Monkton shumps the jark

I really thought Monckton couldn’t surprise any more but I was wrong. Fans of drivel: run, don’t walk, to read his latest masterpiece Response to John Abraham, helpfully hosted by “no dog” Watts.

Alas, I really can’t be bothered to snark it much – perhaps the Wabbit can raise the energy – and indeed I barely managed to skim a few pages before being overcome by both the colour scheme and the tedium. I got far enough to notice that he is still trying to defend his misrepresentation of IPCC ’90 fig 7.1.c, which is dull of him (though when I talk about it, it is interesting). Still, it is charming to know that he cares so deeply.

[Update: Eli is onto it like an Energiser Bunny -W]

[And another: scrotum is not to be left behind, and hits TPP where it hurts: in the credentials. Lord M has none, and so is obsessed by them. Which is sad and silly because they don’t matter – what matters is the sanity of your writing. However, TPP says “I have published what is on any view a heavily mathematical paper on the determination of climate sensitivity in a reviewed journal”. As Gareth points out, the text wasn’t peer-reviewed, and wasn’t in a peer-reviewed journal. And is hopelessly wrong. It is also rather stretching it to call it “heavily mathematical” but that is a different matter.]

Comments

  1. #1 John McManus
    2010/07/12

    Wouldn’t just answering NO 488 times be correct?

  2. #2 carrot eater
    2010/07/12

    I had mixed feelings about the work by Abraham. An advantage is that he apparently was not hugely familiar with climate science, so he was able to demonstrate how you might go about checking up on things that people say, and how easy that can be. A demonstration of actual scepticism in action.

    But on the downside, he hasn’t been following these things in detail, so he missed some things, maybe focused on a couple less important things, and didn’t quite squarely land all the punches.

    At least, that’s what I remember of what I thought, from some time ago.

    [I think that is fair enough. You can see it in the fig 7.1.c stuff where he fails to lambast M for using the old figure at all -W]

  3. #3 Tony Sidaway
    2010/07/12

    Monckton is a blatant fraud who even lies about his own parliamentary status (or lack of status). Who cares what he has to say on some denialist blog?

    I would be interested to hear what you think is happening to the Arctic melt season. There was a lot of ghoulish pessimism a month ago, predictions of a huge melt this season and another record set for low had extent. What’s the real story on what’s happening, in your opinion?

  4. #4 Nick Barnes
    2010/07/12

    What a tedious know-nothing. He wants a retraction and $110K to charity. I predict Abrahams, by a knock-out, in the third round.

  5. #5 Nick Barnes
    2010/07/12

    Attacking Abraham for describing himself as a professor is pretty rich from Monckton. Head-desk.

    [Yes, I thought that. But just look at the comments on the wattsup thread – folks there are lapping it up. Even to the extent that Watts had to jump in and tell people to try to discuss the “substance” -W]

  6. #6 Steve Bloom
    2010/07/12

    Now it’ll be days before I can get the image of that poor, abused jark out of my head.

  7. #7 Eli Rabett
    2010/07/12

    C’mon over to Monckton Fest at Eli’s. Answer a question for John Abraham and win a prize:)

    [Ah, thank you Eli, it was about time -W]

  8. #8 barry
    2010/07/13

    Gods, what harrumphing from Monkey. He belabours his points so hard I couldn’t watch after a while. If Abraham troubles to reply, here’s hoping he will be far more succinct.

  9. #9 charles
    2010/07/13

    “You did not give me the opportunity to review your talk before you circulated it widely, as you should have
    done, and as is normal in academe. By contrast, I am giving you a fair opportunity to respond to this letter
    privately, and to correct any errors or unfairness.”

    “I have sent a brief letter to the President of your University, Father Dease, informing him that I have sent
    you this letter but not sending him a copy for now. I have told him that, once I have had your response, I
    may wish to invite him to investigate whether the content and distribution of your talk constitutes gross
    academic and professional misconduct on your part.”

    “421: Have you heard of Mr. Alexander Graham Bell’s wondrous invention, the electric telephone?
    “422: Have you heard of Mr. Albert Arnold Gore’s astounding invention, the World Wide Web?”

    Un-freaking-believable. Major whinge.

  10. #10 pointer
    2010/07/13

    The appropriate response in such matters invariably involves Steve Carell:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

  11. #11 MartinM
    2010/07/13

    “You did not give me the opportunity to review your talk before you circulated it widely, as you should have
    done, and as is normal in academe.”

    So presumably Monckton sent copies of all his talks to the scientists whose work he misrepresented, yes?

  12. #12 Thomas
    2010/07/13

    MartinM, Monckton isn’t an academic so he doesn’t have to follow those rules :-)

  13. #13 John McManus
    2010/07/13

    #12. As Moncton is not an academic, Abraham owes him no academic niceties. He does not have to adress him as MyLord either.

  14. #14 Gavin
    2010/07/13

    But can’t you see? Monckton is Churchill, Joan of Arc and Henry the V (part 27) all wrapped up in one!

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    July 12, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Now I’ve scanned Monckton (I too get nauseous now at anything over a few seconds’ exposure to the Dark Side) I think this is a tour de force, worthy of Churchill’s speeches but in the coin appropriate for the current battle in Science. It’s at once a restatement of Monckton’s speech, with excellent clear pictures to scupper each familiar rotten icon of the warmistas, and a refusal to let the warmistas take pot shots at him from the ivory towers of abused public trust. It’s a worthy call to arms, to eject the usurpers of Climate Science from their thrones, using the proper procedure – the full rigor of Scientific Method, amplified and backed with the power of law and a passion for truth and justice. It has the sense of fatal drumbeat I remember from the Watergate inquiry.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/#comment-428810

    wishful thinking much?

    [Weird. I assumed that was so over-the-top that it must be mockery. But looking at the chap’s website he may actually believe it. Scary -W]

  15. #15 J
    2010/07/13

    I think this is a tour de force

    “Tour de farce”

    worthy of Churchill’s speeches

    “Never in the field of blogospheric conflict was such nonsense strewn before so many by one idiot.”

  16. #16 John Mashey
    2010/07/13

    re: #2
    Actually, I think John’s work is very useful, in the fact that he has *not* been a follower of all this, so it demonstrates that someone indeed can go figure this stuff out from first principles.

    I told him when this started, that he would soon join the circle of those threatened by Monckton, and it didn’t take long, but now he has climbed to a higher rung of threatenee.

  17. #17 Hank Roberts
    2010/07/13

    > You did not give me the opportunity to review your
    > talk before you circulated it widely, as you should have

    These words “peer review” do not mean what he thinks.

  18. #18 Donald
    2010/07/13

    “…and have twice very profitably exploited a previously-unsuspected wrinkle in the laws of probabilistic combinatorics, and I have published what is on any view a heavily mathematical paper on the determination of…”

    I’m reminded of a pompous wizard from Jack Vance’s Dying Earth series, trying to convince his audience that he has the universe in his hands, usually just before a spell goes wrong and he summons a particularity nasty demon from the lower levels.

  19. #19 Nick Barnes
    2010/07/13

    As I remember it, Alex Selby and Oliver Riordan did rather better out of the combinatorics than lying Chris “I will have to sell my house” Monckton.

  20. #20 blueshift
    2010/07/13

    Hank Roberts #17,
    I’m not expert, but it seems there are a great many words that don’t mean what the septics think they do. A few that pop to mind:
    Robust
    Catastrophic
    Denial

  21. #21 MartinM
    2010/07/13

    And, of course, ‘sceptic.’

  22. #22 Eli Rabett
    2010/07/13

    The scary thing is that Monckton probably believes that he published a “heavily mathematical” thigamagig.

  23. #23 TrueSceptic
    2010/07/14

    14 William,

    I can tell that you don’t read much by the Wattards, or you would know that there is no limit to how crazy some of them really are.

    ‘Lucy Skywalker’ is one of those “sceptics” who claims to have been a GW “believer” until she was challenged by contradictory evidence.

    It took this genius “a solid month of study to be sure which side was correct”, so obviously we should take her seriously and not dismiss her as the unstable lunatic she appears to be. :)

  24. #24 villabolo
    2010/07/14

    Posted by: Tony Sidaway | July 12, 2010 7:28 PM

    “I would be interested to hear what you think is happening to the Arctic melt season. There was a lot of ghoulish pessimism a month ago, predictions of a huge melt this season and another record set for low had extent. What’s the real story on what’s happening, in your opinion?”
    **********************************************************

    Tony, concerning the Arctic meltdown, it is the long term, 30 years and as of recently, the midterm, 5-10 years that counts. Short term, year by year events are subject to many fluctuations.

    These fluctuations include, but are not limited to, La Ninas which have a cooling effect, local Arctic weather conditions from cloudiness to Oscillation patterns that change air pressure, etc..

    None of this matters in the mid term because we have had a definite and consistent trend towards ice thinning and ice cap shrinking.

    What does matter is the fact that in 1980 we had a huge ice cap that consisted of 80% multi-year ice, 3-10+ years old. Only 20% was 1 and 2 year ice, the most vulnerable to melting. Look at the link down below and see what’s been happening with the thick ice (green).

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure5.png

    At this rate, the predictions made by most Climatologists that the Arctic will be virtually ice free for a portion of the summer in 10-20 years. This portion of an ice free summer will initially be a few days in the season, expanding in subsequent years, to weeks then months.

    My prediction is 5-10 years.

    So the bottom line, Tony, is that you should not worry at all about predictions within the year but focus instead in 3 year intervals.

  25. #25 Gareth
    2010/07/14

    Monckton has now posted at WUWT asking for people to flood Abraham’s university with calls for disciplinary action. As a consequence, I have posted this:

    We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton’s misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.

    If you support Abraham, please visit Hot Topic and leave a comment in support.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.