Climate Denial Crock on Monckton

LOL. There's a part II! I'm not sure if even that's enough to cover all the crap originating from the Discount.

Well written sir.

Vasa vana plurimum sonant.

Very funny Lars.

That said, I think it's very poor form of Crikey to keep portaying Monckton as the cookie monster.

What has that got to do with anything, Ezzthetic? Is the video by Crikey? Is there anyone from Crikey here?

Good vid. The facts of the situation will of course be entirely lost on Monckton's fan base of angry conservative retirees, but good vid anyway.

I wouldn't worry, Mike, they're too busy writing hilarious limericks and amusing song parodies at Bishop Hill.

Oh, the joys of retirement!

To borrow from Phillip Adams, Peter Sinclair deserves a gold star and a koala stamp for all his efforts.

I would love to see Sinclair produce a full-length documentary one day - perhaps he could call it "Climate Denial: Crock of the New Millenium".

just perfect. as always.

Newscaster fails to do basic fact checking - "Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher". Policy advisor maybe, but he was never a science advisor.

Sinclair is a national treasure.

What has that got to do with anything, Ezzthetic?

Nothing, John.

It's just funny, that's all.

In a beautiful meeting of minds, Monckton is now climate cchange spokesman for UKIP.

[http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1363-monckton-joins-ukip](http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1363-monckton-joins-ukip)

Together at last!

From [Bud's link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt…):

Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party.

At a press conference in Copenhagen he said: "For some years I have been concerned that the democracy into which I was born has become a bureaucratic centralist state run by commissars who we, the people, do not elect, cannot question, cannot hold to account, cannot remove and cannot replace.

Indeed.

Substitute "bureaucratic centralist state run by commissars" with "previously-feudal monarchy run by hereditary aristocrats/peers", and, well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_nqyta1FXA

Remix by yours truly.

frankbi, that was truly chilling.

From Bernard J at #16

'Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party.'

Yes. And last weekend I was approached by one of UKIP's faithful trying to impress a leaflet on me. I said, 'no thanks, your friend Monckton is a snake-oil salesman.'

There then ensued a discussion in which the UKIPper offered every one of those oh so familiar denialist arguments, cooling, CO2 food not pollution, climategate, glaciers, arctic sea ice growing etc, etc, one by one. Whack-a-mole was played out again.

Clearly this UKIPper had memorised the Monckton script well.

I wonder if he followed my suggestion to visit here and RealClimte etc.

Bernard J, that is a rather ironic statement coming from a hereditary Viscount who frequently lies about being a (non-elected) member of the House of Lords, isn't it?

I'd like to add my kudos for a beautifully executed video.

I'm guessing that Peter Sinclair will receive one of Lord Munchkin's vague threats of legal action, combined with accusations of "interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere".

Don't be surprised if he pulls a Watts and tries to have the video removed.

#20, Dhoghaza: And also notice the striking similarity between the logo's on the top-left side of his presentation sheets and the UK Parliaments logo. He sure wants to give the viewer the impression of being an Lord... the poor Monckton... zero votes he got.

#5, at least Monckton's doppelganger, the cookie monste, makes some sense.

I beleive he is not a Member of the House of Lords, yet the logo on his presentation slides (e.g. at 2:44) looks awfully like that of the House of Lords.

From [House of Lords](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldhouse/47/4…)

"House of Lords logo ... Save for the provision set out in the guidance on the use of House of Lords headed paper and envelopes, the House of Lords logo should be used by Members for purposes relating to the discharge of their Parliamentary duties only, and for no other purpose. Members should take care in ensuring that the House of Lords logo is not used in such a way that might bring discredit upon the House."

Shurely shum mishtake?

New people here might enjoy reading [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/monckton_blames_jackie_kennedy…)

#26: "I beleive he is not a Member of the House of Lords, yet the logo on his presentation slides (e.g. at 2:44) looks awfully like that of the House of Lords.

From House of Lords

"House of Lords logo ... Save for the provision set out in the guidance on the use of House of Lords headed paper and envelopes, the House of Lords logo should be used by Members for purposes relating to the discharge of their Parliamentary duties only, and for no other purpose. Members should take care in ensuring that the House of Lords logo is not used in such a way that might bring discredit upon the House."

I've often wondered how he gets away with recolouring the House of Lords logo in a shade that could well be reasonably mistaken for "porn-pink"!

Shome other mishtake, shurely. Am I colour-blind or is it the regrettable affliction of the "Good Lord"??

I think I might have to ask my MP to investigate ;)

If I read correctly the Wikipedia entry about Monckton's grandfather young Monckton was about 5 when the UK government gave his grandfather a heriditary title, perhaps one of the last, if not the last in the UK as these days any new Lords or peers are 'life peers' a bit like Valerie Amos the present British High Commissioner to Australia (for Australian readers you can see her in action on the panel of Q&A a few editions back providing a very, very marked contrast to our man Monckton).

I can just imagine Monty Python's take...

He's not a lord; he's a very common boy!

30 Bernard,

I notice that Monty Python crops up whenever Lord Munchkin is mentioned. Don't forget 'The Upper Class Twit Of The Year' featuring (love these names)

Vivian Smith-Smythe-Smith

Simon Zinc-Trumpet-Harris

Nigel Incubator-Jones

Gervaise Brook-Hamster

Oliver St. John-Mollusc

I just showed the video to my nearly 17-year-old. His response: Monckton was so pwned.

Seriously, Sinclair deserves a huge vote of thanks from all of us.

On the Python subtopic, this predates Monckton, yet it does the job nevertheless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70-HTlKRXo

As to words - McIntyre sounds rather tinny to me! Enjoy the video!

Ah, "The Monck".., he's not still running around claiming to be a member of the House of Lord's is he? He's hereditary peer. As to his status with the HoL:

"...Although an hereditary peer, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Of the 43 candidates, 31 â including Monckton â received no votes in the election. He was highly critical of the way that the Lords had been reformed, describing the by-election procedure, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion."

Again Wikipedia: "...Formerly, most of them were entitled to a seat in House of Lords, but since the House of Lords Act 1999 only ninety-two are permitted to sit..."

Instead of having simply having it handed to you for being born into nobility, who actually have to compete in a democratic process!

Seems as though his peers did not want him the club.

Surely they are in league with the "warmists" in trying to suppress "The Truth" about the global warming hoax.

Graham Chapman even resembles Monckton.

If only the Pythons were together now - imagine the parodies they might do...

Nailed Monckton.

Just excellent. A comic opera saw Christopher Monckton coming a hundred and thirty years out, Peter Sinclair noticed, and hilarity ensues.

Joanne Nova has published another of her sad diatribes in ABC's The Drum . This time it's about the CRU hacked emails, and subsequent inquiry.
She's using the same old denialist arguments rehashed to say... surprise, surprise... WHITEWASH! :)

As a member of the better classes of British society I'd like to condemn the above youtube video of the British upper crust in the strongest possible terms.

Most of my friends are thoroughly decent people and not the least bit vacuous or sociopathic. Hardly any of them are bothered by the tinniness of our lower and servile classes, and none of them hass ever sacked a servant named Simkins instead of having a bath. Each of them did it while having a bath. As for shooting caribou on your back lawn -- who hasn't? If you don't cull the little blighters they will absolutely make a mess not only of your croquet hoops, but your bowling green as well. And where would we be then? It would be Cambridge v Oxford 1934 all over again.

Dudley Hamfisted-Smythe Esq. IV
12a Butthole Commons
Pratt's Bottom
Essex

PS I love a good laugh as much as the next chap. The next chap however doesn't like laughing much at all. Whenever it happens, he has to get his swarthy and muscular manservant and pool boy Jorge to administer the heimlich manoeuvre. He likes this, perhaps because Jorge is so woody.

Joanne Nova has published another of her sad diatribes in ABC's The Drum .

This one seems even more full of it than usual. I've posted a few comments...

Lotharsson: Your comments aren't showing yet (2:48 EST). I addressed specifically her hilarious graphs. Hey The Drum sure do take their time to put comments up. With the standard of some that get through you wonder what takes so long... it's not like the moderating is all that stringent.

Your comments aren't showing yet (2:48 EST).

I noticed. Not sure why. I've found in the past some comments simply never appeared.

Some of my comments have just appeared, some way down though.

And Ms Nova has responded to a comment wondering about her politics or which organisation she represents:

I represent myself. I'm a freelance science writer. I am beholden to no one. Most of what I do is pro bono, ie I'm effectively a charity worker. My unassailable moral high ground doesn't make me right. The strength of my logic and reasoning do.

Wow!

Here's a humorous video of Monckton feeding his BS to a Bible thumping committee member. The clip is entitled "CO2 is Plant Food & God Said No Flood Again."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrb6Vis5gak&feature=related

PS. Anthony Watts is a creationist. Why is global warming denialism so attractive to creationists?

I just visited The Drum and felt physically ill from the sheer stupidity of some of the denialist arguments there. Won't make that mistake again.

As for Nova, I think she has many things in common with Ann Coulter - a very loose grip on reality being one of them.

I see McLean has turned up on the Nova thread (who could have guessed) arguing, well, saying, that there is no way to know that the extra CO2 is caused by humans (!) - "Your assertions are mere anecdotal evidence of some warming. They are meaningless in the context of manmade climate change unless you can prove that they are due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions."

There is no end to this insanity!

justagreenie, to be fair to McLean he's only talking about those particular assertions - which IIRC were not intended to *make* the case that anthropogenic causes were at work - but I have little doubt he'd generalise his response to most claims of mechanisms for AGW.

Surprisingly, I have been moderated off The Drum more than I have anywhere else except at WUWT and at the American Thinker [sic]. The last time was for telling Alan Moran that he was not acquainted with scientific fact.

in a similar vein I posted the comment below on the Nova thread. In order to circumvent the high likelihood that it too will not pass moderation, it will be nice to have it recorded here.

My post was a response to Roy asking "Is Joanne Nova a Meteorologist or a Microbiologist?" (12 Apr 2010 1:02:40pm)...

She is neither. JoNova, or Joanne Codling as many know her, is a former TV presenter - ironically, of science.

I say "ironically", because although she mouths many impressive words, she fails to construct actual scientific narratives, especially in climatology, that would pass the scrutiny of any properly trained professional.

Of course, much of what she gabbles seems plausible to the lay people in her audience, but this is mere preaching to the choir, rather than proper science.

She might imagine otherwise, and she might promote herself as a scientific aithority, but "Jo Nova" is not a scientist. In fact, if she were an undergrad science student who submitted essays/reports to me in the subjects that I taught, she'd fail her courses with the quality of material that she presents as 'fact'.

It might serve well as 'opinion', but it is opinion separated from science by a rather wide gulf.

Lotharsson - I don't think you should be fair to McLean. His second paragraph reads "Don't look to the IPCC for proof. Before Climategate it was clear that the IPCC relied on dodgy models and now we find that the dodgy models were tuned to match dodgy temperatures supplied by Jones and his cronies."

How do these people live with themselves? Do they think they are fighting the good fight?

Lotharsson @ 43
I can understand your need to ridicule Jo after the savaging you got when trading comments with her, hardly surprising really as judging by number and length of your comments you prize volume over content.
You scatter gun approach is akin to the idiot with a thousand plans, as is to be expected the vast majority fail but you see the one that works as confirmation of your genius.

@50, Jo Nova does a good enough job of ridiculing herself.

For example, her 2nd para starts with the crusty old "trick to hide the decline", which she harps on about for a while and which must've now been explained 10000 times or more. It is openly discussed in several scientific papers and has always been public knowledge.

Nor has she bothered to read about the papers on urban heat island effect.

In fact, one eventually wonders what she has actually read in the published scientific literature. I would have to conclude at face value, "very little".

Thanks for the pointer to Jo Nova's post on the drum. Its really very interesting reading it as lots of people on there are alive to Colding's line of argument.

The funny bit is reading Colding's replies. She has to be polite, unlike her blog, otherwise the drum moderator will remove her posts and it must be really hard for her because she is getting told off left right and centre and she can't scream at them in print as she does on her blog. Thanks Lothaarsson et al for blogging on her post.

I must have lost count, but the article of Nova's seems to tip the ABC's "balance" in favour of the deniers.

Also, Jo's got a lot of posts supporting her, compared to the foolish article by the IPA a couple of days ago, which was pretty well drowned out in the comments (at least last time I looked). I expect Nova gathered her followers on her blog to go and make comments. And it looks as if they are busy 'alerting moderators' to get rid of any posts they don't like. Not nice.

OT but Four Corners is on the Hunter Valley coal mines tonight. Might be worth a look.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2867659.htm

@52

@51 "very little" a personal admission or a killer retort?
@52 Jo is always polite on her blog even if some of the bloggers are not.
@53

I expect Nova gathered her followers on her blog to go and make comments. And it looks as if they are busy 'alerting moderators' to get rid of any posts they don't like. Not nice.

Incorrect but more palatable than the truth perhaps?

allen mcmahon:

JoNova is right... Jonova is right... JoNova is right... Om... Om... Om...

Crikey, she's even sending her congregation (#55) over here.

Believe it or not, distorting the truth is NOT okay, even if you're polite about it (which Nova is most definitely not) :(

Get a life Sou, the warmists have been distorting the truth for years....veritas liberabit vos.

@55 It was the same last time she wrote an article on the Drum. The story was bombarded with comments by many of her regulars.
They are some of the most hard-core, blinkered deniers around.

@56 ouch! amazing wit and sparkling repartee MENSA must value your contributions.
@57 but Jo is polite and its rather naughty of you to distort the truth right after moralizing about it.

/
.

@60 Polite? If you call belittling people and being both arrogant and condescending "polite" then maybe.

Well I guess she doesn't swear.

Psychopaths and liars are most effective when they are polite. So what?

@60 At least you haven't tried to perpetuate the lie that Nova doesn't deliberately deceive, even though your concept of 'polite' would not meet the criteria of most people.

Just one of a myriad examples where she is deliberately trying to deceive:
"He makes excuses that a "trick" is a clever way of doing something, which it might be, but when it's a clever way to "hide a decline" it's obviously deceptive. (And deception when money is involved, as it certainly is here on a massive scale, is fraud.)"

If she doesn't know about the actual meaning by now then she's either stupid or prefers to remain ignorant. And I don't believe either is the case, so that leaves deliberate intent to deceive the public.

Who is trying to defraud humanity? Ms Nova is a prime candidate. She wants to win political points for herself now and let the coming generations pay the huge price for her perfidy. The word traitor is not too strong for people like Ms Nova.

@58 and 60:

I think if you watch the video you can fairly clearly see who is distorting the truth.

Funny that Monckton still wants to cherry-pick the 1998 temperature anomaly to "prove" long term cooling trends. That is soooo yesterday's denialist tactic. We've moved on now to the "grand conspiracy", and are in the process of uncovering the "conspiracies to hide the conspiracies".

Also alive and well of course is the tactic of demanding the raw climate data and source code very sneakily [kept under lock and key](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/) where no-one can find it.

Quiz question: Is El Gordo Monckton's virtual personality for this blog, trying to impress with Latin and all that crock, or just a poor attempt to copycat?

I hate to wade into this discussion but IMHO Nova is a hack, and a pretty useless one at that, too.

A couple of days ago she wrote an appalling piece on her web site in which she belittled an attempt by an attorney in the UK to classify ecocide as a crime. She goes on to jest at such a law against what she percieves as 'unimportant' organisms that include (in her words) *flat-fish, garden-variety weeds, fungus, and algae*.

To be fair, Lomborg did the same thing is his wretched book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist". The thrust of their arguments appears to be that man has evolved above and beyond any constraints imposed by natural systems, and that most of nature is probably superfluous to human 'requirements' as well.

Sadly, as a population ecologist, I have to respond to this kind of kindergarten-level understanding of my field all of the time. The fact is that many of the organisms that would probably be denigrated by the likes of Nova and Lomborg perform critical regulating functions as parts of broader ecological communities in which they exist. There is little doubt, for instance, that if we were to lose nitrogen fixing bacteria alone, our species would be in deep trouble. Add to that pollinating insects, pest controlling arthropods, and a suite of ecological services performed in the soil and we now are fully aware that conditions - services in lay English - emerge over variable spatial and temporal scales from natural systems that regulate flows of water and nutrients, break down wastes, regenerate the soil and atmosphere and perform numerous other functions that permit humans to exist and persist. Through functional redundancy where different species fill similar ecological roles, natural systems are resistant to both man-made and natural perterbations and also exhibit resilience in being able to return to some equilibrium after a major disturbance. Lose biodiversity cumulatively over time and these services break down, with large economic and social costs for humanity.

We are now aware - or we should be - that regulating services alone are worth trillions of dollars to the global economy every year, and far more than the sum of all GDPs of all nations combined (see discussion by Costanza et al., Nature, 1997). Basically, natural systems are worth the sum of many of their parts, but even now our understanding of the ways in which these interactions are played out is still in its relative infancy. We can say with confidence that natural systems sustain man in many ways that go beyond direct consumptive or aesthetic value. Given the importance of ecosystem services in sustaining civilization, and our poor knowledge of the roles played by species and genetically distinct populations, we exterminate any at our potential peril.

It is for this reason that I generally steer well clear of weblogs run for ideological reasons. One brief foray into Nova's site was enough for me to stomach.

allen - thanks very much for providing a good laugh :-) Humour is always appreciated. I certainly feel like I've been savaged by Ms Nova - albeit about as savagely as could be managed by a particularly ferocious toothless baby. Your own evidence-free assertions do not add anything to that level of mauling ;-)

Trading comments with Ms Nova has proven to also be quite amusing, as has been previously reported on Deltoid threads. Her concept of the insulating properties of a vacuum in the context of atmospheric physics - and her repeated assertions that she is too right, dammit - were a big hit. And her admonishment to come to her blog to learn in a post where I pointed out that she misrepresented the greenhouse gas signature (stratospheric cooling) which was plainly visible even on her cherry-picked and misleading graphs which she asked readers to eyeball rather than look at the statistical analysis provided in the paper she referenced were priceless :-)

But hey, in the land of the blind, the loud and confident sightless person is the regent, no?

Jo is always polite on her blog even if some of the bloggers are not.

She's certainly not always polite at The Drum - I speak from personal experience. She's quite capable of pointed little ad homs if she's got no come back to people pointing out that she's clearly not following her own self-proclaimed mantra of "following the evidence"...

...IMHO Nova is a hack...

This also seems clear from the latest post at The Drum which is full of zombie talking points. And from earlier interactions with her at The Drum.

She talks a reasonable game about how to be scientific - but utterly fails to follow through, and berates those who do but reach different opinions for not agreeing with her cherrypicked sources and authorities.

Dudley Hamfisted-Smythe Esq. IV @39 is obviously a fraud. It takes very little investigation on Google Maps to ascertain that Pratt's Bottom is a village in Kent not Essex as you claim in your address.

Here's an example of Ms Nova's devastating rebuttal to someone pointing out that the "hide the decline" comment has been explained, the underlying work published in journals, and does not mean something nefarious was afoot:

Hmmm. So you believe someone who uses "tricks" to "hide" things from you? More pity you.

Evidence-free re-assertion of the original fallacies which have - I'm guessing that really qualifies as a mauling in allen's book ;-)

Speaking of Ms Nova's legendary politeness and disdain for ad hom, at the Drum someone called JoNova wrote:

Deep Fritz, anonymous chicken that you are, your ad hom lies and baseless slurs would embarrass any media organisation.

Ms Nova savaging my comment that analysis shows that her suggestion that poor station siting has produced a warming basis is unfounded in reality:

You ought to know that with statistics they can homogenize the "urban" versus "rural" sets to come up with any answer they want. The photos of air conditioners and air ports can't be statistically removed.

el gordo:

Get a life Sou

Hypocrisy is one of the symptoms of el gordo's psychosis.

Sorry to continue the Nova theme, but perhaps this also is considered "savaging" by allen?

Yes, please, do provide some evidence. I'd like to see one empirical paper backing any catastrophic warming - anything over 1.5 degrees.

Yes, please. The IPCC will hail you as a hero if you find the paper they can't.

So...about those dozen or so independent lines of evidence reported by the IPCC that indicate climate sensitivity > 1.5 degrees...

93 Sou,

I found this at JoNova.

Trials for people who twist, deny, and distort science? Bring it on, I say. Skeptical science would triumph in any court where real evidence was cross-examined.

Oh, the irony! Yes, the liars, delusionals and pseudosceptics would get exposed and real sceptics (you know, actual scientists who publish in reputable peer-reviewed journals) would win every time. Does she even understand the words she uses?

63, doh!

Side-stepping the JNova bash to get back on topic....

The Rabbet recounts how BYU geology prof Barry Bickmore takes Potty Peer Monckton to the wood shed:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html

And Tamino throws a few cords on top for good measure:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckey-business/

Joanne Nova/Codling took exception to [my post on The Drum](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt…):

Psst Bernard, is this your idea of "research". You only have to read my bio to know that you're wrong. Not that my qualifications matter. My writing stands or falls on it's merits, not on any paper certificate. [13 Apr 2010 1:02:42am]

To which I replied, with high chance of not passing moderation or avoiding "reporting":

Psst Joanne.

I have read your bio, and that's where I got my facts.

Your most recognisable stint was as host for Channel 9's series, unless you believe that your ABC audience gave you more significant recognition. This is why I listed it in a post that was likely to be pulled if I said too much, as has happened before. I will risk exactly this, however, in order to elaborate as I wanted to the first timeâ¦

Your work post-Honours as a performer and then a manager for Shell's Science Circus, and then as an 'associate lecturer' helping to "develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years" does not constitute working as a "scientist". Nor does your "focus... on the science of monetary systems, financial history, [and] the gold market".

Your work to promote climate change denial is not science either, but if you disagree I am happy to hear your explanation to the contrary.

Writing a children's book on science does not constitute working as a scientist, and nor does "working as a cartoonist, graphic designer and illustrator".

You are not a meteorologist, and although you did Honours under a microbiologist your project title, "Molecular biology and muscle regeneration" does not indicate that it was a microbiological topic - at least, not the sort of microbiology that I used to teach. So you are not a microbiologist, and indeed, by anyone's standard acceptance of what a scientists is, doing an Honours project and then not working in a straight scientific discipline does not constitute being a "scientist".

One may be well acquainted with the work of scientists without actually being a scientist. You are one example of this. Further, one may be well acquainted with the work of scientists without actually understanding all of their science, or presenting it accurately to a lay audience. Again, you are one example of this. Of course, if you disagree you have but to explain how it is that you understand the physics of climate change as well as physicists and climatologists do, and to guarantee that all of the material that you have published is completely accurate to the best contemporary understanding of the professionals in the various disciplines.

As I am likely to been "reported" for this post I will put a copy up on Deltoid, so that it does not disappear into the æther.

If you believe that I am incorrect in my assertion that none of your professional work constitutes you being a scientist, I am happy to delve into it further. I may miss posts here though, because of the awkward format for reading posts, so you can find me at Deltoid.

The ABC is publishing defamation and libel by Nova but censoring out comments such as Bernard's that point out what is obvious: Nova libels scientists while claiming to be one herself, yet by any reasonable understanding of the word "scientist" she is none. Allen above says she's "polite", I suppose because he hasn't seen her use any bad words; it's OK by him that she is "politely" defaming honest people while lying (or deluding herself) about being a scientist herself. Modern times!

She's not a big enough fish for Peter Sinclair and Crock of the Week to bother with, but she is a bad enough character.

@79, yeah it's very weird isn't it?

I mean, individual scientists have now been exonerated by two recent and completely separate inquiries, with more undoubtedly to come (hard to see the others in progress turning up any new damning evidence), yet Nova and her fan club get away with quite flagrantly accusing them of being liars, frauds, and committing criminal acts.

I'd actually love it to go to trial, notwithstanding that I fully accept the scientists would not need that stress. It would be Kitzmiller all over again. I could see a Republican-appointed Judge making a ruling accusing denialists of "breathtaking inanity" (which is, after all, an accurate description of almost everything they say and do), perjury (which given their record on the internet would seem likely too), and so on. It would be entered into the permanent record and be on show for all to see.

I hasten to add it would have to be a civil trial, as there is clearly not enough evidence to press charges against scientists for anything whatsoever.

Which brings up another interesting thing: I wonder how much police time the denialists have so far wasted urging them to criminally investigate?

@63 perfidy what a quaint word I do so love hyperbole
@67 I am pleased that you appreciate humor there is little of it in climate blogs and on gets so bored with righteous indignation. A minor quibble re qoute
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, more succinct and packs a better punch.
@79 defamation and libel how incendiary, what we need is an "eco-cide" law, stuff - democracy and to hell with freedom of speech.
You may trivialize Monckton, Nova et. al. but you underestimate their ability to shape opinion in the general community. Political will and public opinion go hand in hand. The MSM is basically immoral but are quick to sense change and skeptics are certainly getting plenty of air time, a major shift from even twelve months ago.
BTW I see no conspiracy by scientists or other groups that support the GW hypothesis. I am sure that they are honest in their beliefs and regardless of whether they are correct or not they are making a positive contribution to our understanding of mechanisms that drive earths' climate. I am also dubious of 'big oil' conspiracy theories as well.I do however believe we share our planet with shape shifting lizards.

I've sent a note to the ABC complaining about the Nova Unleashed article on the grounds that it defames people and contains false and misleading statements that are easily shown to be so.

The online complaints form is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complaints.htm

Bud:

>In a beautiful meeting of minds, Monckton is now climate cchange spokesman for UKIP.

Thanks for that info.
Went to a hustings last week organised by the RSPB just before he apparently joined and the UKIP candidate was obviously a skeptic and despite the fact that all questions were about conservation, he managed to include immigration and the EU in every answer.

Alan said in part:

I do however believe we share our planet with shape shifting lizards.

From personal experience of the denier movement no doubt ...

Graeme Bird has turned up on Nova's latest Drum thread.

I guess he's shaken off his tarring and feathering at Pharyngula.

And Ms Nova is doing her best to emulate Bird's reflexive "no it's not" or "you're lying" or "where's the evidence" tics with comments such as

Sou, still got no evidence eh?

Jeff Harvey, having had a look at that thread it strikes me it's Nova and her Ayn Rand-worshipping acolytes mouthing off whatever thought wanders into their looking for something to bump into. It's so far off the dial that even the Stupid-o-Tronic Meter2000 app I've got running reported a failure code. What Nova and her brainwashed coterie either forget or conveniently overlook is that in most "developed" (now there's a word to conjure with) nations there are already laws that restrict the capacity of individuals, groups, companies etc etc to harm, kill or otherwise cause the loss or extinction of species, populations and ecological communities. On top of that, there are also laws and regulations that prevent or limit any body's right to pollute water, air or soil. Now I'm not saying any of these laws, regulations, codes of practice and whatnot are all that effective (anyone with eyes who wanders outside can see they're not), but I would like to see what Nova and any one of her devotees would do if (say) Orica (the Company Formerly Known As ICI) decided to set up shop next door. I'd lay any odds they'd spend all day and all night for months on end furiously researching what rights they had to object up to and including environmental pollution regulations, and any and every rule, regulation, code of practice and Act that even mentioned the words "endangered", "species" and "impact".

I'd pay good money to see Nova perform that kind of backflip (with pike. Or tench. Or carp. Oh, carp, definitely carp).

Above, first sentence, insert "head" after "wandering into their".

This is too good to ignore - Ms Nova:

How could I attack [ad hom] the anonymous MFS?

Apparently you can't ad hom someone if they don't use their real name. Astounding! Does "Jo Nova" count as a "real name"?

And:

A PhD isn't worth anything any more. They give them out to people who think insults are a form of scientific reasoning. It's a travesty.

Do I detect some Ph.D. envy? Perhaps inspired by the thought that even John McLean can allegedly get into a Ph.D. program? Surely not!

A minor quibble re qoute In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, more succinct and packs a better punch.

Indeed, but it is not apropos to Ms Nova and her followers, hence my variation.

I find this type of blog most amusing.
Let's compare Al Gore, the champion of AGW alarmism, to someone like Monckton, a champion of AGW scepticism, Monckton appears to be a brilliant scientist, which of course he isn't.
Alarmists tend not to mention Gore much these days, I wonder why?

Lotharsson (89): Does "Jo Nova" count as a "real name"?

Given everything I've read of hers seems to be recycled post-consumer waste (if not undiluted biosolids), my first thought was to wonder whether her moniker wasn't her doing wry irony.

My first thought lasted all of 10 milliseconds.

One should add, Alan, that there has always been a distinct market for science fantasy, potboiler conspiracy theories, and much else we Aussies would call shaggy dog stories. It helps a lot in the marketing that the particular shaggy dog story that Jo Nova and here ilk tell maps well to one side of the main political faultline separating left and right, and that the bulk of the really ignorant and socially marginalised in educated societies -- i.e. those who feel most threatened by intellectual elites precisely because they remind them of their isolation -- are from the same side of that faultline.

But all the venting and yammering from the assembled cranks, morons, and sociopaths that are the target demographic for the filth merchant mouths for hire like Nova will make no difference. Only addressing the problems with policy will.

@ Earthing

I know, I know! Cos he's fat, right?

Earthling @91 tried:

Alarmists tend not to mention Gore much these days, I wonder why?

The alarmists mention Gore all the time. By contrast, those of us who accept the mainstream science aren't much bothered with what he does popularising it and so see no need to comment.

I find this type of blog most amusing. Let's compare Al Gore, the champion of AGW alarmism, to someone like Monckton, a champion of AGW scepticism

You left out the thousands of climate scientists and other educated people who accept AGW, and their counterparts on the denialist side ... oh, wait, there are no counterparts on the denialist side.

Alarmists tend not to mention Gore much these days, I wonder why?

It's the denialists, like yourself, who constantly mention Al Gore.

I hope part 2 of the video mentions that Monckton is a massive NIMBY hypocrite, who championed mountaintop removal in West Virginia [while opposing development near to his house on environmental grounds](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/12/lord-monckton-en…).

Monckton thinks that global warming is a communist plot to hand sovreignty of the US to the UN. Al Gore thinks man affects the climate, but with leadership we can do something about it.

Now tell me who is the alarmist.

@ 85 rather unkind to lizards
@ 86 perhaps the report of birds crashing into cliffs is a guilt by association issue rather than a result of GW
@93

It helps a lot in the marketing that the particular shaggy dog story that Jo Nova and here ilk tell maps well to one side of the main political faultline separating left and right, and that the bulk of the really ignorant and socially marginalised in educated societies -- i.e. those who feel most threatened by intellectual elites precisely because they remind them of their isolation -- are from the same side of that faultline.

A gross simplification sharing common ground with how the extreme right views the left. Most of the truly ignorant and marginalised don't give a toss one way or the other. It is little wonder that there is a problem with communicating the science if you assume that the majority of people who are sceptical of GW are stupid, gullible or both. It is also self defeating because if you actually believe the above is true then communication is impossible.

> It is little wonder that there is a problem with communicating the science if you assume that the majority of people who are sceptical of GW are stupid, gullible or both. It is also self defeating because if you actually believe the above is true then communication is impossible.

Alas, when such 'sceptics' come over here for a chat they inevitably reveal themselves to be stupid, gullible or both (c.f. 'empirical evidence' thread, or any posts by our friend El Gordo). With that in mind, I'm almost forced to conclude that it's actually not an assumption...

Have people seen [this letter from Monckton to Kiven Rudd](http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/01/05/1225816/411816-monckton-l…)? He's a bit.... well, judge for yourselves.

Interesting to see that he also uses the crowned portcullis (symbol of the UK Parliament) in his letterhead. As pointed out in #28 above, he shouldn't be doing that. The UK parliament's website states:

"[The Crowned Portcullis](http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm#C…)

Use of the House emblem, the Crowned Portcullis, is governed by the following statement:

The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House."

Well, it looks as though [my post on The Drum](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt…) did not pass moderation. A subsequent comment that I made is up, but there's still no sign of my reply to Jo Nova.

It seems that Auntie is leaning further to the right every day.

I just hope that Nova/Codling reads my post here - I'd be really interested in hearing what she has to say by way of response.

101 Lord Sidcup,

I like your spelling "Kiven". Australian accent? ;)

But yes, Munchkin is still using the emblem, or one *very* similar.

102 Bernard,

Just like any other denidiot, she will accuse you of ignoring the science and resorting to ad hom attacks.

It looks to be off of YouTube now.

105 TheATHiker,

What is? [Video here](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610).

Paul UK

Thanks for that info. Went to a hustings last week organised by the RSPB just before he apparently joined and the UKIP candidate was obviously a skeptic and despite the fact that all questions were about conservation, he managed to include immigration and the EU in every answer.

They are indeed a funny lot at UKIP. Nigel Farage's assertions in the European country that Belgium wasn't a real country were hilarious, and cost him a fair bit of money in fines as well IIRC. Where I'm from - Sheffield - their local branch appears to depend entirely on a single family. The Arnotts are fielding no less than four candidates across the parliamentary and council elections on May 6th, including one in my constituency.

DoH! "European Parliament", not "European country" ^^^. I think I am suffering from final-year deadline dementia.

It is plain that much of the climategate nonsense was an attempt to discredit the HadCrut global temperature record using any means available including slander and character assassination.

In a couple of posts over on the Drum, I strongly suggested that it was time to cut the crap, put up or shut up and for skeptics to actually produce an alternate surface temperature record using the GHCN dataset.

It seems that a couple have made an honest attempt:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/

They find a per decade trend of +0.248C compared to HadCrut +0.224C for the land surface temperature since 1978.

Joanne Nova will not be at all pleased. Will they be thrown under the bus too?

It is little wonder that there is a problem with communicating the science if you assume that the majority of people who are sceptical of GW are stupid, gullible or both.

I don't think that is the assumption across all of the population. However, when it comes down to people expressing their self-described "scepticism" on internet message boards and have obviously taken enough of an interest in the subject to profess admiration for the climate denier de jour, then that's a different matter.

Would this be the same Moncton who allegedly is working on a cure for aids?

quokka #109.

The second reply in your link:

"Iâd prefer to not see any confirmation of Jonesâ work, but my first pass through this leaves me saying âcoolâ. Let me take a few more passes. In the mean time, congratulations to Roman. I suspect if Jones was right, it was by accident."

No further comment necessary...

@111: AIDS, Grave's disease, multiple sclerosis and the common cold. Quite a miracle cure.

Bob Carter will be talking at a forum in my home town soon. I'd like to go, in the hope that I might get a chance to ask him a question from the floor.

Over to you folks: let's hear your suggestions for a zinger.

"Do you now accept that your paper with McLean and de Freitas was wrong?" might not get much traction with the angry, over-60 farmers who will make up most of the audience.

Alan McMahon@99

Most of the truly ignorant and marginalised don't give a toss one way or the other.

Precisely why the shaggy dog story, particularly if couched in terms that address their cultural angst, appeals. That's why the plebeian good sense of their own version of Joe the Plumber works for them.

It is little wonder that there is a problem with communicating the science if you assume that the majority of people who are sceptical of GW are stupid, gullible or both.

It is very clear that the usages of our system produce significant numbers of marginalised and ignorant people. As a person who is an egalitarian and a humanist I find this unacceptable and strongly favour measures that would underpin more equitable and inclusive societies.

My name is not Pollyanna though. We do face an ecosystem service problem that is simply not about to wait around while we design and implement a more equitable social system. We cannot allow our concern with the sensitivities of the marginalised to confound our attempts to deal with something that will in short order setback the life chances of whole swathes of marginalised humanity if not all of us. Whether they know it or not, almost all of us will be harmed
one way or another, and them in particular if robust policy is not implemented very soon.

It is also self defeating because if you actually believe the above is true then communication is impossible.

In some cases, this is true. Some people are simply too damaged to make communication beyond the prosaic possible. As a teacher who has worked out in Sydney's less salubrious suburbs, I have met such people on a regular basis. One must assume that were they able to grasp their legitimate interests, they would have us act to defend them.

These people are not skeptics in any meaningful sense precisely because they don't grasp what it is they doubt and have little means to approach such a grasp. What they are is more akin to people overhearing conversations in another language in a lift. Some of the words are familiar and with a little confabulation they can put it together in something that is intelligible, but a critique is clearly impossible. If they visit Jo Nova or Bolt, then they can copy and paste something that superficially more scientistic but it will still be a shaggy dog story. They will still be little distinguished from the ventriloquist's dummy. The irony is that Jo Nova, if she is not a witting trickster with a narcissistic streak or someone playing to a market niche, is surely a ventriloquist's dummy of sorts herself. Indeed, she may be all three.

I've made a few comments over at The Drum on that Jo Nova piece, however I'd like to take the opportunity to publicly acknowledge Lotharsson's work. Brilliant stuff and not a single coherent comeback from Ms Nova.

Over to you folks: let's hear your suggestions for a zinger.

Ask him why farmers should take the risk that he is right and all the people who actually do relevant scientific work in the field are wrong. Ask him why even the rough possibiolity that the livelihoods of these farmers children and the value of the land could be ruined by drought, unseasonable rain or coastal inundation. Ask him why the risk of ingress of invasive pests or new diseases made possible by climate change would be worth having. Ask him what he thinks will happen if a significant portion of Bangladesh is rendered uninhabitable? Where will these displaced people go?

Lord_Sidcup @ 101. Thanks for posting Monckton's letter written to our Kev.

It just shows that Monckton is the gift that just keeps on giving. Just sit back for a minute and think how Kev felt, if he read any of it, at being regarded as a complete and utter idiot by a condescending Monckton (I'm assuming the letter is genuine and not something from a Chris Morris sketch).

Two things. 1st, I just don't get why the deniers hang on to Monckton. The second is more serious...... Just imagine if we find a single, easy, straighforward way to mitigate climate change. Would the reputation and work of people like Mockton make it very difficult to convince people at large that a straighforward solution to global warming has been found.

Regarding Monckton's letter, by far the best bit is the bright shiny crown that sits at the top of the page. Just wonderful!

115 Fran,

These people are not skeptics in any meaningful sense precisely because they don't grasp what it is they doubt and have little means to approach such a grasp. What they are is more akin to people overhearing conversations in another language in a lift. Some of the words are familiar and with a little confabulation they can put it together in something that is intelligible, but a critique is clearly impossible. If they visit Jo Nova or Bolt, then they can copy and paste something that superficially more scientistic but it will still be a shaggy dog story. They will still be little distinguished from the ventriloquist's dummy. The irony is that Jo Nova, if she is not a witting trickster with a narcissistic streak or someone playing to a market niche, is surely a ventriloquist's dummy of sorts herself. Indeed, she may be all three.

QFT

Oh man. Just got myself into an exchange there at the Drum with someone called "Doc_Navy".

The word clueless springs to mind. He thinks because he is a taxpayer he by default has unfettered access to everything he wants in any Government or taxpayer funded organisation. Even classified projects in the military (yes you read that correctly).

I often wonder whether denialist minds are actually representative of a cluster-group of individuals who have been exposed to severely neuro-toxic substances. Could this be the case?

>I often wonder whether denialist minds are actually representative of a cluster-group of individuals who have been exposed to severely neuro-toxic substances. Could this be the case?

Unfortunately we'll never know, Mike. That's classified military information.

Whoops...

As an egalitarian and a humanist I'm happy to let our democratic system create a more equitable and inclusive society, but I will not be encouraging children to swallow CO2 malarchy to create utopia.

El Gordo started:

As an egalitarian and a humanist ...

Laughable. Apart from the obvious indifference you show to human welfare over this issue or its impact on equity for that matter, at no point have you ever uttered anything like an idea connected with interest in human wellbeing or equality here. If you have uttered them someplace else in cybersapce, now's your chance to point us to it.

And for the record, you ask all of us to swallow your CO2 'malarchy' all the time.

Some examples of El Gordo's "egalitarian" and "humanist" advocacy, in case he has overlooked them ...

Ralph Hillman became the new executive director of the Australian Coal Association last August.

He is a government man, being a former ambassador for the Environment and the OECD. He was also head of the Trade Development division of the Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Is he the right man for the job? Does he know that AGW is a monstrous fraud? Does the coal industry have a PR arm? If not, I gladly offer my services for a small consideration.

el gordo of bathurst (Reply)
Sat 31 Jan 09 (02:52pm)

Turnbull is a wimp and Costello (my apologies to the host) has proven he is just as spineless over climate change.

We have to give our support to the Nationals, at least they have the bottle.

el gordo of bathurst (Reply)
Tue 26 May 09 (06:58am)

Offering himself as a better spruiker for coal interests and touting for the Nationals seem poor exemplars for someone claiming to be a humanist or egalitarian. Would he walk into a National Party gathering and make this claim? Would he walk into a meeting of the ACA and argue for egalitarianism and humanism at coal companies and expect a reasonable hearing? It's hard to imagine.

Being an economic rationalist does not exclude me from humanist values.

If you were an economic rationalist El Gordo, you would favour full internalisation of the costs of every industrial process, including of course, that for coal. Plainly you don't as this post shows:

Ralph Hillman became the new executive director of the Australian Coal Association last August.

He is a government man, being a former ambassador for the Environment and the OECD. He was also head of the Trade Development division of the Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Is he the right man for the job? Does he know that AGW is a monstrous fraud? Does the coal industry have a PR arm? If not, I gladly offer my services for a small consideration.

//blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_shady_offer_from_the_solar_carpetbaggers/

el gordo of bathurst Sat 31 Jan 09 (02:52pm)

No economic rationalist would be advocating a vote for the rural porkbarrel kings known as the National Party as you do here:

Turnbull is a wimp and Costello (my apologies to the host) has proven he is just as spineless over climate change.

We have to give our support to the Nationals, at least they have the bottle.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

el gordo of bathurst (Reply)Tue 26 May 09 (06:58am)

I'm wondering how you aquare this with your claims above? Since when does the ACA or the National Party favour either inclusiveness or egalitarianism?

You are a compulsive dissembler.

A humanist, economic rationalist and scientific expert. How lucky we are to have a true renaissance man here.

@ Fran 115, I agree. The language used at McIntyre, Watts and Nova is complex and designed to dazzle and make people feel like they're experts. My, all these graphs! All these statistics! The posts are so long! I don't know what they mean but they "seem reasonable."

Then those bozos come here and repeat the same abbreviations (El Fraudo, I'm looking at you) to pretend they have some kind of authority on the topic.

What I like about Deltoid, Real Climate and Open Mind (among others) is that they're entirely accessible. These websites are designed to inform, not impress the impressionable and gullible (i.e. Fraudo).

Apologies as this is strictly OT - but we've spent a bit of time on this topic in this thread already.

More Ms Nova gems for posterity:

Doh: Neolithic "thinker" says that if an institute in da US ever pays a woman in Australia then that means Phil Jones didn't try to hide declines, (even though he admits he did.)

It must be tough when basic logic escapes you and you are left to chuck slurs.

In context, it seems like that could be interpreted as a tacit admission that she has been paid by The Heartland Institute or The CEI...and it's highly ironic that basic logic escapes her in the first sentence of the paragraph - the poster never claimed that, let alone the "hide the decline" furphy.

In response to a comment about ad homs, referring to the CRU scientists:

All they have to do to make their personal character irrelevant was act with standard scientific conscience and ethics

So apparently ad homs are just fine with Ms Nova if scientists don't act according to her definition of conscience and ethics. (Given that she claims her moral position is unassailable after penning a smear job, one HOPES that scientists don't share her ethics and morals.)

And in response to a commenter saying "It is those who attack the science and rationalism that has lifted us out of the stone age who show a stone age mentality.", Ms Nova:

exactly Jerry. So why do you do it?

I feel like I'm back at primary school.

And a bonus from Graeme Bird arguing against the idea that McIntyre should have got the Canadian data from Canada:

But when you are dealing with science fraud you have to get the data from all sources or else it can be tampered with.

Epic Fail!

I second [Jimmy Nightingale's sentiment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt…). Lotharsson has been a stalwart on that thread, and as I was reading it last night it was quite apparent that Nova/Codling does not have the wherewithall to actually engage in a real-time debate on anything scientific. She's a bit like Graeme Bird in that respect - "show me the evidence" is all that she can manage.

She'd be plastered against a wall in a debate with Tim Lambert. In fact, I think that I might promote that meme - that Nova/Codling offer herself up for a debate when next she's in Tim's corner of the world - because she's had a lot to say both about Tim and about the Lambert/Monckton debate.

There's no way that she'd accept, but it'll be interesting to read her reasons why. And if she just avoids responding altogether, well, she still ends up looking like a goose...

@127 Credit where credit is due. RomanM, statistical consultant to McIntyre, has managed via JeffID to replicate Phil Jone's result using RomanM's methods( see @109). This is truly remarkable. Game Over.

How about Jo and Tim having a debate on Andrew Bolt's new radio station?

...because she's had a lot to say both about Tim...

Including:

I have pointed out the errors in Lamberts blog many times http://joannenova.com.au/tag/lambert-tim/

Mike:

Just got myself into an exchange there at the Drum with someone called "Doc_Navy".
The word clueless springs to mind.

I pointed out the satellite derivation at www.ssmi.com and this is how he responded:

SSMI *is NOT* one of the four databases used for global temp calculation. those four would be:

NASA GISS (Surface based)
HadCruT (Surface based)
UAH (Satellite based)
RSS (Satellite based)

Needless to say, RSS is at www.ssmi.com. The words "arrogant moron" spring to mind. These are the sorts of people we are dealing with.

Is Chen Zheyu @128 really just about food and Buddhism? How strange...

Apologies for mangling the name of your PM in #101 (Kiven!) - my careless typing and nothing to do with the Australian accent (digs himself a deeper hole).

Monckton's arrogance is astounding. He offered Kevin Rudd âpersonal briefings on why âglobal warmingâ is a non-problemâ. He is not a scientific expert. He is does not hold political office. Like me he is simply a private citizen of the UK. He uses his hereditary title and illegitimately uses the emblem of the UK parliament on his letterhead to present himself as a person of importance. The rest of his letter reads like the kind of rant that wouldnât even make publication in the letters page of a regional newspaper. You couldnât parody the man.

Contrary to the impression Monckton might give when abroad, he isnât a public figure here in the UK and most people have never heard of him. Indeed, my impression is that hard-core deniers here are rather embarrassed by him.

I have contacted the Houses of Parliament to point out his use of their emblem. Iâm not expecting much to come of it, but it is worth a try.

(In case you are wondering, Iâm not a real Lord. I use the title in an ironic way, which I think is just as legitimate as someone using the title having inherited it.)

Are you actually from Sidcup, m'lord? I grew up in Bromley you know, but I was just a revolting peasant.

And the 2nd climategate report is in and ........... no malpractice found:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm

Stu - I have no connection with Sidcup, I'm just a bit of a fan of the comic character [Roderick Spode](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Spode) from the Jeeves novels. I like to think that if Woodhouse were writing today he would base a character on Monckton, a bit like he based Spode on Oswald Mosley. I actully live in Hackney, London N16 - we have peasants too.

#138 - kfr - funny how they still manage to get a few kicks in nevertheless.

"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians"

Sounds rather insinuating doesn't it?.

...no malpractice found...

No doubt there are already a hundred posts around the Internet proclaiming it a whitewash that is just another part of the Great Conspiracy. I expect someone will post a link to it on Ms Nova's "whitewash" thread at The Drum followed by the inevitable screeching...

#138 It seems the BBC have changed their position a little. On the Radio 4's Today programme this morning their correspondent (Shukman I think) claimed CRU would be criticised for understating the uncertainties surrounding climate science (I have no idea what he based this on as the report wasn't available at that time). No mention of that in the BBC report you link to, although they do give undue coverage of conspiracy theorists allegations about Lord Oxburgh.

Dappledwater,

>138 - kfr - funny how they still manage to get a few kicks in nevertheless.
"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians"

>>Sounds rather insinuating doesn't it?.

No, it doesn't. The panel performed a critical analysis of what goes on at the CRU. How many organisation could there be in the world that, if subjected to a rigorous independent review, would receive a pure and glowing endorsement with no criticsm at all? Less than a handful I reckon.

I think the critical comments are evidence that the review has been performed properly.

140 - dappledwater. Yup, but i think it's in the nature of such investigations in order to almost prove to be balanced, you have to find something to criticise. And to be fair, such is the nature of academia these days, would you necessarily expect subject specialists to have the statistics expertise?

More important is the continued vindication of Prof Jones. Hopefully Monbiot will come to realise his response was a rather indefensible knee jerk reaction.

The full report is [here](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+S…)

Stu, read the article again and pretend you understood very little about climate. Do you think there's a little bit there that can be easily misconstrued?. I'm not talking about a deniosaur's warped logic either.

kfr, the choice of words "very surprising" implies some kind of shonky behavior or inappropriate practice. I'm just saying the man or woman on the street is confused enough as it is without people, who should know better, creating more ammunition for the deniosaurs. I mean it's not like civilization is at risk or anything !!!!!

The Economist has a fairly reasonable article on climate change science. IIRC they seem to have become one of the better sources of climate science reporting.

@Dappledwater: Do you not find it surprising that "research...has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians"? I must admit that I find it curious. The Institute I work at has several statisticians on the payroll and every piece of work that is published by the institute gets run past one or more of them before it is submitted for review. That CRU doesn't do this, despite being attached to a university that has a statistics degree programme is surely worthy of note at the very least?

Comment in the conclusions of the CRU report:

>"Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention."

Which summarises what I thought from the start.

My feeling after having read the report is that CRU is basically under-funded, but I donât suppose the average âscepticâ will be calling for CRU to be given more resources to improve its organisation, manage its archives and documentation, and deal with all of the freedom of information requests.

Deniers already know the truth - that global warming is a scam for meagre scientific funding and any panel review is just a whitewash by vested government interests. Only the selfless oil companies can get us out of this mess.

Over at Brent's favourite hangout the government conspiracies are already flying:

That was not science. That was fraud.

There should be outrage over this! This report is meaningless....toilet paper.

This will not bring closure to Climategate. This shows the cack-handed way the University of East Anglia have dealt with this scandal. This must be the worst attempt at a whitewash in recent history - LOL

So a guy who is making a fortune off of promoting AGW finds that the science is sound.
And in other news, a criminal caught stealing jewels denies he did anything wrong.
True believer syndrome is how victims of con-artists rationalize their being fooled. Con-artists cover up their scams by pretending nothing is going on.

Don't be. Bob Ward and the Grantham Research Institute (headed by Lord Nicholas Stern, no less!) are bankrolled to the tune of tens of millions of pounds by Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham, the same people who bankroll Greenpeace, WWF, The Union of Concerned Scientists, the Woods Hole Research Center (not to be confused with the oceanographic body) and a plethora of other eco-fanatics and advocates. Just remember that every time Bob Ward opens his mouth - he is the mouthpiece of his paymasters.

So the House Of Lords are in on it too. No wonder they rejected that honest scientific mastermind Lord Monckton.

Dappledwater @ 146

>Stu, read the article again and pretend you understood very little about climate. Do you think there's a little bit there that can be easily misconstrued?. I'm not talking about a deniosaur's warped logic either

I hadn't really thought about it like that, but one thing I can see is that the BBC article doesn't misrepresent the report. The report is obviously responsible for its own conclusions, and to me those conclusions seem reasonable.

How could the conclusions be misconstrued? Genuinely, I'd like to know your thoughts there.

Back the in 80s when AIDS first appeared, Monkton - then inside the corridors of power - was happy to use fear as a weapon. He promoted the solution to AIDS; global mass quarantine;

"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." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult").

Wow - imagine the global legal powers you'd need to enforce a mass program of testing and quarantine? You'd global treaties dis-empowering each individual person on the planet and subordinating them to an enforced programme of medical testing. You'd need to build loads of internment camps worldwide (of the kind conspiracy theorists love talking about) and the like. Imagine the cost of this? It would be an astronomical cost, I would guess dwarfing the cost of mitigating climate change.

Not only that - I can't see how it would ever work. You'd need 100% accuracy in the testing to contain it. Human error would ensure that would not happen if nothing else. People would resist as internment is the consequences of getting caught out... It would be a total disaster.

So only a few years ago, our brave freedom fighter was proposing an unworkable global testing and quarantine system for AIDS and now we're supposed to see him as a freedom fighter against global treaties of climate change.
http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/04/monkton-puzzle-freedom-and-cli…

Chris S. (#149) - no I don't find it surprising. My experience is:
1. If every bit of research that is being undertaken using statistics involved professional statisticians then output would drop dramatically. There just aren't enough statisticians around to make this anything other than a forlorn aspiration;
2. Many statisticians within academia are (understandably) keen to develop their own research rather than provide advice into projects that are quite marginal for them;
3. When you do approach a statistician with a specific question, they will often give you an answer to a different question altogether! ;-)

This paragraph from the report remains key in this context:

"Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results."

Note the last sentence.

Yes Anarchist, and Monckton is allegedly against big government.

Chris S @148 - curious indeed, but couldn't it have been worded in a less dramatic way?.

Re: #154 & #156

DW - Quite possibly.
Dr. Dave, I accept that the stats that CRU used were good enough, but I remain suprised that the unit didn't utilise any of the stats bods who run the degree courses at UEA - the fact that they were based at UEA covers points 1 & 2. Trust me - I hear you on point 3 from bitter experience :) that's still not an excuse.

I guess this conversation should really be on the other thread now...

I remain suprised that the unit didn't utilise any of the stats bods who run the degree courses at UEA...

From the state of acadaemia (which I only loosely hear about second and third hand, so it may no apply here) I wouldn't be surprised if

a) there was no CRU budget to pay any of the stats bods

b) the stats bods need to focus on their own publications because research, research, research is how you get ahead and anything else - even necessary or desirable work - is an impediment.

Lotharsson @#158

You may well have a point there, after all there was no interesting, groundbreaking analytical techniques going on at CRU! Snark aside, the budgetary angle could well be the reason why no professional statisticians were on the CRU payroll, I sometimes forget how lucky we are here to have our own pet statisticians on tap.

You may well have a point there, after all there was no interesting, groundbreaking analytical techniques going on at CRU!

Not being a statistician, I have no real idea whether the CRU work was groundbreaking or interesting in the field of statistics, or merely fairly routine. I'd welcome more insight into that question.

Nor I. Perhaps that's one for James Annan or tamino to answer...

Speaking of 'Lord' Monckton, his latest 'They're at it again' video really has to be seen to be believed -

http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-goes-bp-in-bonn/

I'm sure Christopher Monckton will just elect himsself leader of the free world like he elected himself to the House Of Lords.

Peter Green's 2nd insight into the World of Monckton is up. If Peter wanted to, there could be a number of further installments......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc&playnext_from=TL&videos=1YBL…

It's interesting all this talk about statisticians. When I worked for an agriculture agency some years (mumble ... I mean decades ...mumble) ago, it employed one specialist biometrician to assist probably around 800 to 1000 or more researchers (the dept was bigger back in those days). He approved every project design before it started and provided advice throughout. That agency was, I believe, unique in this regard. Most similar agencies at the time didn't employ a specialist, the scientists relied on their own training in stats (which was provided in ag science degrees at the time). These days there is a lot of complex systems work and specialists in bioinformatics are the go.

Small research units with 3 full time researchers would not keep a statistician fully employed. They would have to make an arrangement with someone to work on an ad hoc basis. And as others have said, it would need to be with someone familiar with climate research. Not as simple as it might sound to organise, but not that difficult if they can make an arrangement with someone suitable. It does eat into the budget though.

Are you people for real? It's like a bunch of kids in a school playground.