potholer54 on Monckton

This video by potholer54 demolishing Monckton’s claims about climate sensitivity is very good, and not just because I’m in it.

Also worth a look is his video where Monckton is refuted by … Monckton himself.


Update 2:


  1. #1 ianash
    February 21, 2011

    As a wise man once said:

    “Includes a swivel-eyed wacko English toff for Americans to laugh at.”


  2. #2 jakerman
    February 21, 2011

    Excellent work!

  3. #3 jrkrideau
    February 21, 2011

    Lovely pieces of work. Always check the sources!

    I’ve seen citations to works in some papers (both referred and non) where someone apparently read the abstract–well I’m being charitable here–but where the actual paper contradicted the point being made.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    February 21, 2011

    Absolutely devastating! Well done.

  5. #5 dorlomin
    February 21, 2011

    Very well presented, but poor McNiel does not come out too well.

  6. #6 Marco
    February 21, 2011

    @jkrideau, this would be a good example:
    DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.04.001

  7. #7 Ken Fabos
    February 21, 2011

    I have to disagree; for the kind of audience Monckton is aiming for (and such people vote BTW) this rebuttal would not do much good- too technical and too long winded. They would have switched channels well before the point was made. On a show like ‘Sunrise’ I suggest something more like the Gish Gallop is called for. And, yes, some homework on Monckton and his preferred arguments and previous pronouncements would supply ample ammunition to do so.

    I note that those kinds of TV shows are more than willing to give some time and straight lines for the likes of Monckton. And Bolt seems to be getting plenty of appearances lately, with his views going unopposed.

  8. #8 Kevin C
    February 22, 2011

    Episode #3 is just up: mainly on the supposed lack of correlation between past temps and CO2:
    [Monckton debunked #3](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/fpF48b6Lsbo)

  9. #9 MartinM
    February 22, 2011

    Part 3 is now up, complete with another appearance by Tim.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2011

    Part 3 is quite interesting in terms of offering a clue as to whether Monckton is a deliberate liar, or simply a misinformed fool.

    Watch him when he is telling audiences that the Himalayan glaciers “are showing no particular change in 200 years”…

    Any psychologist who understands the displacement behaviour of lying, and any poker player worth his salt, will point out Monckton’s very conspicuous ‘tell’ when he makes this claim – the rubbing of his nose.

    I think that naughty Christopher is fully aware that he is telling porkies.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    February 22, 2011
  12. #12 ianam
    February 22, 2011

    OT: Nikolai Nolan of “the Bloggies”, where Watt’s Up With That has been nominated for best science blog of the year, tells me that he’s ‘not familiar with the term “polling methodology”‘ … who’da thunk it!

  13. #13 jrkrideau
    February 22, 2011

    Thanks. Way outside my expertise but I’ll hold onto it in case I can con someone with the right knowledge to giving it a check.

  14. #14 Marco
    February 22, 2011

    jkrideau: I can see that my link may have led you to the wrong place. Here’s a better, more direct link:

    Should be no problem understanding what Stordal is saying, even if it is waaaaay out of your area of expertise.

  15. #15 Donald Oats
    February 22, 2011

    I think that with the likes of Monckton et al, it is necessary to pull them up on the fictoids they manufacture; something like:
    “No, Christopher, you know that is complete tosh, and here’s how I know you know it’s bunkum…”
    The idea is not to ridicule Monckton without rebuttal, but rather to make it plain to the audience that Monckton is pulling the wool over their eyes, and that Monckton’s opponent is on top of the agenda. So long as the opponent uses facts in the rebuttal, Monckton can squirm all he likes, maybe even escape the issue, but with some tarnishing along the way.

    This way, when the next Monckton debate occurs on TV, the new opponent has some fodder to refer to, eg:
    “Christopher knows he botched it last time he brought this up, and he is still at it, taking liberties with your audience’s kindness, and just like last time he is – stop interrupting Chris, you did that last time too – wrong because…”

  16. #16 Ken Fabos
    February 22, 2011

    I think even attempting to argue the scientific merits of his arguments lends Monckton legitimacy; he has to have his credibility undermined from the start. He misleads and he deceives, he leaves out what’s crucial and hypes what isn’t. He tells porkies. He misuses and misrepresents the work of others to make it seem they agree with his conclusions. Those are things his target audience can get a handle on and that Monckton is vulnerable on; forcings and sensitivity, albedo, absorption and re-radiation aren’t.

  17. #17 Anthony
    February 22, 2011

    Bernard, I picked up Monckton’s body language as well. Bob Carter looks like he has hit upon a method where he does not display such tell-tale signs. He presents data and arguments that do not address the question he pretends to answer, but are consistent within his worldview.

  18. #18 mike
    February 23, 2011

    Maybe, or not, some of what Monkton says may be not quite correct but that does not mean that what you believe is correct either. In fact the “on the ground” evidence is pointing to a direction other than the so called concensus.

  19. #19 MartinM
    February 23, 2011

    Feel free to cite some of that ‘on the ground’ evidence.

  20. #20 mike
    February 23, 2011

    Sure MartinM no problem. You want papers cited as well or perhaps a full analysis of this on a blog post? Will have to wait a day or so.

  21. #21 MartinM
    February 23, 2011

    Whichever you prefer is fine.

  22. #22 jakerman
    February 23, 2011

    mike, we’ve already done the ground work for you [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_energy_and_environment_eff.php).

  23. #23 John
    February 27, 2011

    Still waiting.

  24. #24 jakerman
    February 27, 2011

    >*Sure MartinM no problem. You want papers cited as well or perhaps a full analysis of this on a blog post? Will have to wait a day or so.*

    When mike said “a day or two” he was speaking Watts units of time. That is considerable longer than a Friedman unit.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.