Monckton vs Scott Mandia

Christopher Monckton is now threatening to sue Scott Mandia as well:

I also note that you have publicly accused me of “fraud”, and have widely circulated that accusation on the internet, and have expressed the intention to invite the mass media to repeat it. Since this is a serious charge, do you have any evidence to back it up, or should I add your name to that of Professor Abraham in the libel case that will be filed shortly?

Gareth Renowden responds with:

On the evidence, it is clear that Monckton is a shameless humbug, a proven liar and a hypocrite, who intentionally misrepresents the facts of climate science in order to mislead his audience. The real mystery is why this isn’t obvious to important sections of the US body politic.

Barry Bickmore has added Monckton’s latest threat to Monkton’s extensive rap sheet.

Comments

  1. #1 jre
    August 4, 2010

    Hmmm … Unfamiliar with UK libel law — is the term “Discount Monkey” actionable defamation or simple everyday abuse?

  2. #2 thefordprefect
    August 4, 2010

    Beware the UK defamation scene. Currently (things are changing) it costs a mere £1300 to start a defamation action. Currently you are guilty until you can prove innocence.

    This being the case if you are named a defendant you cannot ignore it! Ignore=guilty

    (this ludicrous law has trapped me as a defendant in a case for the last 2.5 years)

    When the mud slinging against Jones and Mann etc. started I suggested it was important get in first with the defamation action against the slingers. It is difficult to start action when they have started legal issues with you.

  3. #3 Jeremy C
    August 4, 2010

    I’m in two minds about what to do about Monckton…..

    If he self destructs will it publicly tar all public deniers so that we have the opportunity to just bark “Monckton” at any public denier when they try to derail policy on dealing with climate change or is Monckton’s presence a continuing weapon for us to use AGAINST public denial that could dissapate should he retire to his estate.

  4. #4 Mapleleaf
    August 4, 2010

    Hang on but Prof. Mandia is in USA and Munchkin is in the UK….

    I would say congrats to Scott Mandia, but that would be premature given how mendacious Munchkin is.

    Hilarious that Munchkin is asking for evidence of him being a fraud or of him committing fraud? My God Munchkin, the evidence everywhere! Read Abraham’s presentation Munchkin. Munchkin you have also mis-represented your ‘stature’– claiming to be something or somebody that/who you are not is fraud.

    Can someone please make an inventory of Munckin’s talks and see how many time he makes unsubstantiated accusations of fraud against others? Not to mention the times he has made libelous statements about climate scientists.

    Munchkin is delusional, now I wish he would do everyone a favour and take Anthony Watts and Joe Nova with him when he implodes.

  5. #5 jakerman
    August 4, 2010

    Monckton’s efforts are consistant with those of someone seeking a chilling effect.

    How many readers with think twice about the time and effort and stress involving in critiquing Monckton now as apposed to before he started threat of suit?

    Abraham needs broad support.

    Again it is striking that Monckton can’t support his anti science arguments without trying to silence his critics.

    And Monckton demonstrates a preposterous double standard. Imagine the reaction from denialsist if those Monckton accused of lying were to sue him.

  6. #6 Mike Pope
    August 4, 2010

    I doubt Monckton seriously contemplates litigation. More likely he is using the threat of it in a bid to silence his critics, not that it will work with me. I have already argued that his views are a fraud.

    Mind you, it would do no harm to identify a UK legal firm experienced in dealing with libel which is well informed on the underlying science and the way that Monckton has distorted it.

    Such a firm would no doubt be needed were scientists or scientific organisations to take Monckton to court for misrepresenting their views and lying about global warming and climate change.

    Monckton would no doubt argue that his view are not libellous because he is only exercising his right to freedom of speech. Scientists whose published research has been distorted and misrepresented might think otherwise.

  7. #7 MarkB
    August 4, 2010

    If accusations of fraud resulted in automatic defamation lawsuits everywhere, deniers would have their hands full.

  8. #8 cbp
    August 4, 2010

    At least in Australia, there is an order of magnitude more emails sent threatening to sue for defamation than there are actual defamation cases.

    Also, if it is Scott’s blog post “Turn the tables on Mockton” alone that Monckton is referring to, I notice that Scott doesn’t accuse Monckton of fraud. He says that “he is” a fraud, but that is different to accussing someone “of fraud” like Monckton says, and is likely to be considered an expression of subjective opinion.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    August 4, 2010

    Given what [thefordprefect](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/monckton_vs_scott_mandia.php#comment-2704274) relates about UK defamation action, folk such as Sir John Houghton and Prof John Abraham should start their own proceedings against Monckton in the UK. It would then be up to Monckton to prove his innocence, which would necessitate his proving in court that his ‘science’ is correct, and this would surely undo the man.

    The advantages for the two Johns are that Houghton has never libelled Monckton, so Chris has no case to make a pre-emptive move, and that Abraham is in the USA, where UK law has little reach – oh, and it just so happens that everything that Abraham said is defensible.

    I suspect that both Johns regard Monckton with derision more than anything else, but their reputations have both suffered at his hands, and I am confident that any court would return significant damages.

    I really, really wish that they’d start a class action against the peer.

  10. #10 WotWot
    August 4, 2010

    I am happy to call him a charlatan instead, if it makes him feel any better.

  11. #11 Paul UK
    August 5, 2010

    The more Monckton does this sort of thing, the less credible his views on science are.

    He just likes shooting his own feet.

  12. #12 sod
    August 5, 2010

    Monckton’s efforts are consistant with those of someone seeking a chilling effect.

    i agree with jakerman.

    we have seen no evidence of him taking any legal action so far. but he could possibly do it, against a “weak” target.

    in court, i think, the focus should be on his false claims about being a member of the house of lords. i doubt that the majority of judges do understand and are willing to dive into a deeep climate discussion.

  13. #13 dj
    August 5, 2010

    It would be shocking wouldn’t it, if there were hundreds/thousands of one post blogs on Monckton being a fraud created with non-existent email addresses and posted via an IP anonymizer?

  14. #14 bluegrue
    August 5, 2010

    > It would be shocking wouldn’t it, if there were hundreds/thousands of one post blogs on Monckton being a fraud created with non-existent email addresses and posted via an IP anonymizer?

    Which would make it easy for Monckton to argue that all of this is just one concerted defamation campaign against him. I think this would weaken the impact of Abraham and Mandia.

  15. #15 P. Lewis
    August 5, 2010

    The more Monckton does this sort of thing, the less credible his views on science are.

    He just likes shooting his own feet.

    He’s shot his feet so often that he’s got nothing left to stand on! And his views on science, apropos (A)GW, have always been less than credible, so he didn’t have much to stand on in the first instance.

    And still he jabbers on, much like the Black Knight, uttering “‘Tis but a scratch!” … “I’m invincible!” … “Call it a draw!” … “Come back here and take what’s coming to you! I’ll bite your legs off!”

    Unlike Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Pythonesque Potty Peer scene shows no signs of fading out, sadly.

  16. #16 John McManus
    August 5, 2010

    14:

    If 1050 ( support number for Abraham) all said Monton was a fraud would it not do his case harm if he did not sue each and everyone? A cherrypick to answer in court?

    Moncton has addmitted fraud in the public realm.

  17. #17 pough
    August 5, 2010

    Personally, I think The One True Lord Monckton is nutty enough to actually believe that any criticism of his Inherently Exceptional Lordshipness is actionable by law.

  18. #18 jrkrideau
    August 5, 2010

    Has anyone remarked on what I think is a lie in his debate with Dr. Lambert. If I recall correctly, I think he says that he asked a question in the House of Lords.

    How does a non-member do this?

  19. #19 Wow
    August 5, 2010

    Easy.

    Walk into the House of Lords and say “Where’s the toilet?”.

  20. #20 Scott A Mandia
    August 5, 2010

    Tim and others,

    Thank you for your support. It is greatly appreciated.

  21. #21 John
    August 6, 2010

    Do frauds have self awarded Nobel Prizes? Is this a rhetorical question?

  22. #22 Marion Delgado
    August 6, 2010

    I started a #moncktonisafraud hashtag on twitter .. apt, for a twit.

  23. #23 Louis Hissink
    August 6, 2010

    facts of climate science ?

    It isn’t – climate is an intellectual abstraction of weather and as such, is not amenable to the scientific method.

  24. #24 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    “It isn’t – climate is an intellectual abstraction of weather and as such, is not amenable to the scientific method.

    Posted by: Louis Hissin”

    No.

    In much the same way as the American Midwest has a continental clime and Florida a tropical maritime clime and Antarctica has a polar continental clime and these have real and genuine differences, the climate is not an intellectual abstraction.

    Therefore it is amenable to scientific investigation.

    However, surely the existence of Louis Hissink is currently an intellectual abstraction.

    Therefore he doesn’t exist.

    According to Louis, any way.

  25. #25 JasonW
    August 6, 2010

    Hissink, what a load of gramatically questionable, non sequitur bollocks you’re talking. There’s so much wrong with your statement I don’t even know where to begin.

  26. #26 chek
    August 6, 2010

    “Denialism is an intellectual abstraction of Hissink and as such, is not amenable to the scientific method”.

    There, all fixed for you in a way that actually makes some sense now Louis.

  27. #27 sunspot
    August 6, 2010

    Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fbs

  28. #28 jrkrideau
    August 6, 2010

    @wow (re 19)

    GROAN, not exactly what is usually understood by asking a Question in the House but Monckton may well have meant that.

    Apparently it works for Nobels.

  29. #29 Donald Oats
    August 6, 2010

    Any remarks I’ve made or make concerning Monckton are actually referring to “Monckton the alien of Titan, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe”, just so we are clear. These aliens like to be greeted as “Frauds”, since that is their conventional greeting, eg: “Hello, fraud?” “Hello you fraud too.”

  30. #30 chek
    August 6, 2010

    Yes I understand that the 94 Moronic Meems and Assertions for Morons is a big hit with its target audience, so I’m only surprised it took you so long to get here with them spotty.

    Maybe adding the suffix ‘-gate’ to everything made some of the words too big for you?

  31. #31 sunspot
    August 6, 2010

    chela,

    the frying frotteur’s in here need reminding.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fbu

  32. #32 Jeremy C
    August 6, 2010

    Louis and Sunnyspot,

    Hows about youse guys giving us here the lowdown on why young Christopher’s stuff stands up to scientific scrutiny. By launching into bits and pieces about scientific method and climategate things that isn’t defending Chris. What you need to do is set out for us bumbling boobies the mistakes that Dr Pinker (you know the one with the breasts and the hairdo) made in correcting Chris-whose-grandaddy-got-a-peerage-from-the-UK-gov-when-young-Chrissie-was-five-years-old plus the mistakes that Dr Abraham’s and Dr Mandia made plus the mistake by the House of Lords in the UK about young Chris’s opportunity to get further into the chamber than you and i when we play tourist. Oh, and any other mistakes that people or institutions or I dunno, creation, God etc made in regard to Chris’s say so….

  33. #33 sunspot
    August 6, 2010

    hmmm….. well actually I did prefer Marty Feldman. Have checked out how Al’s stuffff stands up ?

  34. #34 chek
    August 6, 2010

    Would you care to choose even one of your ‘gates’ that you think holds water, spotty?

    Make it the best you can, now.

  35. #35 sunspot
    August 6, 2010

    chela are you akerz sister ?

    That is her quaint litte modus operandi

    Open your own gate

  36. #36 Wow
    August 6, 2010

    When’s your mum going to get you away from that PC in your bedroom, sunspot?

  37. #37 Billy Bob Hall
    August 6, 2010

    Nevah mind all that. Here is the latest – and lo-an-be-hold one of the authors is the proverbial ‘Gerry Adams’ of Climatology – Dr RM Carter himself.
    [Subversive Stuff](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml)

  38. #38 Berbalang
    August 6, 2010

    sunspot @ 33 seems to blissfully unaware of the incident some months back where a number of the denier websites were accidently using a picture of Marty Feldman as Igor, instead of a picture of Lord Monckton.

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    August 6, 2010

    *climate is an intellectual abstraction of weather and as such, is not amenable to the scientific method*

    Nonsense. This is like saying “biomes are intellectual abstractions of ecosystems which are intellectual abstractions of communities which are intellectual abstractions of individuals and as such, are not amenable to the scientific method”.

    The challenge is to link processes occurring at different spatio-temporal scales; that is what climate scientists, as well ecologists and evolutionary biologists, do.

  40. #40 JasonW
    August 6, 2010

    [sunspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/monckton_vs_scott_mandia.php#comment-2708110)

    hmmm….. well actually I did prefer Marty Feldman. Have checked out how Al’s stuffff stands up ?

    Just answer the bloody question posed by Jeremy C, which is about Monckton, not about Al Gore, Michael Mann, any gates or anything to do with ‘global cooling’.

  41. #41 Bill Butler
    August 6, 2010

    I am also publically calling Monckton a fraud.
    “He is willfully ignorant of climate science, he is wrong in his conclusions, and he has fraudulently misrepresented his credentials.”

    Christopher Monckton: A vociferous Global Warming Denier – Liar http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html

    Perhaps he will be filing a lawsuit against me.

    The “Pathological Liars and Narcissism” section near the bottom of the page may be of interest.

  42. #42 russellseitz
    August 6, 2010

    While Monckton cannot be exhibiting symptoms of Kuru induced dementia- it is simply untrue that his brother-in-law’s sister Nigella provided the recipe a Churchill College Cambridge team used cook and devour a Papuan a umpire during a Commonwealth cricket test, the only guarantee of preventing such an incident is for readers to strive to emit CO2 enough to raise global temperatures to levels that assure the thorough Pasteurization of all umpires at matches at which Marylebone President Monckton may _ex officio_preside,

    Likewise, to avoid the risk of second hand Kuru from handling copies of the Daily Telegraph , whose Sudoku editor the viscount is, readers should refrain from solving those infectious puzzles.

    In anticipation of the noble lord’s nomination, the Ignobel Prize committee is seeking enough Nobelium to fabricate a lapel pin.

  43. #43 Zibethicus
    August 6, 2010

    40: In anticipation of the noble lord’s nomination, the Ignobel Prize committee is seeking enough Nobelium to fabricate a lapel pin.

    (end quote)

    Is /that/ what Bunckton’s really been talking about all this time, when he claimed that his self-awarded Nobel was a ‘joke’?

    Did he really mean that he had a self-awarded /Ig Nobel/?

    That’s unusually astute, not to mention honest, if so. If anyone ever deserved an Ig Nobel it’s him.

    Yet I find no mention of his work in the /Annals of Improbable Research/. Surely his claim that in the MWP “[t]here was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none” deserves at least a citation.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html

    Perhaps Bunckton’s profound scientific skills include mastery of time travel. When /he/ speaks of his ‘Nobel’, he is really speaking of the Ig Nobel which he will be awarded in the future, as “[e]very Ig Nobel Prize winner has done something that first makes people LAUGH, then makes them THINK.”

    He’s certainly done the first in spades. As for making people THINK, that doesn’t seem to be the effect of his presentations on a mass audience, but certainly those on the receiving end of his threats of litigation have been given grounds for thought.

    Nominate him here:

    http://improbable.com/ig/miscellaneous/nominate.html

    I wonder if he’ll do one of his presentations for free at the ceremony? Let’s hope he keeps that pretty pink portcullis on all the slides…

  44. #44 timpanogos
    August 6, 2010

    Monckton is a fraud. He makes stuff up — for example, the completely false history of DDT he related to that religious college in Minnesota.

    Has Monckton ever corrected the record? No?

    Then he’s still a fraud.

    Want to sue, Monckton? Truth is always a defense here in the U.S.

    And you may want to consider the dangers of a counterclaim against you for fraud.

  45. #45 Graham
    August 6, 2010

    Wow. So many paranoid headless chooks on this site all in a lather about some nosey guy exposing a rampant scam. Go Chris!

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:

    a rampant scam

    Why are you in denial that the world is warming?

  47. #47 sailrick
    August 7, 2010

    jre @ 3
    “or is Monckton’s presence a continuing weapon for us to use AGAINST public denial that could dissapate should he retire to his estate.”

    I have been doing that all over the web, wherever I can comment at articles with any relevance, or sometimes not so relevant. okay, anywhere where I can argue against voting for Republicans.

    Start by describing Monckton, with links to debunkings of him, and then linking him with Rep Joe (apologize to BP) Barton.
    such as:
    {After inviting Monckton as an expert witness at a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing, Minority Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) referred to Monckton, in his opening remarks, as being generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side}
    and:

    {And now in May 2010, U.S House Republicans have chosen Monckton as their only expert witness for a hearing at the Select Committee On Energy Independence and Global Warming. Some people never learn.}

    It wouldn’t hurt to spread that around, to help people realize how far off base the GOP is on climate change.

  48. #48 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    Yeah Graham, the world is warming !

    But……. this is what has Trenberth a little confused http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fd4

  49. #49 Graham
    August 7, 2010

    Posted by: Chris O’Neill | August 7, 2010 12:23 AM

    “Why are you in denial that the world is warming?”

    The world warms, it cools, it warms, it cools….as it has for yonks. Climate change is NATURAL. The argument is about the CAUSE. Whatever the causes, CO2 is not one of them.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/arctic_treering_cooling_research/
    By the same token, if there are mechanisms to control climate, CO2 abatement is not one of them.

  50. #50 Wow
    August 7, 2010

    “Want to sue, Monckton? Truth is always a defense here in the U.S.”

    Problem is the truth is against Monkey here.

    “And you may want to consider the dangers of a counterclaim against you for fraud.

    Posted by: timpanogos”

    Unfortunately, you have to, even in the UK, show that you’ve harmed the reputation. Monkey’s managed to do that himself, so he has no redress against anyone else.

    PS Graham, CO2 has an effect on the insulating qualities of the earth. Or are you dismissing 190 year old science?

    Tree ring proxies went squiffy only for a SMALL SEGMENT of the records, only for a LIMITED SELECTION of tree rings in a LIMITED AREA.

    ALL of the other proxies show warming.

    Because trees don’t like sulfurous fumes, even if they like CO2.

  51. #51 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:

    The world warms, it cools, it warms, it cools

    The world is not cooling. It is warming. Why are you in denial that it is warming?

  52. #52 sod
    August 7, 2010

    thanks to [derek,](http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/867576d3dfe135ff8dcd26715bd86ac5-187.html) the biggest fraud of the lord might soon be over:

    The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.

  53. #53 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    pssst…..chris, have you seen this ?

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fdq

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fdo

    It looks like someone forgot to tell the ice !!!!!!!!!!

  54. #54 lord_sidcup
    August 7, 2010

    Climate change is NATURAL. The argument is about the CAUSE. Whatever the causes, CO2 is not one of them.

    Physics dating back 150 years overturned by Graham (not).

    Sunspot – You have shot yourself in the foot again. Notice the line on the Artic Sea Ice Extent graph, the one labelled 1979-2000 average?

  55. #55 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    Lucky I had my steel toe capped boot’s on !!! and the projectile ricocheted into the aready shot temperature data !

    Don’t spoze you noticed 2010 is above 2007 ???

  56. #56 lord_sidcup
    August 7, 2010

    No disrespect Sunspot, but only a moron would calculate a trend from 2 data points, particularly where there is data available for other years (1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and so on until 2000).

  57. #57 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    ummm, somehow I think I am communicating with Christopher Monckton’s brassiere ?

    ? anyhow, where do you think that trend should be calculated from ?

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fdv

  58. #58 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:

    Climate change is NATURAL. The argument is about the CAUSE. Whatever the causes, CO2 is not one of them.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/arctic_treering_cooling_research/

    Graham, a newspaper cherry-pick of local temperature doesn’t prove anything about the properties of CO2. Even if that temperature record was definitive of the temperature record of the Arctic as whole (which it isn’t), the Arctic is still only 4% of the earth’s surface. Try to remember that the term is GLOBAL warming.

  59. #59 Graham
    August 7, 2010

    Thanks for the reply Chris but, really, whether it’s warming or cooling is quite beside the point. The whole imbroglio is not about that. It is about the CAUSE. Climate change is natural. There are many causes. To all intents and purposes, CO2 is not one of them. (Plant life will be relieved to know that!)

    As sunspot (August 7, 2010 5:23 AM) points out, cooling can happen while CO2 emissions are increasing inexorably. My link to that paper failed, so go to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/ then click on the link about 2/3 the way down titled
    Boffins: Arctic cooled to pre-industrial levels from 1950-1990

  60. #60 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    *[Off topic]*

  61. #61 Dave R
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:
    >CO2 is not one of them

    If you can prove that you will get the Nobel Prize for physics at the very least. Do let us know when you get it.

    >cooling can happen while CO2 emissions are increasing inexorably.

    That could happen if the warming from CO2 was temporarily overwhelmed by a stronger negative forcing like a massive volcanic eruption, but [that is not what is happening](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/offset:-65/mean:12/scale:0.0011/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/offset:-325/mean:12/scale:0.01).

  62. #62 Graham
    August 7, 2010

    Chris O’Neill | August 7, 2010 6:20 AM:

    “Try to remember that the term is GLOBAL warming.”

    Funny thing is that, almost every other day, there’s a trumped up alarmist scare about the Arctic (hardly ever the Antarctic, note) as further “proof” of – yep – GLOBAL warming … er, sorry, climate change … er, whatever works!

  63. #63 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    >*The argument is about the CAUSE. Whatever the causes, CO2 is not one of them.*

    and,

    >*Climate change is natural. There are many causes. To all intents and purposes, CO2 is not one of them.*

    Morons are free to say what every they want without the need for evidence.

    Please carry on Graham, I’ll stick with the evidence.

    BTW Graham you contradicted your self when you said:

    >*really, whether it’s warming or cooling is quite beside the point. The whole imbroglio is not about that.*

    Followed so shortly by:

    >*As sunspot (August 7, 2010 5:23 AM) points out, cooling can happen while CO2 emissions are increasing inexorably. [...]My link to that paper [...] titled Boffins: Arctic cooled to pre-industrial levels from 1950-1990.*

    So you ignore evidence that the globe is warming, your say that its not the point, but then use an instance of regional cooling to prove CO2 is not the culprit.

    If you can’t be correct at least you could be consistent

  64. #64 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    Hi deRv, Hi akerz, wood for trees eh.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fd4

  65. #65 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    >*The argument is about the CAUSE. Whatever the causes, CO2 is not one of them.*

    and,

    >*Climate change is natural. There are many causes. To all intents and purposes, CO2 is not one of them.*

    Morons are free to say what every they want without the need for evidence.

    Please carry on Graham, I’ll stick with the evidence.

    BTW Graham you contradicted your self when you said:

    >*really, whether it’s warming or cooling is quite beside the point. The whole imbroglio is not about that.*

    Followed so shortly by:

    >*As sunspot (August 7, 2010 5:23 AM) points out, cooling can happen while CO2 emissions are increasing inexorably. [...]My link to that paper [...] titled Boffins: Arctic cooled to pre-industrial levels from 1950-1990.*

    So you ignore evidence that the globe is warming, your say that its not the point, but then use an instance of regional cooling to prove CO2 is not the culprit.

    If you can’t be correct at least you could be consistent

  66. #66 sunspot
    August 7, 2010

    duble booble akerz,

    temp & CO2 = http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fe0

  67. #67 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    Hi spotty, WFTT is great, it can show-up your cherry picking [easily!](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend)

  68. #68 cthulhu
    August 7, 2010

    Shortened Graham: whether its warming or cooling is beside the point so here’s a link to cooling in a single region which proves co2 doesn’t cause global warming.

  69. #69 Richard Lawson
    August 7, 2010

    “On the evidence, it is clear that Monckton is a shameless humbug, a proven liar and a hypocrite” – yes, yes, we know that, but is he a *fraud*?

    [30 sec pause for research]
    @jackofkent: … I have enough evidence to describe Christopher #Monckton as a fraud. He can now proceed to sue me. http://twitter.com/jackofkent

    And this: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

    And this: http://bit.ly/aWykc7

    Yep. he’s a fraud.

    OK. He is a fraud.

  70. #70 Graham
    August 7, 2010

    Chris et al: gibber, gibber, gibber! Have you forgotten your meme, guys? “CO2 is the cause of WARMING, big-time?” Note the key word: CAUSE. That’s the hypothesis. It’s yours to prove. Theory is not proof. Computer modelling is not proof. Established scientific method is. If there’s ONE proof to the contrary, it’s disproved. Gone. Kaput. When measured COOLING coincides with measured CO2 INCREASE, that’s enough. Pack up. Go home. Go to bed.

  71. #71 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    Spotty, [Here is your chart your](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-325/scale:0.01/plot/rss/trend) without cherry picking.

    Graham you moron, cool spots don’t disprove AGW, and you need to look up the word “divergence” when citing tree ring temperature reconstructions.

  72. #72 Dave R
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:
    >It’s yours to prove

    It has been [proven to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the worlds climate scientists and major scientific organizations](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm). If you want to challenge mainstream science, the burden of proof is yours.

    >When measured COOLING coincides with measured CO2 INCREASE, that’s enough

    Your logic is faulty here — you are assuming that only one factor can affect the temperature. In fact there are many factors that can affect it. You would do well to [learn about them](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html) instead of spouting off from a position of extreme ignorance.

  73. #73 Paul UK
    August 7, 2010

    >”Try to remember that the term is GLOBAL warming.” Funny thing is that, almost every other day, there’s a trumped up alarmist scare about the Arctic (hardly ever the Antarctic, note) as further “proof” of – yep – GLOBAL warming … er, sorry, climate change … er, whatever works!

    Haven’t really been following this, but here is my two pennies…

    Global warming means increased energy. That energy can be distributed over different areas, as is the case in daily weather etc.

    I’ll also point out that today has seen the announcement of the ice shelf breaking from the Petermann Glacier. This will mean increased flow from that glacier and accelerating retreat. I don’t think you need to be reminded either of the wild fires in Russia and the massive floods in Pakistan.

    All of which are indications of the every increasing energy being dissipated in the earths climate system.

  74. #74 Paul UK
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:

    >Chris et al: gibber, gibber, gibber! Have you forgotten your meme, guys?

    Nope. But it appears that you have forgotten your science.

    Graham:
    >”CO2 is the cause of WARMING, big-time?” Note the key word: CAUSE.

    Actually it is you that exaggerates the roll of CO2.
    I think most of us here understand CO2 as the trigger.

    Graham:
    >That’s the hypothesis. It’s yours to prove. Theory is not proof. Computer modelling is not proof.

    Again you don’t understand the science. So really the first thing should be that you need to be educated to at least ‘A level’ standard then maybe it would be worth while continuing the discussion.

    Graham:
    >Established scientific method is. If there’s ONE proof to the contrary, it’s disproved.

    And that’s where you just shot your own foot. It is actually a requirement to put forward an alternative hypothesis to mainstream science. Then of course according to your world it is your burden to prove that your hypothesis is correct.

    You see, it is known that something is happening, it isn’t acceptable just to prove one theory is incorrect without an alternative explanation.

    If something wasn’t happening, eg, glaciers were not retreating, oceans weren’t rising, temperatures weren’t increasing and species weren’t becoming extinct etc.
    Then you would be correct. But the trouble is, no one with just a modicum of sanity actually believes you Graham.

    Now go home little boy and get a good nights sleep.

  75. #75 Paul UK
    August 7, 2010

    >The world warms, it cools, it warms, it cools….as it has for yonks. Climate change is NATURAL.

    Sorry but that is not science whether it is correct or not.
    Where is your hypothesis and proof?
    Where is your data?
    What is natural?
    Is that a scientific term?
    What starts the cooling, why does it continue, why CO2 reduce after cooling starts?
    Why does CO2 increase after it starts warming?
    What is the mechanism?
    Where are your answers Graham, where is the proof?
    Where are the experiments?

    If you are so confident you are correct, then bring forth the goods.

    If you are playing by your rules, then stick with them.

  76. #76 lord_sidcup
    August 7, 2010

    The latest post at Real Climate is a must read:

    [Monckton makes it up](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/)

  77. #77 Cthulhu
    August 7, 2010

    Shorter Graham: A regional trend disproves a global trend.

    Graham’s Population Theory: A fall in population in one country disproves that global population is rising and disproves any cause of population rise.

  78. #78 pough
    August 7, 2010

    When measured COOLING coincides with measured CO2 INCREASE, that’s enough.

    Only if you subscribe to the Wait Your Turn theory of physical processes, which nobody does… except maybe you.

  79. #79 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:

    “Try to remember that the term is GLOBAL warming.”
    Funny thing is that, almost every other day, there’s a trumped up alarmist scare about the Arctic

    So two wrongs make a right or you admit you are wrong. At least you’ve proven to us how wrong your arguments are.

  80. #80 Graham
    August 7, 2010

    “Now go home little boy and get a good nights sleep.”

    “….night’s”

    Now look, Paul and Chris and Bill and Ben and Flowerpot Men, the banter’s been great but must go now and do something useful. I know you’re busy too: research grants to work up, carbon credits to sell, door-knocking for the Greens – how do you manage it all? Just realise one thing, though – it’s OVER! Leave our plant food alone. People aren’t easily fooled by fire and brimstone fundamentalist zealots no matter how their rants are dressed up. Cast around for something else to blame for your warming. Warning: first ensure that the hypothesis is PLAUSIBLE. E.g. establish a trend that can be seen without an electron microscope. This could be a goer, so good luck with it.
    http://www.cafepress.com.au/venganza/3704496
    Cheers!

  81. #81 jakerman
    August 7, 2010

    Looks like I picked Graham accurately from [the start](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/monckton_vs_scott_mandia.php#comment-2710701):

    >*Morons are free to say what every they want without the need for evidence. Please carry on Graham, I’ll stick with the evidence.*

  82. #82 Chris O'Neill
    August 7, 2010

    Graham:

    but must go now.. I know you’re busy too: research grants to work up, carbon credits to sell

    Everything’s predictable here. Graham loses the arguments so resorts to lying ad-homs and says he’s leaving. Just another drive-by troll.

  83. #83 Paul UK
    August 8, 2010

    I suppose I should be flattered that anyone would think I have a research grant.

  84. #84 adelady
    August 8, 2010

    “a trend that can be seen without an electron microscope”

    One for starters. Australia has had every single decade since the 1940’s hotter than the previous decade(s). I’d be happy with cycles and trends upping and downing and whizzing around, but 6 decades straight in one direction is a bit too much.

    I sometimes feel that Australia is the canary in the coalmine for the industrialised world. Except no-one’s been paying attention.

  85. #85 adelady
    August 8, 2010

    See, now I’ve shown I can read a BoM report, can I have one of those research grants that Graham says are so easy to get?

    Cash in the form of neatly bundled $100 notes will be fine, thanks. That’s my idea of organising funds.

  86. #86 lord_sidcup
    August 9, 2010

    It looks like the House of Lords might finally be taking some action over Monckton’s claim that he is a member of the House of Lords and also his use of the H of L portcullis and crown emblem:

    [The Empire Strikes back: Moncktongate - the End of a Jester?](http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/867576d3dfe135ff8dcd26715bd86ac5-187.html)

    The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof…

    About time.

  87. #87 Ken Fabos
    August 9, 2010

    That Graham takes the glittery lure Monckton trails behind him hook, line and sinker is wholly unremarkable; any argument that says human produced CO2 impacts climate is wrong will be good enough for someone with strong faith in the non-existence of AGW. It’s the Judith Curry’s and Jonathan Katz’s that I find remarkable – scientifically skilled people who abandoned scientific scepticism in favour of pre-packaged opinions

  88. #88 Lionel A Smith
    August 10, 2010

    I suspect that

    (a Lord whether you like it or not)

    will now be going after Gavin at RealClimate for being so rude as to reply to continued distortions with only brief rebuttals they not being scientific enough for his Lawdship.

    See:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/comment-page-2/#comments

    As somebody pointed out, his Lawdship cannot expect to get away with the rhetoric and evasion that serves for debate in ‘the mother of parliaments’.

  89. #89 lord_sidcup
    August 11, 2010

    The Guardian confirm that the House of Lords are investigating Monckton:

    [Lords distance themselves from climate sceptic Christopher Monckton](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments)

Current ye@r *