There is a fun wiki user page collecting a rebuttal of Moncktons nonsense. Mostly I'm impressed by peoples patience in bothering to follow it all through. One thing sticks out to me: Moncktons apparent use of references that totally fail to support his claims for them. For example, Monckton says "From c.1000 AD, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa 2000; Lamb 1972a,b; Villalba 1990, 1994)." but apparently T2000 is concerned with hydrology on the Tibetan plateau; B2000 is, as you might expect, a general review of analysis of tree-ring proxy data for reconstructing past climate; Villalba lends no support. So where did M find these things? Did he totally make them up? Copy from elsewhere without checking? Or just fail to understand what he was reading?
Stoat
Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.
Profile
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary
Search
Recent Posts
- Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Grauniad hangwringing
- A testable prediction by a nutter
- Cold in Cambridge
- Chris Huhne
- Justice and Injustice
- Black to play
- RFS 9: Kill Hollywood
- Plan 8 from outer space
- I feel dirty
Recent Comments
- Eli Rabett on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Hank Roberts on Amerika headed for theocracy?
- Sesli Chat on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Martin Vermeer on Grauniad hangwringing
- The Bishop of Stratocaster on Grauniad hangwringing
- Doug Cotton on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- My personal blog
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
- My view on climate change (Bart)
- Science of Doom
- Timmy
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Science: False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All | Main | Climate change sceptics lose vital argument »
More Monckton
Category: climate communication
Posted on: November 30, 2006 4:31 AM, by William M. Connolley
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/26915
Comments
Did he totally make them up? Copy from elsewhere without checking? Or just fail to understand what he was reading?
It's the boilerplate template for skeptic/denialist argumentation. Of course when you follow up on their references they don't say what the mendacicizers claim. The text isn't aimed at people like you and me; rather, it is aimed at people who can't or won't read refs.
Best,
D
[Ah, but are the refs themselves bolierplate form somewhere? If so, where? Crichton? -W]
Posted by: Dano | November 30, 2006 12:34 PM
He got at least some of his stuff from co2science, which does engage in this type of distortion. Possibly there's a match to one of their articles. Crichton is a possibility but I didn't think he was quite that stupid.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | November 30, 2006 2:58 PM
see-oh-too does their refs in a particular style. Lots of commenters cut-paste directly and you can tell where they get their arguments from. If Monckton's refs are in the see-oh-too style, there ya go.
Can't do the legwork for a while to see for myself.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | December 1, 2006 11:58 AM
This seems to be job for Social Network Analysis; let's hope that eventually Google provides for doing that in some automated way.
Either that or we're getting alternate facts leaking in from some not quite parallel universe, a.k.a dork energy.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 1, 2006 2:38 PM
Off topic but relevant since today is World AIDS Awareness Day.
In 1987, Monckton, while an adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote the following in The Spectator:
"There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life [...] Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month [...] all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently".
Seems like climate science is not the only area where he seems to be a crank.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | December 1, 2006 3:08 PM
I wonder anybody put an effort to debunk C. Moncton.
Sad thing is, that is is still needed
Posted by: Alexander Ac | December 3, 2006 1:31 PM