Christopher Monckton and George Monbiot have an exchange in the Guardian and William Connolley is not impressed.
Today's grauniad has a piece by Monckton, "This wasn't gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming". Its in the "response" column, where people get a chance to reply. Sadly its all more gibberish. But also somewhat sadly the piece it responds to by Monbiot also contains some mistakes, and is itself a reaction to Monckton's bit in the Torygraph (in fact its all so badly written its rather hard to tell if Monbiot is just quoting Monckton or making mistakes of his own; and what Monckton is talking about is only even slightly comprehensible after reading the RC response...).
In his piece Monckton still won't admit that he misrepresented Hansen:
He says I was wrong to say James Hansen told Congress in 1988 that world temperature would rise 0.3C by 2000. Hansen projected 0.25 and 0.45C, averaging 0.35C. Outturn was 0.05C. I fairly said 0.3C and 0.1C. He says my source was a work of fiction by Michael Crichton. It wasn't: it was Hansen's graph.
OK, let's look at Hansen's graph (from here). Notice how close Hansen's favoured scenario B has been to what actually happened.
So how did Monckton come up with his numbers? First he averaged scenarios A and B, created a "prediction" that Hansen never made. Next he read the numbers off the graph wrongly -- from 1988 to 2000, scenario B increased 0.2, not 0.25. Finally, he cherry picked the end point. 2000 was cooler than the years that preceded it as well as all the years that followed, while 1988 was hotter than any previous year on record. If you look at the increase from 1988 to 2005 (the latest year for which we have data), you'll see that scenario B and observations increased by almost exactly the same amount.
Monckton is big on cherry picking. Chris commenting at Real Climate details a typical example:
Monckton: "Thompson et al, 2003: These authors analysed decadally-averaged D18O records [this is delta, superscript 18 Oxygen in ice cores] derived by them and their colleagues from 3 Andean and 3 Tibetan ice cores, demonstrating that "on centennial to millennial time scales atmospheric temperature is the principal control on the D18Oice of the snowfall that sustains these high mountain ice fields", after which they produced "a low latitude D18O history for the last millennium" that they used as a surrogate for air temperature. For the Quelccaya Ice Cap (13.95 oS, 70.83 oW), this work revealed that peak temperatures of the mediaeval warm period were warmer than those of the last few decades of the 20th century."
Now look at Thompson et al 2003:
Thompson LG, Mosley-Thompson E, Davis ME, et al.
Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales
CLIMATIC CHANGE 59 (1-2): 137-155 JUL 2003Here's the "conclusion" part of their abstract:
"Decadally averaged D18Oice from three Andean and three Tibetan ice cores are composited to produce a low latitude D18Oice history for the last millennium. Comparison of this ice core composite with the Northern Hemisphere proxy record (1000-2000 AD) reconstructed by Mann et al (1999) and measured temperatures (1856-2000) reported by Jones et al. (1999) suggests the ice cores have captured the decadal scale variability in the global temperature trends. These ice cores show a 20th century isotope enrichment that suggest a large scale warming is underway at low latitudes. The rate of isotopically inferred warming is amplified at higher elevations over the Tibetan plateau while amplification in the Andes is latitude dependent with enrichment (warming) increasing equatorward. In concert with this apparent warming, in situ observations reveal that the tropical glaciers are currently disappearing...."
In their Figure 7 Thompson et al display their overall conclusions. They compare the regional composites (Andes or Tibetan, or Andes + Tibetan as a crude low latitude history) with the Mann 1999 Northern Hemisphere reconstruction. The total composite looks rather like the Mann et al 1999 NH reconstruction - the Medieval Warm periods (MWP) and Little Ice Ages (LIA) are barely perceptible and the temperature proxy skies upwards (a bit like a "hockey stick"!) through the 20th century. They don't directly convert their 18O enrichment data into a temperature, but instead represent is as 'Z score' with positive values being warmer and negative cooler than a base line. Their MWP averages around plus 0.2 on this score and the LIA around minus 0.3. The curve reaches a value of 2.3 by the year 2000. This is the "low latitude D18O history for the last millennium" of which Monckton speaks.
So how has Monckton managed to take this straightforward data from Thompson et al (2003) whose conclusion concerning their "low latitude D18O history for the last millennium" is that in low latitudes (as judged by a composite ice core oxygen isotope enrichment analysis as a temperature proxy), the temperature has followed a pattern similar to that of the NH reconstructions with a little bit of a MWP, a small LIA and a very large late 20th century warmth...
...and concluded (Monckton) "....peak temperatures of the mediaeval warm period were warmer than those of the last few decades of the 20th century"?
Simple, he's taken just one data set of the composite (the Quelccaya Ice Cap) which can justifiably support his statement....and he's ignored all the rest.
Notice also how Monckton has worded his short precis in such a manner that there are no absolute errors of fact. He's just selected one out of the six data sets of the composite, and juxtaposed facts to come to a conclusion that is diametrically opposite of what Thompson et al (2003) concluded.
Mind you, Monckton just copied the precis verbatim from CO2 Science, so it's possible he hasn't even read the paper. After all, he believes that there were no Andean glaciers in the MWP, something Thompson's ice cores definitely contradicts.
More like this
Thank you, Tim, for reminding us of an effective FUD Identification Shortcut (FUDIS):
o Paste part of the assertion into The Google and see if the first 1-3 hits are from see-oh-too.
Of course, Deltoid itself is an effective FUDIS, but still. Some may wish to captain the ship embarking on the voyage of discovery for themselves.
Best,
D
s/"1988 was the hottest year ever recorded."/"1998 was the hottest year ever recorded."/
Tim: First he averaged scenarios A and B, created a "prediction" that Hansen never made.
Monckton never said or implied that Hansen did make a prediction. He seems to clearly admit that it is he (Monckton) that has done the averaging.
Tim: Next he read the numbers off the graph wrongly -- from 1988 to 2000, scenario B increased 0.2, not 0.25
That doesn't make any difference to the number used by Monckton. The average of 0.25 and 0.45 is 0.35. The average of 0.2 and 0.45 is 0.325. He uses a more conservative 0.3 which is still lower than the average.
Tim: Finally, he cherry picked the end point. 2000 was cooler than the years that preceded it as well as all the years that followed, while 1988 was the hottest year ever recorded.
Hansen told congress his numbers in 1988, so that is a logical starting point not a cherry-pick. Also, the graph doesn't indicate that 1988 was the hottest year ever recorded.
I don't disagree that 2000 was cooler than 1999 and 2001, but it is fairly common for people to pick round numbers. Also, I note that scenario A predicts 2000 to be cooler than 1999 and 2001 anyway -- so the cooler 2000 temps are already factored into the Hansen average used by Monckton.
Tim: If you look at the increase from 1988 to 2005 (the latest year for which we have data), you'll see that scenario B and observations increased by almost exactly the same amount.
Actually, for Land-Ocean observations it looks like Scenario C is the best fit. I don't know what Scenario C predicts past 2020, but it certainly doesn't look very scary up until that point.
1988 was (ie used to be) to the hottest year ever recorded, 2005 is now the hottest year recorded. I reworded the post to making my meaning clear.
John Humphries: Monckton wrote "In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C)". That is clear statemnt that Hansen made a prediction that, in fact, he never made.
Hansen's scenario B, the one that he said was most plausible has proved to be astonishingly accurate, which is why folks like Monckton misrepresent it. Hansen says that the best comparison for the climate modle temperatures is between the two sets of observations (station data is too high, land-sea is too low). Scenario C looks fine, but is based on us stablising CO2 levels in 2000, which didn't happen. Scenario B continues to be the most likely one.
Its obvious that in addition to your lack of knowledge of fundamental physics you can't read either.
Here's Lee with his troll statement:
And finally, before I leave for the night, I note that JohnA (presumably the author of this CA article and co-moderator of this blog devoted to scientific auditing) has been posting elsewhere on this topic, and posits the fascinating concept of the temperature of "a non-thermodynamic system.
and my reply
I don't posit the "the fascinating concept of the temperature of "a non-thermodynamic system"
and then you wade in like an idiot
Here's what John A wrote at my blog before he ran away again
and
John A denied making a statement that he did in fact make as I have demonstrated.
Except of course that I didn't posit the idea of a mean temperature of a "non-equilibrium system". YOU DID. You even claimed that you could do it by adding volumes (weighted by mass) and taking an average of the temperatures of each box.
Which brings us to the point of the argument. You have made a claim that there exists a mean temperature in a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system which is the mean of a set of volumes of arbitrary size.
And you've yet to demonstrate that the physics you've invented exists outside of your own inflated ego. Name a textbook that makes such a construction. Show a paper on thermodynamics which proves such a construction has any meaning. Ross McKitrick, Chris Essex, myself and the entire realm of scientific understanding waits breathlessly for your reply.
I bet you won't though. Like Lee, spouting about things you know nothing about is your strong point. Explaining yourself comes waaaaay down the list.
Heeeeey! Cute widdle Johnny A. Sic em, boy! Sic! Rrrrrowr!
Anyway,
I think CA should do a different audit, now that you boys have changed the scientific process to a more egalitarian 'Google up a fact or two, plot a trendline, then bash scientists who never thought of it' process.
Why don't the CA posse audit that guy's data who looked at the Bible and came up with an age of the earth? Seriously, this is not scientific.
I mean, this is really important stuff and would put you guys on the map.
Let us know when The Posse is done with this analysis.
Heart,
D
I think CA should do a different audit, now that you boys have changed the scientific process to a more egalitarian 'Google up a fact or two, plot a trendline, then bash scientists who never thought of it' process.
We don't need to, because you at Doltoid are doing a fine job of it already. We wouldn't want to encroach on your territory.
I think CA is doing a fine job of finding out people willing to do bad science and bad statistics in order to promote their own careers and the purblind political views of a few extremists. I bet you'd never heard of Durbin-Watson before Steve mentioned it, eh Dano?
yeah, those CA publications in "Oil Baron Quarterly" are really adding to the world sum of scientific knowledge!
JohnA, you added a word to your original post.
"non thermodynamic system" is NOT equivalent to "non-equilibrium thermodynamic system."
You originally said NON THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM. You did NOT say "non-equilibrium system" or "non-equilibrium thermodynamic system.". If that is what you meant, say so, but stop dinging peopel for responding to what you actually said instead of what you now change your words to.
Calling people dolts for responding to what you actually said, instead of what you wish you had said, it pretty... well... doltish.
BTW, I have yet to see your specific response to any specific explanation of why you are wrong on the average temperature issue.
Oh and by the way, Lee is still under the impression that I insulted Lambert:
JohnA is a co-moderator at this blog, this is the comments section of an article that JohnA posted here, and JohnA has been carrying this exact discussion, defending Monckton's absurdities, to other places on the web, and in doing so he leveled this gratuitous insult toward Lambert on Lamberts blog in a Lambert thread on the Moncton article, and then refused to stick around and discuss it.
Diddums. You mean I'm constrained to read this trollblog forever?
There is no insult. Where I did fall down was missing the word "equilibrium" but I'm sure that can't be the reason why Lee throws his toys out of the pram, can it?
Lambert made several claims:
1. That there is a meaningful physical reference to a mean temperature in a non-equilibrium system and it is uniquely composed of a mean of a set of volumes of arbitrary size weighted by mass. (after McKitrick and Essex said there was no such thing)
2. That if there are two isolated thermodynamic systems are joined by a heat conductor, the resultant temperature at equlibrium will be the (mass-weighted) mean of the starting temperatures. (Lambert forgets entropy and the concept of work)
3. That not only does heat flow to cold, but cold flows to hot. (breaking Clausius' theorem, and making Lambert's fridge a unique object in the Universe)
Of course Lee is well known for his gratuitous insults, lies and hypocricy.
Where, for example, have I discussed Monckton other than on CA? Oh yes, the Guardian responding to Monbiot, but as far as I can remember it was Monbiot's absurd behavior in not discussing science but just sarcastically referencing monckton's aristocratic background rather than the science.
Oh and Monbiot failed to comprehend the difference between a blackbody and a blackhole, but no doubt Lambert leapt upon this huge mistake and made a mockery of Monbiot's pretentions to understand physics, didn't he? No. Did Monckton make a mistake about the Earth being described as not a blackbody but a grey one? No.
Other than that, which was already referenced on CA, I haven't written about Monckton anywhere else, that I can recall.
Another claim by Hansen that Lambert won't touch - the notion that the Eemian and Altithermal temperatures were less than half a degree from today's temperatures. Rubbish, and Lambert doesn't even bother to justify them. He could try referencing some literature showing that Hansen must be right (but it would have to be not by Hansen or the Hockey Team to qualify).
JohnA,
Earth is not a greybody:
---
graybody --A hypothetical "body" that absorbs some constant fraction, between 0 and 1, of all electromagnetic radiation incident upon it.
This fraction is the absorptivity and is independent of wavelength. As such, a graybody represents a surface of absorptive characteristics intermediate between those of a white body and a blackbody. No such substances are known in nature.
---
Did you miss the part about 'independent of wavelength?" The earth does NOT absorb energy independent of wavelength." Very, very far from that ideal in fact. As that definition points out, "No such substances are known in nature."
"Of course Lee is well known for his gratuitous insults, lies and hypocricy.".
I've read most of Lee's comments over on CA and I have to say you completely 180 degree mischaracterise him.
As to the rest of your comments today here, well, there just you at your trolling, snide 'best'. if I were you I'd crawl back to CA, at least there you can delete posts you don't like and thus emphasise those you do.
Hearnden:
I've read most of Lee's comments over on CA and I have to say you completely 180 degree mischaracterise him.
No I don't. If the shoe fits, Cinderella, then wear it.
Besides Lee is following the well-worn Hearnden path of least resistance: "Interrupt a discussion of science to discuss (not) a commenter's replies ON ANOTHER BLOG". It doesn't matter what was said, make it an insult to your intelligence. Affect hysteria that anyone could ever say such a thing in front of children. Start a flamewar. Force the blog owner to intervene. Claim you didn't start it, it was the other boy....
You get the idea.
Why Lee expects Steve to control what I say on blogs other than CA is one of those Great Mysteries I keep coming across. Another one is why I should participate on this idiot blog when I really don't care to.
Lee:
Did you miss the part about 'independent of wavelength?" The earth does NOT absorb energy independent of wavelength." Very, very far from that ideal in fact. As that definition points out, "No such substances are known in nature."
...which is why Monckton describes the Earth as a _badly behaved_ greybody of emissivity of around 0.6. Again Monckton was correct in specifying what assumptions he was making in his calculations. We could argue the toss about whether such a simplistic assumption is even close to reality, but simplifications like that are always fraught with problems relating to reality. Just because pure blackbodies don't exist in reality doesn't mean that the Stefan-Boltzmann relation isn't extremely useful in reality.
Pure blackbodies don't exist in nature either (although they can be approximated very closely in a laboratory). As I wrote to Monbiot, the Sun is approximately a blackbody.
Monbiot screwed up because he's ignorant of physics, so don't blame me for his inadequacies.
John A: "3. That not only does heat flow to cold, but cold flows to hot. (breaking Clausius' theorem, and making Lambert's fridge a unique object in the Universe)"
That sounds interesting. Where precisely does Tim Lambert make that claim?
JohnA, are you forgetting the part where Monckton accused the UN (and by implication nearly all cliate scientists) of repealing Stefan-Boltzman?
As I just pointed out in a post on CA, what Monckton did was to fix feedback effects to a value of zero, derive a value for lambda that assumes no feedbacks, and then wave that number in the face of people who do consider feedbacks when deriving a value for lambda, and accuse them of ignoring S-B because they derive a different number when they include MORE effects instead of ignoring them as Monckton did.
And no, JohnA, I don't expect Steve to control what you say on another blog. I expect his to stop whining when his partner at CA (you) launches such attacks on another blog, runs away from responses to them, and then gets responses on his (and your) blog.
Of COURSE S-B is important in climate research. Arguing that climate scientists ignore S-B is the worst kind of straw man argument, and it was engaged in by Monckton, and is being propagated by you.
well, there's a surprise. My posts at CA just started getting intercepted by the spam filter.
Funny how that never happens to me anywhere else. Ever.
John A., couldja please, please, please explain to us again how the heat conductor performs work? I never get tired of that one.
Sits, hands folded, happily awaiting a bedtime story.
Posting this here to preserve it, since I am currently blocked from posting on CA and it is in the moderation queue over there.
From Monckton's letter:
"He wrongly states that the equation only describes "black bodies" that absorb all radiant energy reaching them. No qualified physicist would make such a schoolboy howler. Of course the equation isn't limited to black bodies. Its emissivity variable runs from zero for white bodies to 1 for black bodies. The Earth/troposphere system is a rather badly-behaved grey body with emissivity about 0.6."
-Earth is not a grey-body, badly behaved or otherwise. Absorption varied wildly at different wavelengths, and this is a fundamental violation of the definition of a greybody.. But the point is that, yes, one can derive an effective emissivity. So what? Monckton effectively set feedback effecs to zero, by assuming a fixed value for emissivity. he then took his derived value for lambda in the absence of feedback, compared it to different values of lambda derived from observation or from calculations including feedbacks,and accused those who derived different values of ignoring (repealing, he said) S-B. He effectively accused those who used other values of being incompetent physicists. In fact, the difference arises from Monckton leaving out things others had included, and preferring his set of unrealistic assumptions to observationally derived values. Get over yourself, Mr. Monckton.
He says I shouldn't have said the Viking presence in the middle ages shows Greenland was warmer than now. The Viking farmsteads in Greenland are now under permafrost, and you can't farm permafrost.
Is Monckton unaware that a barley crop was recently grown on Greenland? Is he unaware that they were primarily pastoralists, grazing and haying seasonal growth, and were dependent on seasonal seal harvests for the majority even of their meat?. Look at recent summer pictures of those farms, they are covered with abundant growth of grasses and other grazable plants. The little "farming" they did was on small garden plots, which CAN be grown on permafrost in the thawed surface layer during summer. They didn't 'farm under permafrost', they mostly grazed and gardened on top of permafrost.
"He says I was wrong to say James Hansen told Congress in 1988 that world temperature would rise 0.3C by 2000. Hansen projected 0.25 and 0.45C, averaging 0.35C. Outturn was 0.05C. I fairly said 0.3C and 0.1C. He says my source was a work of fiction by Michael Crichton. It wasn't: it was Hansen's graph."
Attributing to Hansen an average he never derived, of results from models with different assumptions, and then dinging him because that number when he never derived or presented didn't come to pass, is simply dishonest.
JohnA, stop using the spam filter to censor me. This NEVER happens anywhere else that I post. NEVER.
Well I hope people like John A might find the time and courage to post here more often, where there's a notable lack of "out of the arena" thinking seen mostly and where it seems there is so much uncritical appreciation of Lamberts's efforts to ridicule certain alternative poitns of view. It's clear that Climateaudit hears more from fresh voices than sites like this one. John A takes the fight right up to Lambert on his onw blog - but you don't see Tim's name turning up on John A's turf do you. Keep on punching John.
John A. Thanks for dropping by again!
Could you help me please? Please tell me how ludicrously unlikely and patently WRONG an anti-warmer/anti-AGW "fact" would have to be before you and your fellow CA-ers would refuse to believe it. Monckton's Chinese fleet sailing through the Arctic unimpeded by ice was a jaw-dropper for most of us, but you guys swallowed it whole - which leaves me (and probably many others) wondering just how credulous you guys are.
Is there a limit to what you guys will believe?
sneezy,
Lambert is often censored on CA. As am I, at the moment.
Oh wait - taht was sarcasm, wasn't it....
Are you being serious?
"If the shoe fits, Cinderella, then wear it."
This is quite possible one of the worst English phrases ever committed to paper (or computer screen).
You see JohnA, "if the shoe fits, wear it" means "acknowledge your faults (i.e. "having big feet"). But in Cinderalla's case the size of her fett was not only a source of pride in itself (they being so dainty) but the cause of her great fortune.
Having gone to great lengths to get the chance to prove the shoe did in indeed fit, why would Cinderella deny it?
Nice to see that you're as competent in the use of the English language as you are in the use of maths and science.
Although given some of your past postings I would have thought you better informed on the subject of fairy tales - you certainly display a flair for telling them.
I'm still being filtered at CA, even though SteveM has posted since I started being filtered. Apparently he either doesnt bother to check his moderation queue, or he is happy enough to leave my censored posts sitting there.
Yes, yes!
An' I'm still waitin' to hear about the little heat conductor that did work! Tell it, Johnny, Pleeeez!
Too funny.
I have emailed SteveM informing him that I am being filtered. Both SteveM and JohnA have posted since my email several hours ago. Yet I am still being filtered at CA, and none of my previous filtered posts, most of which are solidly substantive and on topic, have been released.
And John, when you are done with the Little Heat Conductor that Did Work, could you read me Hamster Huey and the Non-Thermodynamic System.
If Hansen said that the best comparison for climate model temperatures is between the two sets of observations then it seems reasonable for Monckton to average the two, though he should have explained what he did.
I agree that Monckton could have used better wording. Perhaps "hansen told the US congress temps should rise between 2 and 4.5 and that the best prediction will lie between those two points." But it doesn't seem like he's drastically changed the meaning of hansen's testamony by simply using 3 instead of "a point between 2 and 4.5".
Non-related question. What is the estimated concentratin of co2 by 2050 and 2100 under business-as-usual?
Monckton didn't average the observations -- he averaged the scenarios coming up with a prediction that Hansen never made. If Monckton had reported the range of Hansen's scenarios and correctly reported the temperature increase it would have been obvious that the increase was in the range.
CO2 levels on the different IPCC [scenarios](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/029.htm) are [here](http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/531.htm).
Thanks for the links. While I don't think that Monckton drastically mislead anybody with his Hansen comments I accept that he didn't use appropriate language and that he framed his argument is a way that biased a reader towards inappropately strong conclusions.
Having said that, I think you (Lambert) sometimes also suffer from a similar failing. A more robust and concilatory approach would do more to convince truely curious skeptics that they should consider your views.
As a general rule in most political debates, both sides assume their opponents are some variation on the definition of evil. Yet Satan himself rarely presents himself (myself notwithstanding). I have found a high heat-to-light ratio in much AGW debate and while I have doubt anybody will head my request for more friendly and helpful approach to discussion I think both sides could learn from the approach of the recently departed economist Milton Friedman.
He always assumed that his ideological opponents had the best of intentions and that influenced the way he interacted with them.
Behold: the progress to be made by a presumptuous twit with connections.
ClimateAudit is censoring me again. Some (far from all) of yesterday's posts were released, I was able to make two or three posts this morning. And then I wrote the following post (included here to preserve it), responding to claims that Monckton didn't use emissivity in his calculations, and that he included feedbacks - and it got grabbed by "the spam filter."
"Look on page 7 of the pdf of his response to Gore, posted by JohnA in a top post at this blog. Emissivity is a term in the Stefan-Boltzman equation, which he nicely writes out in inviting others to repeat what he did. He uses a fixed value of 0.614 for emissivity. I don't know how one can claim taht he doesnt use emmisivity in his calculations, and accept that he is using S-B."
He then goes on, on page 8-9, to calculate from his version of "the UN's best estimate of the additional radiant energy in the atmosphere" resulting from anthropogenic forcings, and shows that if one applies it to the observed temp increase "from 1900 - 1998" one gets results that match observed increases only if one assumes that feedbacks are neutral, ie, that positive and negative feedbacks offset each other, and from this concluded that he is justified in fixing feedback effects at zero (and yes, I am paraphrasing a bit - I think I'm repeating his argument accurately).
However, by doing this latter calculation he is ignoring time lags in the system (which he as been dinged for and denied) and is effectively assuming that the response to the changes have settled to equilibrium - which is absurd. We KNOW there are huge heat capacities involved, and time lags in the system.
So, his direct SB equation does NOT include feedbacks - he "mentions" them (which is precisely what he says) but does not include them in the Stefan-Boltzman calculation. His support for assuming 'neutral feedbacks" is arrived at by ignoring any time lag and ignoring (as JohnA should be quick to point out) that this is not an equilibrium system.
mate, all this stuff went over my head. But i did note one thing in that monckton piece. In support of the medieval warm period he claims that a chinese armada sailed around the arctic and noted no ice bergs.
"There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
This is nonsense. He seems to have read 1421 - the year China discovered America by Gavin Menzies. Its a complete fraud.
http://www.1421exposed.com/html/most_outrageous_claims.html
If thats the kind of research he does, i dont wanna guess where else he's getting his information.
I've seen a few "Gavin Menzies discreditied" websites, but they aren't very convincing.
The anti-Menzies crowd is simply pointing out that Menzies doesn't thave proof. He admits that. He's proposing a working theory -- based on maybes, ifs, couldbes and circumstantial evidence. I find his thesis hard to accept without more evidence, but it hasn't been shown wrong.
Lots of things happened in the world without a perfect documentary record, photos and supporting evidence. That doesn't mean those things didn't happen.
I thought the book was a fun (though unproved and unlikely) thought experiment and some of the responses have been a bit shrill.
"I thought the book was a fun (though unproved and unlikely) thought experiment and some of the responses have been a bit shrill."
You're being too kind.
John, thanks to my being ill with a flu related virus, I had plenty of time yesterday to read up on "1421" online. It turns out that Menzies has made numerous factual errors, as well as serious misdirections, by selectively quoting things. For example, IIRC (Bearing in mind that even last night seems a bit hazy to me just now) Menzies claimed that there were various wrecked junks in places like New Zealand. Whereas it turns out that they were in fact well known old local wrecks, fully known about and documented. Same with his claims about Chinese towers in America. The point is that if we are not to slide into some sort of post modernist we can all be right kind of fantasy land (Would you like that?) an author has responsibilities to check their claims and find evidence.
I could for example hypothesise that you have two heads, and create an interesting tale of strange goings on in the womb as to how you got them. But without actually meeting you in person, and checking if you have two heads or not, how do I know if I am right or not.
People like MEnzies make a great deal of money out of writing lies. If we could bung it all under "Woo history" I would be a lot happier.
I speak as someone who reads books like these for entertainment purposes, but there are as you know people who take these things seriously, and they are being done a severe disservice.
More humorous shenanigans at CA. JohnA, any comments on this?
Last night, Steve M released one of the several posts that "the spam filter" has intercepted and not allowed to be posted. In doing so, he whined that he is getting tired of my complaining about not being allowed to post when clearly anyone can see my posts, and he claimed that he didn't get several emails I sent informing him that I was being filtered so he could release the posts.
However, he released, as far as I can see, only one post, he did not release any of the substantive posts that got trapped. And amusingly enough, when I tried to respond, I find that I am still being blocked - I'm currently blocked and not able to post to CA to respond to his statement that anyone can see that I'm not blocked from CA.
Too, too funny.
Here is Steve's comment, and my (spam -filtered) reply, clarifying some of what he claimed.
Steve: Lee sent me an email at 12.30 am last night my time. This is the first email that I received from him in the past week. I recovered this post from the spam filter. Why it was in the spam filter, I don't know. It is impossible to operate a blog without a spam filter. I get tired of Lee alleging that he's not "allowed" to post and immediately running off to complain on other blogs when anyone can see that he's posted dozens of times.
My (blocked) reply:
Steve, I sent three emails to you yesterday, to the same email address, as the one you say you got late last night, starting from before noon yesterday. I emailed you once the day before, the first time I got caught in the filters. In each case, I used the same email address, the one on the "contact Steve" link. I managed three new posts yesterday after you released the previous set that were caught in the spam filter, before I was blocked again.
I have now been caught in your spam filters at least a dozen times, likely quite a lot more - I haven't been keeping close count. This is not counting repeats where I get caught several times in a given episode.
There were a couple other of my posts caught in the spam filters yesterday as well, including a detailed response to the "Monckton did consider feedbacks" line of argument, that do not seem to have been released - My emails to Steve explicitly said there were several of my posts in the filters. I'm not going to rewrite that response - I already posted it to the blog.
I realize spam filters are necessary - I despise spam as much as the next person. But I know that I have NEVER, NOT ONCE been caught in a spam filter at any other blog to which I contribute. I know that at least a couple of those use WP with SK. And I know that I get repeatedly caught here, typically when there is a vigorous discussion with points that deserve a response from me. And I confess that I find that pattern of events hard to reconcile with 'the spam filter did it.' Especially when I see other 'outside' posters here also saying they get repeatedly filtered in SK, and I very, very, very seldom see any evidence of any 'insider' here getting caught dozens of times, and when my substantive posts remain filtered when I am finally released from the filters.
"Calling people dolts for responding to what you actually said"
Yeah, he's got us there. We, trying to make sensible conversation with ignorant fanatics having unbreakable trumped up notions of their own intellectual superiority to folks who are by definition the world's most knowledgable people in the field under definition; yes, we are dolts. Wasting our time arguing with somebody about non-thermodynamic systems, then as a follow-up arguing with the same person regarding non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, as though he had suddenly sprouted wisdom, along with the ability to correctly parrot the words he was told he should say when "science" rears its ugly head.
The Spam Karma control panel gives an explanation for why it classifies a comment as spam, so Steve's claim to not know why it classified a comment as spam is hard to believe.
And on the subject of CA shenanigans, John Humphreys asked for help to counter one of my arguments and the response was to [redact the link](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=919#comment-68551).
Up to now Tim Lambert has failed to explain to us why the majority of Victorians yesterday declared themselves to be climate sceptics, by returning Bracks' Labor party to power; the Green vote barely registered, and Bracks is an avowed climate sceptic, because he will not allow any nuclear power in his State when that is the only meaningful way of delivering our way of life without CO2 emissions. Steve and Humphreys are right, and the good folk of Melbourne voted for them with their feet (unless as is always possible they have no brains).
What a bizarre comment.
[link](http://www.theage.com.au/news/victoria-votes/ir-climate-change-front-of…)
>Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has warned Canberra his victory points to a rejection of the Federal Government's stance on workplace and greenhouse issues.
mark: you must live in Melbourne and thereby embody my statement about the brains or lack thereof of its denizens, specially those who live in Toorak and voted for the Greens, able to afford to combine belief in AGW with horror of the nuclear generators they never notice when they take their annual holidays in France. Bracks is a smart politician who trades on the atavistic stupidity of his electorate.
And what if I am from Sydney and live in London?
Mark, after a while you'll get used to tim c.'s bizarre statements and logical leaps - like the belief that a nuclear reactor program, the first parts of which aren't expected to be producing power for fifteen years at an absolute minimum, is a more realistic alternative than the wind farms that are coming on line almost literally every day.
Of course, if we apply Tim's own logic, he must be a Labor supporter since he obviously rejects two of John Howard's favored solutions: clean coal technology and geosequestration.
Bizarre and illogical leaps indeed. The references to Toorak and holidays in France nicely expose what is at the heart of most of the right-wing bloggers, from Andrew Bolt to Mr Curtin via Tim Blair, which is, oddly enough, class.
Mark: I apologise, you are not quite as atavistic as I thought you must be.
Ian: alas, beyond redemption, despite your improved typing skills. Nuclear plants could be up and running here as in France (55 over 20 odd years) and China (another 100 or so within 5 years) but for the likes of you. Please educate us all how wind farms provide base load when there is no wind. Do read the recent features in the AFR and Australian about electric cars (or Morgan's upcoming hydrogen racer) that far exceed Porsches' acceleration, but if their power is not sourced from nuclear, they make zilch contribution to reduced CO2. As for solar, the cost of siliconate PVs have gone up by 500% in the last year or so. To repeat: Victorians have shown in droves they do not believe in AGW, as otherwise they would have voted for Baillieu/Howard and the latter's acceptance that if AGW is a problem, nuclear is the only economically rational solution (given Bracks' carbon taxes). Bracks is truly the latest in a long line of Carrolian mad hatters: endorse AGW, keep Victorian coal mines in business, tax carbon emissions, and ban the nuclear that becomes fully commercially viable as a result of those taxes. But from experience I know that few on this blog can manage that degree of logical inference, least of all Ian and mark.
"Nuclear plants could be up and running here as in France (55 over 20 odd years) and China (another 100 or so within 5 years) but for the likes of you."
Neither the French nor the Chinese were starting from scratch and neither were they attempting to attract scientific and technical staff in what is likely to be an increasingly heated international job market for people with these skills.
Again, you must be a Labour supporter since the 15 year figure comes straight from the Liberal-appointed expert committee which just reported on the issue.
I'm also fascinated by your conviction that battery-electric cars are, presumably, less than 15 years from full commercialisation. Oh and that, for example, power for such cars couldn;t possibly coem from, for example, wind, hydro or geothermal sources.
"Please educate us all how wind farms provide base load when there is no wind."
Simple you provide sufficient wind capacity to the network from geographically dispersed sources that there's a very high probability that enough of them will be inputting power at any time - and then you back then up with hydro and gas-powered peaking units exactly as we do with the current grid at the moment.
That's assuming new technologies such as Vanadium Redox Batteries hit some mysterious and as yet unforseeable obstacle to their further commercialisation.
As to your claim that "the cost of siliconate PVs have gone up by 500% in the last year or so." (Psst, here's a tip for the past forty or fifty years we've just been using the terms "silicon PVs" don't want to date yourself TOO badly.):
These people obviously must have missed that market movement:
http://www.solarbuzz.com/moduleprices.htm
"Over the past two years, the simple generalization that prices were rising was enough to characterize a large proportion of the market. This generalization no longer applies."
The quantum of the increase was in any case rather less than your "500%" being somewhat closer to say, 10%.
But I'm sure you'll have some highly relevant and realistic figure to back your claim such as the cost of gold and diamond encrusted PV panels delivered to the sultan of Marrakesh on camelback by blind hunchbacks.
I guess it all comes down to whether you believe in markets or government control.
If, like the French and Chinese, you favor centralised state planning and centralised control of the economy then naturally you want the government to decide which technology is best and impose it on the public because they are much wiser and more virtuous than we peons.
Alternately if one favors free markets and believes in the innovative capacity of private enterprise then, rather than supporting government selection of the right technology, you'd support a market-based mechanism which internalised the cost of CO2 emissions to emitters - like the Kyoto Protocol - and leave it to private enterprise to fidn the best way of minimising that cost.
tim C: "...they would have voted for Baillieu/Howard and the latter's acceptance that if AGW is a problem, nuclear is the only economically rational solution"
How dare you suggest that our dear Prime Minister is investing $100 milion of public money in a geosequestration trial (and much more in clean coal trials)when he already knows that they aren't a solution?
Victorians would have voted to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, if it were not for the likes of you.
Tim Lambert,
re Spam Karma at Climate Audit - I have been blocked by their spam filter since early Friday morning. In email correspondence with SteveM, he claims I am 'in the whitelist' and he doesn't understand why my posts aren't getting through the filters. He emailed me that he was going to 'ask JohnA about this', and I haven't heard anything since then. I can't currently test whether I am unblocked - CA appears to be down this morning, and I get a bizarre WordPress "Error establishing a database connection" message that seems to be aimed at admins unable to log into their own WordPress accounts.
Meanwhile, despite correspondence between us about the fact that I m still blocked, STeveM has not corrected his message saying he is tired of hearing about me being blocked, even though he knows that I clearly am blocked.
I'm sorry to hijack your blog space for this, Tim, but I feel this should be documented somewhere, and I clearly am not being able to document it at CA.
If Tim Curtin's ravings involved any more "logical inference" than his Howard's lies about terrorists invading Oz from sinking boats, or WMDs in Iraq, or the way in which Oz gallops into the future on coal's back, I'd eat my mad Carrollian hat.
"Please educate us all how wind farms provide base load when there is no wind"
Might be news to you, but nuclear plants go down for months at a time for both routine scheduled maintenance and unscheduled events. I haven't seen anywhere where the wind goes away for months at a time. Nor does it leave fuel rods twisting slowly in the wind when it does so. http://www.nirs.org/press/03-20-2006/1
Ian Gould: "Alternately if one favors free markets and believes in the innovative capacity of private enterprise then, rather than supporting government selection of the right technology, you'd support a market-based mechanism which internalised the cost of CO2 emissions to emitters - like the Kyoto Protocol - and leave it to private enterprise to find the best way of minimising that cost."
Exactly, then why the ban on nuclear power in the Australian States?
Tim C: Can you point to any nuclear pwoer industry anywhere i nthe world that isn;t the beneficiary of massive government subsidies, either directly or by sharing infrastructure and R&D costs with nuclear weapons programs?
As I've told you repeatedly, I'm not opposed to nuclear power, I am opposed to misleading the Australian public abotu the likely cost of nuclear power.
A final question: woudl you agree that in an economic environment which includes international trading in emission credits, the only doemstic abatement programs which are economically rational are the ones where the marginal cost of abatmeent is lower than the international market price for emission credits?
Ian G: How about France and Finland for starters, also US (MIT shows nuclear power costs level with coal). Finland has no nuclear weapons, and France is no longer so active in that area. The Finnish case involves some vertical integration (thereby avoiding owning and retail markups).
The Switkowski report goes out of its way NOT to talk down the relative costs of nuclear in Australia, arising from our exceptionally cheap coal and almost total lack of any expertise in nuclear technology. With a carbon tax equal to some of the supposed social costs - and by 2030 or so Switkowski shows that tax would not need to be very onerous - nuclear becomes competitive.
If I understand your final question correctly, I do agree with its implication. But there's a catch - emissions trading is unlikely to achieve ANY reduction in emissions: none have been observed in or claimed by the EU, all the trading has achieved is a hike in energy pricing, so electricity in UK is now way more costly than here, elasticity of demand is less than one, and there has been close to zero clean supply response.
In the US, among other things, the nuclear industry has federal protection against liability claims due to potential accidents. This insulates them against insurance costs of some large but indeterminate amount. They also receive huge RnD subsidies via federal research funding, and federal subsidies via supporting infrastructure.