures that can survive a more acidic ocean, so the biological pump will not be broken, but the corals will be toast as we ramp up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Slacktivist nails cohenite (with some editorial changes)

    1. He doesn’t really believe it himself

    2. He passes it along with the intent of misinforming others. Deliberately.

    3. He does not respect, or care about, the actual facts of the matter, except to the extent that he views such facts with hostility.

    4. Being told that the Bad Thing he was purportedly upset about wasn’t real only makes him more upset. Proof that global warming is a real problem and Al Gore is not in league with the Devil makes him defensive and very, very angry.”

  79. #79 truth machine
    June 12, 2010

    I’d seem Monckton’s presentation before. I though it comparable with its liberal use of facts as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”. I did side with it slightly more than Gore’s because I don’t like horror films and I do like happy endings.

    These fucking denialist morons always show themselves sooner or later.

  80. #80 cohenite
    June 12, 2010

    Hi eli, good to see you refreshed and up and at it again after your stoush with G&T. I am well aware of the ocean’s biological pump having been apprenticed to Steve Short some time ago; this may answer most of your concerns:

    http://landshape.org/enm/oceanic-cayanobacteria-in-the-modern-global-cycle/

    Also good to see you linking to agitprop sites which quote Robert Heinlein, my favourite fascist; I’m a great believer in graded citizenship; obviously you are too; see you at the meetings soon; assuming we have the same levels of entry.

    BJ; I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are uncouth; your attempt to slander me with sanctimonious accusations of indifference to the health of the environment is, as ususal, florid and only partially amusing. More specifically I reject your strident assertion of biological equivalence between planckton and humans; and while I’ve never met a dog I did not like I am not about to assume existential equivalence with them or with any animal.

    As to sustainability, I find it very persuasive that environmental health is generally, BP not withstanding, better enhanced in prosperous countries then in poor or socialistically planned ones, which are usually poor in any event. Prosperity of course is the only effective social contraceptive. And adequate property rights are the best inducement to environmental management as this shows:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgqn56_TKKA&feature=channel_page

    Unless of course you subscribe to the Glen Albrecht view of about 30000-40000 maximum population for Australia. If you do then I hope you are true to your principles and lead by example in reducing the population.

  81. #81 truth machine
    June 12, 2010

    Special relativity was published in 1905, but wasn’t generally accepted until 1911

    When it received empirical support. you moron. Einstein said that it was a beautiful theory, and that if it turned out to be wrong then God had missed a good opportunity. MBH is nothing like that.

    Part of the reason sceptics feel Mann Hockey stick was political was the speed at which it was accepted.

    The reason deniers (who are not skeptics in the normal sense as they gullibly accept anything that confirms their biases) deny is invariably “political”, i.e., ideological.

  82. #82 truth machine
    June 12, 2010

    Once again, I thank you for your comments, and remind you if you want to be considered in this discussion, answer the questions put to you, or keep out of it.

    What a pompous fucking hypocritical troll. Who gave you the sceptre?

    Your obfuscation tactics are plainly not working.

    Oh the irony.

  83. #83 Nathan
    June 12, 2010

    Cohenite

    What is wrong with you?

    I remember way back when I first encountered you on Jennifer Marohasey’s Blog. You actually tried to understand things back then, and even admitted when you had made mistakes. Now, you have turned completely into an ideological warrior (read: idiot) who won’t admit that his ignorance is the basis of his skepticism of AGW.

    Now we know you’re a lawyer, and lawyers aren’t dumb. But one thing they do is persistently argue one side. That’s what you were paid to do. It’s your habit. But in this case it doesn’t serve you at all, because in arguing the way you are, without acknowledging anything you are getting wrong (this whole ocean acidification thing and the effect it has on planktonic flora and fauna being case in point), is really quite embarrassing. It’s simply pig-headed on your part and it’s time you had a good look in the mirror and asked yourself ‘am I being honest?’.

  84. #84 cohenite
    June 12, 2010

    Alright Nathan, you’ve shamed me into admitting that jakerman had a point about the Pinker paper with the 1983-2001 overall increase in SW received at the surface, broken up into 1983-1990 and 1990-2001 stages with the first stage showing a decline in received SW and the second an increase but with no corresponding temperature change correlation [actually there is a slight increase in rate of temperature change in the second period but we'll let that pass]. Now, in the spirit of open-mindedness can you or jakerman tell me where that substantial increase in received SW went if it did not affect temperature?

    More generally, I’m always interested in real pollution issues; if you want to talk to me about deforestation, overfishing, particulate pollution or the Bhopol mongrels I’m all ears; but I’m not very interested in doomsday scenarios which is what AGW is.

  85. #85 Passing Wind
    June 12, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    After carefully considering the alternatives and ramifications, I have decided to disengage from this discussion because the environment here has once again turned toxic, this time beyond salvation.

    Some bloggers here seem to believe they have a God-given right to vilify anyone not singing the party song. There is no room in science or discourse for dogma. Further, I have little desire to provide these buffoons with a target.

    Earlier in the discussion I posted the following critique:

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

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

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

    It would appear that my earlier comments are no less true now and have been confirmed by the many examples evident above.

    I wish to pass on my regrets for bowing-out to those following this discussion without participating in the groupthink led vilification. Stay independent and continue to resist dogma in all its forms.

    Lotharrson, thank you very much for the robust discussion and especially your willingness to do so civilly. At least there was one adult with enough confidence in their position to argue the issues put without resorting to childish name-calling, rampant fear-mongering and malicious labeling.

    Thank you.

  86. #86 Bernard J.
    June 12, 2010

    [Cohenite]().

    BJ; I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you are uncouth; your attempt to slander me with sanctimonious accusations of indifference to the health of the environment is, as ususal, florid and only partially amusing.

    If you are so concerned about “the environment”, then perhap you might consider refraining from patronising (“liitle [sic] beasties”) and melodramatic (“gasping in the human caused acid/putrification [sic] of the oceans) comments delivered in the same breath. Such delivery only leads to one conclusion, especially when such delivery comes from one with an agenda such as yours, and with the demonstrated ignorance, such as you display, of basic biology.

    More specifically I reject your strident assertion of biological equivalence between planckton [sic] and humans.

    Oh, really?

    Perhaps you might point out where I actually made a “strident assertion” about the ["biological" (or "existential") equivalence](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk) of plankton and humans?

    As to sustainability, I find it very persuasive that environmental health is generally, BP not withstanding, better enhanced in prosperous countries then in poor or socialistically planned ones, which are usually poor in any event.

    Ah, How to Misrepresent Complex Relationships 101…

    Several points can be made here.

    First, “prosperous countries” are generally so because they have exploited the resources of other countries, whilst protesting those that remain in their own. Japan, many countries in Europe (my native Netherlands included) and the US of A all fit into this category.

    Essentially, they ‘export’ much of their burden of environmental degradation to the Third World.

    Second, and not entirely separate from the first point, the relatively poor environmental track record of poor nations is an unfortuante coincidence of the fact of Industrialisation occurring in the West first, of the relative sizes of countries’ human populations versus that of their natural resources, and of the interaction of these biogeopolitical factors over a number of centuries.

    I’m not about to write an essay on this – you are hardly likely to pay attention anyway, as [Eli pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2585044) – and I have better things to do with my Sunday afternoon. I will simply note that your point is a strawman and a red herring: I guess one should not expect anything else of a former divorce lawyer who has rebranded himself as a politically-active climate denialist.

  87. #87 Tim Lambert
    June 12, 2010

    Cohenite says

    >Now, in the spirit of open-mindedness can you or jakerman tell me where that substantial increase in received SW went if it did not affect temperature?

    Pinker et al (2005) says:

    >the potential climatic effects of a sustained decrease or increase in surface solar radiation require extensive investigation of additional factors, such as the long-wave radiative effects of any associated cloud variations

    The increase in SW from a reduction in clouds was likely balanced by a decrease in LW from a reduction in clouds. The net effect could be a postive or a negative forcing depending on where the clouds were.

  88. #88 John
    June 12, 2010

    How very noble of you.

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    > I reject your strident assertion of biological equivalence between planckton [sic] and humans.

    I find it hard to believe your comprehension is that poor, given that you’re said to (have been) a functioning lawyer and all. So, that leaves me with the next hypothesis – you’re using a blatant strawman in the hope that it will deceive. (And you appear to do this not infrequently…)

    All of which makes me curious. Does that actually work in court? Or would you dare not try it on there, reserving it for what you hope are more gullible audiences? Because I can’t see it passing without comment even here.

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    June 12, 2010

    Passing Wind, in [passing once more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2585354) reiterates his belief, now apparently strengthened, that:

    > The tactic here is simple. Ignore the message. Attack the messenger. Be as rude and as loose with your facts as you like – Tim is.

    I guess you could say his tactic here is complex – charging that the “tactic here is simple” etc. thereby conveniently ignoring ([as I posted before](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575246)) plenty of engagement with his “message” and solid grounding in facts – including many inconvenient to his argument; glossing over his own rudeness and looseness with facts; and avoiding answering [a bunch of fairly straightforward and relevant questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2583975).

    (I wonder if he’s having any more success at skepticalscience?)

    Anyone want to bet he’ll be back for a 3rd attempt after a break in which he hopes the readership will forget these things?

  91. #91 jakerman
    June 12, 2010

    >*The tactic here is simple. [Ignore the message](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577641). [And] [Attack the messenger](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2582990).*

    Very interesting and insightful, shame about the projection.

  92. #92 cohenite
    June 13, 2010

    Low clouds are a negative feedback; they reflect more SW than they block LW. Absence of low cloud will be a positive feedback based on that inequality; in short more w/m2 hits the surface as Pinker found; in addition with more SW reaching the BOA there should an increase in backradiation which is what Wang and Liang found;

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

    Even if AGW was stationary during this period [and it should have been increasing] the extra SW and backradiation should have had some effect on temperature.

  93. #93 jakerman
    June 13, 2010

    Windy writes:

    >*After carefully considering the alternatives and ramifications, I have decided to disengage from this discussion because* the environment here has once again turned toxic, this time beyond salvation [Windy has been caught in his own web and cannot face providing he [Apology that is due](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2584080) to Abraham.]

  94. #94 Eli Rabett
    June 13, 2010

    Good to see that everyone agrees that of all the carbon in the ocean only about 3.5% is in the upper ocean where it can interchange with the atmosphere, and the rest is in the lower ocean where it is isolated from the upper ocean, the atmosphere and the biosphere.

    This rapid interchange (~5 years) between the three upper reservoirs explains why only about 1/2 of the CO2 pulsed into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels remains, it spreads into the upper ocean and the biosphere, leaving a significant increase in all three rapid interchange reservoirs. ‘

    The slow movement of CO2 from the upper to the lower ocean via the biological pump also explains why an increase in CO2 mixing ratio in all three upper reservoirs and acidification will remain after hundreds of years.

    Now us consider, the nonsense that cohenite has been putting out on ocean acidification gives us a choice. Either he is ignorant or he is deceitful. By claiming authority he makes our decision easy.

    So how do we approach this. Eli thinks that the best way is a two part reply. The first is lay out the facts, the second that we call him out on his deceit leaving lurkers informed.

    Eli predicts that cohenite will now get even more passive aggressive

  95. #95 cohenite
    June 13, 2010

    Upwelling is continuous eli, albeit reduced during +ve PDO, El Nino dominated periods such as between 1976-1998; that upwelling carries, continually, CO2 rich waters downwards where you have overlooked the biggest interchange, or rather deposit, of CO2, into the mantle. 2 questions for AGW luminaries such as yourself:

    1 CO2 is rising in the atmosphere but at a rate far less than would be indicated by emissions. Why is that?
    2 Is ‘acidification’ increasing at a rate commensurate with emissions or less indicating another ‘missing’ sink such as mantle deposition?

    And don’t brand me as a defender of CO2 emissions, I have always advocated nuclear, the coal industry can look after itself, and solar and wind are junk; where does eli prefer to receive his power to cool his fevered brow?

  96. #97 lord_sidcup
    June 16, 2010

    The Liberal Conspiracy website is covering the mysterious disappearance from The Telegraph website of the Tom Chivers blog on His Lordship:

    [Is the Telegraph censoring criticism of climate-change deniers?](http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/16/is-the-telegraph-censoring-criticism-of-climate-change-deniers)

  97. #98 sod
    June 17, 2010

    Monckton has written a piece on WuWt, explaining his role as a science advisor to the iron lady.

    as always, his account is in some contradiction to reality…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/

  98. #99 SteveC
    June 17, 2010

    lord (what, like wiv yer own ‘eraldic symbols an’ all? gosh) sidcup @385:

    This quote from the site you linked to hits the nail squarely:

    Lord Monckton is a fantasist, a blethering popinjay useful only for amusement. He can be safely ignored in all serious scientific debate. But it reflects badly on those people who want seriously to argue against the science of climate change that this capering jester is among the public figureheads of their movement.

    Message for Mr. Watts, Mr. Watts to reception please…

  99. #100 Gaz
    June 17, 2010

    I notice George Monbiot presents his readers with a false dichotomy:

    Does Viscount Monckton possess so little self-awareness that he couldn’t spot the contradiction between the standard of argument he expects of others and his own behaviour? Or does he take his followers for morons?

    I see no reason, especially in the case of Monckton, why the answer can’t be a resounding “yes” to both.

Current ye@r *