Why is Monckton afraid of a debate with Abraham?

Monckton's response to Abraham has drawn the attention of bloggers everywhere. George Monbiot finds it "magnificently bonkers". Gareth Renowden examines Monckton's claim to have a science background. Eli Rabett is collecting limericks. Richard Littlemore believes if they look at Abraham's presentation and Monckton's response, "most people will conclude that John Abraham is a careful scientist and that the Lord Monckton is a belligerent and unapologetic polemicist".

Which is perhaps the reason why Monckton, supported by Anthony Watts, is trying to suppress Abraham's presentation. Over at Watts Up with That? Monckton defames Abraham and asks for help in suppressing Abraham's speech:

Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him - even at this eleventh hour - to take down Abraham's talk altogether from the University's servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor's unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help.

Rather than flood St Thomas with supporting emails, Gareth Renowden is collecting signatures for this statementh:

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

If you agree, go there and sign.

In his post Monckton claims that Abraham admitted "that his talk is libelous" by producing a revised version. This doesn't make any kind of sense -- people revise presentations all the time for many different reasons. In any case, the original version is still available.

More like this

Anthony Watts is also afraid to debate this. I posted a dissenting message using a PC available for staff and visitor use at the UK Meteorological Office and within two minutes he had posted where the message came from.

By Steve Milesworthy (not verified) on 14 Jul 2010 #permalink

Bullies. The denialist movement is stuffed full with them.

I'm curious. The title of this thread mentions Monckton being afraid to debate Abraham, yet I cannot find this claim in the body of the post.

By Passing Wind (not verified) on 14 Jul 2010 #permalink

Windbag, aka Passing Wind | July 15, 2010 4:56 AM

"I'm curious. The title of this thread mentions Monckton being afraid to debate Abraham, yet I cannot find this claim in the body of the post."

Monckton's approach is to use misquoted science. Monkton's house of cards just collapses when someone like John Abraham uses the underhand tactic of carefully checking what the science actually says and then goes and checks with the scientists concerned as to whether Monckton's claims are a true reflection of the scientists' work.

Precisely, how can Monckton win an argument based upon science, when the science shows him to be completely wrong.

I suspect you read everything through a distorting prism, just like Monckton apparently does.

By ScaredAmoeba (not verified) on 14 Jul 2010 #permalink

My comments no longer appear on WUWT, but I added this just in case:

Sorry, but Prof. Abraham was on target. To ask the President of the University to shut him down while crying for openness from scientists is low, IMHO. Anyway, with other readers of Hot Topic I added my voice in support of Prof. Abraham.

Hasn't Monckton offered to pay Al Gore to debate him? Did Al Gore take up the offer?

Has Abraham contacted Monckton and suggested a public debate?

Monckton does have a but of a point here. Abraham on several occassions claims that his presentation was made more difficult by what he saw as a lack of references in Mockton's work, but he did not simply contact Monckton and ask for the references.

Now I know that things are heated, and you guys are foaming at the mouth here, but honestly, most scientists would at least write an email requesting citations and asking for a clarifications before publishing an attack of this nature.

Xi Chin: "most scientists would at least write an email requesting citations."

No, they wouldn't. Same as any academic, they would expect properly referenced work to be the norm - not to have to chase people asking where they got their information. We fail undergrads for not producing properly referenced work. Google "how to cite."

[Xi Chin said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/why_is_monckton_afraid_of_a_de…) "Mockton's (sic) work"

Monckton's "work" as can be easily determined from the sheer volume of distortions he has used over the years, is to misrepresent the science to the public in support of his anti-science think tank and policy goals. This, despite Monckton et al's current spin, isn't a matter of isolated cases here and there but his entire mission.

Abraham took the correct course in determining from the scientists whose work was misappropriated whether Monckton's version was what they had actually said.

Why would anybody even think to seek permission from a cheap demagogue with a transparent agenda before exposing them?

If Monckton would prefer gentlemanly behaviour, perhaps he should have behaved like one beginning many, many years ago.
Instead, he prefers the methods of a hectoring bully.

>*Has Abraham contacted Monckton and suggested a public debate?*

He done better, he addressed Monckton's claims. And Monckton is trying to shut that down rather than show how Abraham is wrong.

Monckton says that the revision is a white flag from Abraham . He can now claim victory while staying out of court. He knows that sworn testimony would be unkind to his aristocratic persona.

Declaring victory then retreating defeated is a military tactic being discussd in Afganistan as we speak.

By John McManus (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

"Has Abraham contacted Monckton and suggested a public debate?"

This is a public debate. If Monckton can't handle it then why does he keep asking for one?

Oh right, he wants a face-toface real-time debate where statements can't be checked for their veracity...

"most scientists would at least write an email requesting citations and asking for a clarifications before publishing an attack of this nature"
1) No they wouldn't. 2) Can you show where Monckton requested citations before severely distorting the findings of serious scientists as Abrahams has demonstrated he did?

I have heard of a good game that could be modified to use with Monckton's techniques in debates. Its called the 'Ann Coulter game' after the US right wing columnist. You play it with a number of people with laptops and the game goes like this; you take one of her books, choose a page at random and then take the first statement with a 'fact' on that page and then race to see who is quickest to use the internet/google to demonstrate that it is wrong.

You would have a variation with a Monckton public address where sitting in the audience with a wireless laptop you could research every brow beating statement by Monckton before or during questions. The game here would be to have a number of people spread out across the audience and the winner would be the first person who successfully puts their hand up at question time to show where Monckton has said something wrong. Extra points would be awarded if Monckton threatens to have you either thrown out or to sue you.

What Monckton's doing is mob politics, period.

Instead of waiting for 1,000 scientists to gather 1,000 lines of independent evidence supporting his thesis -- because he can't -- he simply gets 1,000 screaming dittoheads to harass someone he doesn't like.

It's great to see all of the international support. It would be even better if more U.S. Americans signed on. As Steve Bloom suggests in the comments at the petition, it would useful if some high traffic U.S. bloggers like PZ and Ed Brayton could link to it as well.

By winnebago (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

That's a great post, TrueSceptic. Very amusing. Apparently Tim Lambert "ambushed" Monckton with quotes! Oh no! Was Tim supposed to pick up Alexander Graeme Bell's wonderous invention the telephone and inform Chris in advance?

What a bunch of clowns.

Is Joanne not seeing what is blindingly in front of her?

>So what did they do when faced with a long detailed dissertation of errors? They declared it was the Universityâs position that Prof Abraham had done no wrong, and not engaged in professional misconduct

>Furthermore the university is appalled by Moncktonâs disparaging and defamatory remarks...

And she didn't use quotation marks, meaning she agrees with those assertions.

Forget what I said, these people are insane.

I haven't been to Nova site for a long time. Has anyone noticed that her comment system essentially allows readers (that is, grey haired denialists with too much time on their hands) to censor comments they disagree with by clicking a "dislike" button. How convienient.

Can anyone point out to me where Abraham has "slurred" or "defamed" Monckton besides pointing out he is wrong? Perhaps Abraham referred to Monckton as a Google-eyed cretin? Or an upper class twit? Nope? None?

Yeah. I really hope this does go to court.

from the Nova page, reply from the university:

We received your email response to our June 25, 2010 letter. The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abrahams right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham Father Dease and The Univerity of St Thomas.

Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham.

Signed: Phyllis Karasov, Moore Costellow and Hart, P.L.L.P.

it is rather funny, that the university has real attorneys replying, while Monckton has written all the papers in his own office...

so far final word from the university:

... neither we nor the university .... will communicate with you any further..

will the reply make headlines on WuWt?

ps: the attempt to bully Steve Milesworthy was really disgusting. Anthony is trying to force people to post under their names, but will use all kind of bully tactics against those who do so. simply disgusting!

just because i dug up the first reply from Monckton again:

Now you will understand why I have already initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster, to answer disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct unbecoming a member of his profession.


There, in due course, will appear the letter I am now drafting to Abraham, asking him several hundred pertinent questions designed to make him and anyone who may think of relying upon him understand that academic dishonesty and deliberate lying on this scale and with this amount of public circulation is just not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.


Monckton uses a Mail.com email address.

Real secure.

In a tasty morsel of irony, whether Bell actually invented the telephone or not has been the subject of some debate; many lawsuits were flung around, and I'm sure there was more than a little animosity. Monckton would approve.

For anyone who doesn't want to dirty themselves with a wade in the Nova Bog (the Marohasy Bog has pretty much dried out but many of its denizens have moved to Nova's), the title of the thread is

Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.

That shows the denialist "mind" at work, don't it?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

20 sod,

Yes, showing once again what a liar and hypocrite Watts is. He claimed that he didn't "have a dog in this fight", yet it has been clear from the outset that he has

Made no effort to censor attacks on Abraham, no matter how personal, insulting, or just plain idiotic;

Intervened to threaten posters who dared to question Monckton's credibility. One of his lackeys also had the nerve to claim

[REPLY - We never edit out dissenting opinions that are either constructive or polite. ~ Evan]

"Science Blog of the Year" my arse!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

21 sod,

I repeat my observation that Monckton's CFACT piece alleging "deliberate lying" finishes with the frequently repeated lie that "He served as a science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher".

Just imagine if we could get this supreme tosser in court to answer for his huge steaming pile of lies and libellous attacks!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

I just sent an email to Father Dease imploring him not to cave to Monckton's bullying. However, I now see that the university has fired back, and rightly so.

It doesn't surprise me that Watts is up to his freakin' neck in this - he and Monckton are two of a kind; resorting to nasty tactics and *ad hominem* and worse.

They're scum.

By Derecho64 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Do we really want Monckton exposed? He becomes more useful the noisier he is and this is a contrast to someone like Lomborg. Monckton's noise is a constant own goal to the world wide denialist movement. We don't have to lift a finger to show how wrong they are. They've shown how dangerous they can be with smears like Climategate, just think how much more dangerous they would be if they wised up to Monckton and threw him over

Gareth Renowden's list is gathering a veritable who's who of names in the climatological sphere, along with hundreds of other credentialled signatories - although I wonder how long it will take before WTFUWT, Codling, or similar decide to whittle down the impact of this petition...

Monckton must now be ruing his ill-advised posting on Watt's blog. Watt's himself is probably wondering whether it was a good idea to post it. I'm sure that both would be wondering if the embarrassment of its removal would be better than having to deal with the stirring of anger amongst those who actually have a clue. It seems that the giant that they've be poking at was larger than they guessed, and not as sleepy as they had expected.

The problem for Watts and Monckton is that as long as they were mere fleas in the lives of climatologists going about their business, no-one took much notice - and W&M took confidence from this that has subsequently proved to be false. This latest antic of theirs has cast too much light on their pseudoscience and their tactics, and (mixing metaphors) they are now plummetting Icarus-like to the ground.

I doubt that Monckton ever seriously entertained a thought about a law suit, but I reckon that Abraham should now quietly invite one from Monckton. Not only would Abraham and St Thomas garner reparation for the damage to their reputations, but Monckton would be imolated in the process.

Dr Tim Lambert's encounter with Mr Monckton was a slap in the face for the pretending peer: Professor John Abraham's engagement with Mr Monckton is a direct hit to the viscount's solar plexus.

I doubt that Mr Monckton will be able to stand upright any time soon.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Following on from TureSceptic's reference to Joanne Codling's diatribe against John Abraham, I have to wander off-topic to point out a beauty from Louis Hissink:

Louis Hissink:
July 16th, 2010 at 12:26 am

The problem is that while the argument might be over feedbacks in the modelling, it is another matter entirely for any gas, at a lower temperature, to raise the temperature of an object hotter than it [sic]. Further, no gas can store energy.

{Emphasis mine]

I can't help but wonder how his refrigerator operates - Louis would seem to have a very limited understanding of the ways in which gases might store energy...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Mark my words, Monckton's next excuse will be "I *would* take John Abraham and the University of St. Thomas to court but America's libel laws are unfairly weighted against me, his Lordship, the Viscount Monckton Of Brenchley thus making an inevitable victory impossible."

Sprinkle some Latin in there and I reckon I just about have it.

30 Bernard,

Louis would seem to have a very limited understanding.

See: less is more!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Just sent a letter of support to Dr. Abraham and the University of St. Thomas.

Watts actively aiding and abetting Monckton on this file is probably going to turn out to be a very stupid move strategically by Watts.

The smart thing for Monckton would be to lay low for a while and then fire his next salvo of lies once this has blown over. However, in his zeal he is blowing it.

Just by two cents worth.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

I see my enforced exile from the comments pages of WUWT have ended. From the JoNova letters (thanks to TrueSkeptic):

Further, the University is appalled by your disparaging, outrageous and defamatory comments regarding the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease, and Professor John Abraham, especially the comments you made during a television interview on June 24, 2010. On behalf of the University of St. Thomas, we demand that you immediately cease and desist making any further disparaging or inflammatory comments about the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease, Professor Abraham, the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis or anyone else associated with the University. If your inappropriate conduct does not cease immediately, the University of St. Thomas will have no choice but to take appropriate legal action.

Bernard J @ 29.

This may sound OT but it may turn out that climategate was the best thing to happen in the wider community albeit like having a wisdom tooth out unnecessarily and without anaesthetic using a hammer wielded by a rugby league team for those concerned.

This is because I think climategate woke the general public up along with policy makers and scientists as to how denialists operate which is why Gareth Renowendon's list is getting so many live scientists signing up. Long before climategate I was at a lecture by a BOM scientist who dismissed denialists as irritants but did go on to say that, "they are like Vampires, you put a stake in their hearts and they get up out of the grave". About a year ago a friend of mine who has consulted in sustainability for about 10 years told me that the denialists were "finished". Then there was climategate and now Monckton gets serious and suatained public pushback seen early on with Tim Lambert and Barry Brook engaging in public debate and now Abrahams (why Monckton is attempting to slap Abrahams and not Tim when Tim hit him with a giant wet fish in public over Pinker I don't know though I notice that Jo Nova is still indignant).

Anyway when the hsitory of this is all written I predict that climategate will be seen as the turning point and Monckton attempting to monster Professor Abrahams as a skirmish on the way to the end point.

I have perused the correspondence between Monckton and the University solitors courtesy of Joanna Nova. It is clear that the University has conceded nothing to Monckton. Monckton's incitement of WTFUkers to spam St Thomas looks like his last desperate throw of the dice.

One thing that I found curious though was a reference in the Attorney's letter to a TV interview Monckton gave on the 24 June containing "disparaging, outrageous and defamatory comments regarding the University". Anyone know what channel (not Pitlochry Community Cable TV I assume) and did anyone seen the broadcast?

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

"it is another matter entirely for any gas, at a lower temperature, to raise the temperature of an object hotter than it "

Not really. It can't raise the temperature higher than itself but it can leave the object hotter than it would otherwise have been if it had been absent.

How else to woolly jumpers work?

THEY are colder than the body they wrap. Yet if you're not wearing one, you're colder. Even indoors with no wind.

But maybe Louis doesn't wear warm clothes in winter...

"Do we really want Monckton exposed?"

Do we really want to keep killing zombies?

No. Life would be easier and simpler if the idiots were exposed as idiots.

34 Deech56,

More comedy gold from the pompous pipsqueak.

Primo, please clarify whether you act for any person other than the University of St. Thomas. Otherwise, please inform me of the co-ordinates of any professional or regulatory body which has power of supervision over your firm.

Secundo, please specify the âdisparagingâ, âoutrageousâ or âdefamatoryâ remarks by me to which your clients (whoever they are) object, and let me know which television interview on St. Johnâs Day you were talking about.

Tertio, please confirm that your clients have no objection to the terms of the correspondence in this affair, which I intend to publish widely on July 10, including throughout your clientsâ campuses. If you do not answer on this point, I shall be entitled to take it that your clients are content in all respects that the entire correspondence should be made public, so that Professor Abrahamâs lies may be seen by all for what they are, and the intellectual cowardice of Father Dease, who disfigures his calling, disregards the mission statement of his own institution and does a disservice to the Catholic Church by failing to investigate those lies, will also be exposed.

Quarto, please explain why your clients consider that Professor Abraham, using the University's logo and facilities and servers, is entitled to persist in publishing his lies about me, whereas I am debarred from replying with the truth.

Quinto, please supply the names and addresses of each of your clientsâ Trustees. This is a straightforward, factual request with which you and your clients should surely be able and willing to comply. I wish to ask the Trustees to investigate this affair, since Father Dease seems disinclined to do so, and additionally to investigate Father Deaseâs unwillingness to do his duty in accordance with your clientsâ mission statement.

Primo? Secundo? Tertio? Quarto? Quinto? What an effing tosspot!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

35 Jeremy,

There is also Dr Richard North's (not Richard D North) threat to sue George Monbiot for libel, another empty bluff by an incorrigible liar.

The deniers are reaching a crescendo right now. They been emboldened by the CRU hack and realise this might be their last big chance.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

> .... Professor Abrahams right ....
> .... The Univerity ....

So, who needs the grammar/typing help?

JoNova, or the lawyers?

Did anyone verify that email really is from the university's lawyers, not a fake?

> we demand that you immediately cease and desist ...
> the University of St. Thomas will have no choice but
> to take appropriate legal action.

Uh, oh. Just the outcome Monckton would want. There's nothing as chilling as a huge outlay of money

MT's got a cautionary take:

" With all due respect to John Abraham and his troubles, though, I wonder if this isn't all coordinated as a timely distraction somehow....."

Re: TrueSkeptic, Deech56

A sample of Monckton's "disparagingâ, âoutrageousâ or âdefamatoryâ remarks made on "St. John's Day" (what sort of pompous twit calls it that anyways?)

From the Alex Jones show, 24 June 2010 part 5/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQdKDeDjqI):

"...that, on its own, would be an offense for which he would be dismissed from a real university, but then he only belongs this half-assed Catholic Bible college" (1:10)

"...but apparently in this Bible college, lying is part of what they regard as their Christian mission..." (2:45)

"...I want you to email this creep of a President, Father Dennis J. Dease..."(08:30)

I agree that Monckton has been stung into overreach.

First there was Tim, then Peter Sinclair's two glorious "Climate Crocks", then Abraham. Monckton has recieved a triple-whammy and must see his meal ticket vanishing down the toilet.

Monckton has not a leg to stand on in a court of law. Academic discourse is fierce and polemical, and this one was not exceptional. Many might even think it a bit of a dawdle. Abraham clearly focussed on items that Monckton had presented. Monckton has screwed up in going after Abraham personally.

With Climategate receding into the dim past (of anyone really understood what it was about), & Monckton neutered, the denialists have much less than usual to talk about. Science is still going on and they are still stuck on the margins with Urban Heat Islands, Station drop outs and "climate auditing". I foresee a renewed assault on the IPCC.


Thanks for the youtube link. Wow. What a pair of barking loons.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Surely, even Monckton knows when he's gone too far...? If not, I await his comic demise when challenged in court by the University.

Pass the popcorn and beer please.

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Questions for Lord Monckton.

94. You complain about damage to your reputation due to your words being misrepresented and taken out of context. Yet in your talk you attribute to John Haughton the phrase 'Unless we announce disasters no-one will listen'. Are you aware that Sir John never actually used this phrase? Why did you use the quote without checking the source, Sir John's book on global warming, where it never appears. Why did you fail to reply to an email from The Independent newspaper alerting you to this fact?

95. Why should anyone contact you for sources and citations, when a previous attempt by Arthur Smith to give you advance notice of a critical article by sending you a draft, resulted in that article being posted on the internet, in breach of Smith's copyright and harrassment of Smith by yourself and Bob Ferguson of SPPI?

By Phil Clarke (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

I've contacted the House of Lords (although not being a monarchist, I really don't give a flying one about Monckton's Ruritanian glass beads for t'peasants title) to enquire about his marvellously mendacious explanation.

The House of Lord's clerks been instructed to lie by denying your true status, eh Chris? (wink) Yeah gotcha mate! [Say no more squire, say no more!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I)

Here's the enquiry - I'll post the HoL reply when I receive it:

Dear Sirs,
I am very concerned about the comment reproduced below verbatim from Mr. Monckton implying that the clerks of the House of Lords have been instructed to in effect lie with regard to Mr. Monckton's status. I suspect that any mendacity is not on the House's part, but would appreciate your clarification and comments on the Viscount's statement below:

âThe House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to â but did not â remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.â


I see that Watts has now called Kevin Grandia a scumbag:

Mike says:
July 14, 2010 at 7:53 am
If you cannot argue, sue and censor. Many posters here criticized Mann for demanded his copyrighted image not be used in a video.

REPLY: And friends of Mann, like scumbag Kevin Grandia at the PR firm DeSmog blog, went ballistic when I made the same claim about my image, and my work being used in Climate Crock of the Week. Double stand, pot kettle and all that. Not impressed with your argument. -A



I feel disinclined to sign in over there to comment.

It looks like Watts has gone a stage further in his [stirring up of the crazies](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/comment-of-the-week/#comments).

So, anyone who doesn't go along with Watts's delusional views, anyone who supports mainstream science, is a cockroach, eh?

Are there no depths to which this disgusting creature will not sink?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

I've been collecting Watt's censorship by threats here:

Please feel free to add you own.

I like this pair:
January 11, 2010 at 3:30 am
Reply: Based on the IP address of this post, it does not appear to originate from inside the Met office. Try again from the office and not your home computer if you are real.

July 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A

Ah, cohenite, the gift that keeps on giving...

Ol' Anthony comes running to Louis' defence:

July 16th, 2010 at 8:56 am

Eli knows better, and so does BJ, that radiation from a cooler object to a warmer one will not warm the warmer object but stop it cooling as quickly as it would otherwise do if the radiation from the cooler object was not reaching it.

The thing is, I suspect that cohenite does not understand why this is so funny...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Dr Susan Alexander in the Office of the President of St Thomas University has been appointed to deal with all responses to the detailed critique of Lord Monckton made by Professor John Abraham. He has requested that all comments should be addressed to Dr. Alexander whoâs e-mail address is: slalexander@stthomas.edu

By Mike Pope (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

I suspect the only way people like Al Gore and John Abraham will be sued is if they sue themselves and call Monckton as a witness.

By Eat The Rich (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

>Do we really want Monckton exposed? He becomes more useful >the noisier he is and this is a contrast to someone like >Lomborg. Monckton's noise is a constant own goal to the >world wide denialist movement. We don't have to lift a >finger to show how wrong they are.

Totally agree with Jeremy C in post 28 here. Monckton's responses have been absolutely hilarious; he is an utter embarassment to the anti-AGW movement. Why try to stop him when he's making a massive fool of himself and thereby undermining his own cause?

By Squeaky Woo Woo (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

> it withdrew the passes ...
> a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit

He's an _outstanding_ member, as he has to stand outside, since they won't permit him to come in and sit.

I'm sure the Queen will confirm this if asked.

[sod @ 21](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/why_is_monckton_afraid_of_a_de…)

There, in due course, will appear the letter I am now drafting to Abraham, asking him several hundred pertinent questions...


(Worth watching all the way through if you have not seen it before.)

Of course, what Monckton is really saying is even the mere attempt to question the legitimacy and accuracy of his claims is distasteful, improper, and unacceptable, indeed defamatory. He is, after all, a Lord of the Manor! Apparently his pronouncements are infallible edicts handed down from on high to us ignorant ungrateful serfs.

If only we would learn our place on the sidelines, and submissively doff our rough peasant caps as he magisterially passes us by.

Apologies, M'Lord, for ever doubting you and your Latin-laced aristocratic wisdom.

Oh, the most relevant bit for this thread starts at 5:50.

Hank Roberts, by that argument my dog is an outstanding member of the House of Lords. Perhaps you're on to something.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

If anyone else has been planning an assault on Monckton's "credibility," this is obviously the time to launch it. One more little nudge seems likely to trigger a truly entertaining meltdown.

His preposterous ego will bring him down, sooner or later. Probably sooner.

I love how Monckton has the cojones to go after Abraham's credentials ("he only belongs this half-assed Catholic Bible college") as he's being interviewed by fecking Alex Jones. lol.

By sheik.djibouti… (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

> Monckton uses a Mail.com email address.

He used to (and may still also) use bikerbikerbiker@hotmail.com, if my memory serves correctly.

> The thing is, I suspect that cohenite does not understand why this is so funny...

Comedy gold - I LOLed :-) I suspect cohenite has been drawing analogies from Tim Curtin's explanations regarding the impossibility of "acidification" of a basic solution.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Primo, I'd have to say the guy's a total member, and he's out, standing by a Lord's house. So there you go.

Secundo, Let's move on to redefining "peer" review.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Marion Delgado (July 16, 2010 2:21 AM):

Let's move on to redefining "peer" review

Here's a starter...


I shouldn't be laughing as much as I am at the crowd on Codling's thread, but I can't help it.

To save others the pain of having to actually visit the site, permit me the indulgence of repeating my last post there. Remember, it's all based on Louis Hissink's claim that:

The problem is that while the argument might be over feedbacks in the modelling, it is another matter entirely for any gas, at a lower temperature, to raise the temperature of an object hotter than it [sic]. Further, no gas can store energy.

[Emphasis mine]


Scott asks at #153:

Itâs called a pressure change according to PV = nRT so what is your point?

My point is that the gas is doing something in the system, but you and a surprising number of others here seem to be ignoring (or ignorant of) what that something is.

A hint - revisit Loius' [sic] original claim.

Or simply think about the various energetic processes that occur in the cylinders of your Ford...

A rock can store energy as well again what is your point???

"...as well...", huh?

Ah, then you shouldn't have to ask me what my point is.

and by the way I noticed they dont use CO2 as a refrigerant â why is that????

As I have already patiently explained to sunsettommy at #151, this is a strawman. I have never said that carbon dioxide is a refrigerant, and the fact that it is not is nevertheless irrelevant to my point, which seems to be escaping so many here.


Then cohenite at #154:

Bernard, are you going anywhere with this? If so, could you respond to my observation that gases do not store heat [sic] for a great length of time, hence night being colder than day, and oceans store more heat than land, hence afternoon sea breezes.

Your "observation" completely contradicts Louis' original statement, no matter the heat capacitites/heat retentions of various states of matter.

This completely changes the thermodynamic implications of Louis' comment, and this in turn will lead to a very different understanding of the radiation physics of the atmosphere. Of course, if Louis and his supporters here want to persist in their hammering of a square peg into a round hole after being chided that it doesn't fit, then I guess there's not much more to be done.

As has been observed elsewhere recently, one can lead an ass to water, but one cannot make it drink.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

More and more I sincerely hope that Monckton has the courage to put his money where is mouth is, and attempt a suit against Abraham and St Thomas.

If he does so, may I humbly suggest that the affair be referred to as "Litigate"?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

"July 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others?"

Well, a release of FOIA information would be using taxpayer funded time to tell someone information. If the receiver doesn't like the information, they may call it a verbal assault. But still it's the response of a FOIA request so therefore, their time is meant to be used to answer it.

In fact, this is the only thing left to club the scientists over with, NOT answering FOIA.

Now they don't want government employees taking time to answer public queries???

Seems it is a bit harder to whitewash blatantly evading FOI requests. The rest, it seems, was a walk in the park.

I wonder if these guys do tax returns. Only in this case it's not a decline I wish to hide.

By Passing Wind (not verified) on 15 Jul 2010 #permalink

Seems a bit harder for windy to argue with facts, but making stuff up seems a walk in the park.

'LitiGate' (@#68)- great idea: a title fit for a Lord!

Agree with Jeremy C and squeeky woo woo (!) - it's particularly heartening to see Watts side so clearly with Monckton. The man is so clearly crackers, Watts unfortunately gets tarred with the same brush. Not so for all the commenters at WUWT - some at least seem to be very uncomfortable about Monckton.

Some insight into the Letters of Patent/House of Lords claim [here](http://www.headoflegal.com/2010/04/16/charon-qc-podcast-arresting-the-p…):

"He argues that Letters Patent creating peerages canât be amended by general legislation â but his only basis for this argument appears to be a written answer from Baroness Ashton which heâs misconstruing. All she was saying was that Acts donât have the effect of changing the legal effect of Letters Patent incidentally â it needs to be clear that Parliament does indeed intend to change their effect. She actually cited the House of Lords Act 1999 as an example of an Act plainly intended to change the membership of the House. In any case, Letters Patent are irrelevant anyway. The entitlement to sit in the Lords is not created by Letters Patent but by the Queenâs writ of summons; the only question is whether she has failed to summons anyone qualified to sit. But the House of Lords Act 1999 makes clear the old hereditaries are no longer qualified."

Just keep in mind that Chris Monckton's grandfather was handed a hereditary peerage by the UK government when young Chris was five years old, one of the last hereditary peerages handed out. If that hadn't happened there would've been no way that Chris would've got anywhere near the Lords unless he was appointed a life peer just like Baroness Amos who is just finishing up as the UK's High Commissioner to Australia.

Letters Patent relate to titles, not to membership in the house. Monckton is a viscount, but not a member. He knows this.

By Nick Barnes (not verified) on 16 Jul 2010 #permalink

Monckton should sue the House Of Lords for libel then. Fancy telling everyone he's not a member when he himself says he is.


Yeah, I've heard of those applications during my university and my governmental research work, but I didn't go there because I wanted to keep it as simple as possible... I thought that non-domestic aplpications might confuse them too much. With Scott's obtuseness though, and Cohenite's dissemblance, I should probably have cast consideration to the winds and pursued it.

Mind if I put a linkie up on Codling's, to your post?

Good heaven's - what am I thinking?! That would bring the orc hoardes here slavering! I'll just link directly...


On a technical matter pertaining to Codling's blog, I have previously mentioned that my few attempts to tick "Like" or "Dislike" do not stick - once my page is refreshed my vote is erased, and this occurs no matter from which computer I access the site.

Now I am seeing that where people have previously ticked "Like" on my postings (votes that have previously survived page refreshments), the scores have, over the course of the last day or so, vanished. I note that other posts have simultaneous "Like" and "Dislike" votes greater than zero, so I assume that the system is more than just a relative reference to the greatest amount of votes for one or the other.

What's up with that?

Not that I really care - if the numpties over there want to "Dislike" me into being 'hidden' then that's their ostrich complex. I'm simply wondering if they are twiddling with the stats for their own nefarious ends.

Of course, if anyone here would like to experiment with the thumbs, I'd be entertained to see how the numbers trend!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jul 2010 #permalink

A direct link may be best, Bernard. It's hard enough with the cognitive dissonance of some people here on deltoid (nae, no names), let's not invite even more of them.

But it's enjoyable to see someone say "if that was so, it would have been done already", and follow it up to link where they "have done it already". Upon which goalposts are moved and the game starts all over again.

Some wag is trying to sneak a denialist comment into the petition:

> Alexander K July 17, 2010 at 6:18 am

> As a Kiwi currently living in the UK, I may have a different slant on this verbal punch-up from most on this site, but I have followed the climate debate for a long time and fully support Christopher Mponckton [sic]. Having said that, I know he is an absolute showman as a presenter, but that's his style and has nothing to do with his veracity. I found Abraham's original presentation contains too many errors and plain untruths and to be credible.


I found Abraham's original presentation contains too many errors and plain untruths and to be credible.

Erm... The poster found Abrahm's presentation to contain too many errors, therfore it is credible? Ah! A perfect example of how the denialist mind works.

Sorry to keep harping on about the conversation on Codling's Abraham/St Thomas thread, but I am enjoying the discomfiture of the posters there too much to resist.

Cohenite's latest, in response to my posting of [Marco's links](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/why_is_monckton_afraid_of_a_de…):

July 17th, 2010 at 8:49 am

189; vintage BJ; as textual and sensual as stepping on a cow pat on a frosty morning. BJ, your links at 190 confirm that CO2 is a magic gas and indespensible to modern civilization; CO2 is not pollution.

And this guy helps to run the Australian Climate Sceptics Party!

Which reminds me - when are they going to start believing in the existence of climate?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jul 2010 #permalink

Oh, that Jo Nova article is gold! Take this for example:

"What matters to the religious is not the details, but the keywords. They hope that if they use confident bluster to mention the same hot topics in general, and find mistakes in reasoning that someone else said (and it may be someone imaginary), it will win the PR war. The attack-dogs get their dog food, the daily-bread of misinformation, and it keeps those pesky skeptics busy pointing out error after error, tying them up for days."

I've never seen a clearer case of someone projecting their own behaviour onto other. The audacity of it is staggering.

80 Bernard,

It's funny looking at the votes (thumbs) at Jo Nova. It appears that some of those cretins actually vote against reality! Oh, wait, they are deniers, aren't they?

I hope they're not breeding.

Anyway, I'm voting for your posts to see what happens.

BTW Gareth at Hot Topic has a similar system. I really can't see the point.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink

Oh, boy! At Jo Nova, Louis says

So where is this downwelling IR coming from? Electric currents in the atmosphere operating in dark current plasma mode.
In fact I suspect that life itself on the earthâs surface is totally contingent on the maintenance of the plasma double layer encapsulating the earth and isolating it, electrically, from the plasma of its space environment. Plasma double layers occur in the presence of electric currents (moving ions). The earth is continually receiving electrical energy via the magnetic flux tubes connecting it to the sun, as well as the less obvious inputs via the plasma torus known as the Van Allen Belts.
In sum all those electric currents entering into and out of the earth system generate IR, and the source of the measured downwelling IR.

and gets 16 'likes' and 4 'dislikes' (including mine).

Yep, that crowd are a few bricks short of a load.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink

One day I intend to investigate this "plasma universe" to find out just how far from reality it really is. It is, I think, by far the most credible of all the arguments against AGW... and that is not saying much. All other excuses require total bastardisation of the known laws of the physical universe... but if we've got them ALL WRONG!!! well but of course:)

88 MattB,

Following on from my reply to Bernard, I noticed similar insanity in votes for your comments.

The Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe idea has been [around for a while](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_Universe). It seems to be popular with those who deny much of "standard" physics, including Thermodynamics and Relativity.

There's always an active thread on it at the [JREF](http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5).

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink

If you're up to it, check out humanthermodynamics.

Oh dear.

For the most part my posts are probably far more deserving of the thumbs down than Bernard's... Electric Universe - not that I'm saying all supporters are 100% certified whacko... but the only 3 I know are Louis, Brian G Valentine, and *drum roll* Graeme Bird.

82 Frank,

There have been a few that I've seen. I notified Gareth. He said he was dealing with them but it's a job to keep up.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink


Thanks indeed for your thumbs up. It must irk the Codling-orcs immensely to see green, non-zero numbers beneath my posts!

I'm actually - perversely - enjoying this foray into the New Bog. It's a bit like popping ants with a magnifying glass, although much more ethically sound. Cohenite seems to be having difficulty in admitting that he disagrees with Louis Hissink, even though his comments imply exactly that. And orcling Scott just seems to be completely clueless about cohenite's discomfiture (see posts around #222).

If my 2 1/2 year old was up to reading that thread, she would be saying, as she is wont to do, "good fun, daddy, good fun!".

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink

93 Bernard,

I wonder if those votes will stick long term?

The Bog denizens are both funny and scary. Funny because, well, it's hard not to laugh, and scary because these people are at large and free to tell children their nonsense.

Many of the Wattards are like this too. I'm sure they haven't always been. Perhaps the sensible ones have abandoned WUWT as the stupids have moved in? Have you seen Watts's [recent cockroach disgrace](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/comment-of-the-week/)? It's crying out for a "Photoshop" job.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink


I have no doubt at all that eventually many of my comments will be "Disliked" into being hidden. It matters not at all, really, if they want to play that game - I'm simply fascinated to see that they are constitutionally incapable of admitting that Hissink's original statement, that gases cannot store energy, is garbage.

There have been many permutations of prevarication in order to skirt the issue, but the most popular one seems to be that because gases have lower per volume heat capacities, their energy storage abilities can be ignored. If only it were that easy...

I don't have my old copy of Atkins immediately to hand, which - if my memory of my undergrad days serves me correctly - covered the subject, but the ethereal smart-alec has something to say on the matter: [polyatomic gases have in the order of 75% of the per atom heat capacity of a solid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Degrees_of_freedom). Leaving aside the manifold other forms of energy that gases may "store", this is still rather different from [Louis Hissink's claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/why_is_monckton_afraid_of_a_de…) that "...no gas can store energy".

Hilariously, cohenite is now trying to distract the conversation by delving into the it's-pressure-wot-causes-heating version of atmospheric warming. Oh, and in the process he is trying to teach both Eli and Arthur Smith their crafts. The rest of the gaggle there have no idea what's really going on, although they are pretending that they do.

It's all better than a good night of stand-up.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Jul 2010 #permalink

May I make a suggestion?

Here is the SourceWatch page for Christopher Monckton.

I have made a major edit outlining the House Of Lords and Abraham fiascos. Sadly, Monckton's antics are too much for one man. Can anyone help me?

96 Bernard,

I used the SCUBA tank example myself a while ago in another place. My example now is:-

Buy, ooh, 20 footballs (shape doesn't matter). Inflate them as hard as you dare. Distribute them around the house. Free heating forever!

Just wait till Alan Siddons turns up. You ain't seen nuthin' yet!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 20 Jul 2010 #permalink

I tried to post this at JoNova's site (Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.) - yep, it got moderated - banned I hope as well, what a torrent of delusion.
(I wish the MattB poster there well, better man than I)

I do wonder why I got moderated though - could I ever make this post on a denier site?

Attempted post as follows:

I've read a few posts about CO2 not being able to absorb energy in this thread and some others on this site.

I have been asking for volunteers, but no luck so far, to disprove that assertion that CO2 can absorb energy, or is any way active in the infra-red. If we can disprove CO2 is IR active then we've killed the AGW thing dead at source. If a skeptic is willing to put a finger on the line for science, we can do this.

I'm sure I could organise a local to you university or industry that has a CO2 laser, a local TV crew or 2, and with a televised personal injury waiver, televise the attempt to cut off your finger with the CO2 laser. When the invisible beam of nothing fails, AGW will be shown to be a hoax .. on TV.

I lack the guts to do it myself. I've seen and have used CO2 lasers to do some serious burning and if it's a trick by those scientists as part of their global domination plan, I can't work out how it's pulled off.

More info at http://galahs.blogspot.com/2010/04/carbon-dioxide-laser.html

I just finished listening to Professor Abraham's talk and it was laugh out loud funny, with the steady drumbeat of evidence of Monckton's, at best, sloppy approach to citation and interpretation of the science. It is no surprise he's making threatening noises in Prof Abraham's direction and trying to suppress the opposition through hints of litigation. Part of me hopes Monckton's been paying no more attention to the recent England Court of Appeal decision in British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh than he does to citation. BCA v Singh signaled what may be a very considerable change in how the courts approach the use of libel litigation in scientific disputes, in favour of open debate.

Monckton v Abrahams (not that I would wish the bother on Prof Abrahams) would make a nice addition to the pantheon of Kitzmiller v Dover, Irving v Lippstadt and BCA v Singh. The idea of Monckton under cross examination on oath is almost delicious enough for me to wish he would sue.

By Mike from Ottawa (not verified) on 20 Jul 2010 #permalink

As most here would know, I'm currently trying to elicit from Louis Hissink, Richard S Courtney, and sundry others on [Joanne Codling's Monckton thread](http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-…) an acknowledgement that gases are able to "store" heat, in response to Hissink's claim that they cannot. Cohenite has conceded, although if one blinked one would miss it, so indirect and provisoed was his concession.

In a classic display of displacement behaviour, he's now rabbitting on about whether gravity heats the atmosphere. Somehow the resultant link-trail led me to WTFWWT, and to a comment from Steve Goddard. In reply to the fact that the water temperature at 92 bars depth in the earth's oceans (equivalent to the surface pressure of Venus) is not 400 C, Goddard says [1:31 pm, 6 May 2010](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/#commen…):

The ocean is made of water, which is a liquid. Unlike gases, liquids are not very compressible, so they do not heat much under pressure.

It seems that half a physics explanation equals a whole physics explanation. By extrapolation. one would only need a non-zero knowledge of physics to know all physics.

The funny thing is, a number of posters have indicated the holes in Goddard's thermodynamics, but his ignorance seems to be as incompressible as the cold, still waters of the deep oceans.

[Post script]

I just read [this from Goddard](http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/):

Iâm not talking about ocean pressure. Iâm talking about atmospheric pressure. Death Valley and the Dead Sea are below sea level. Both are very hot places. Mt. Everest is at the same latitude as Saudi Arabia, and averages about -40 degrees.

Can some one tell me - does this guy actually have a clue about factors that determine climate?!

[Post post script]

[LuboÅ¡ Motl agrees with Goddard](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/#commen…).

[Post post post script]

[Proof that Goddardis taking the piss](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/#commen…).

What would happen to atmospheric pressure if the sun turned off?

PV = nRT

If T dropped to zero, then P would also drop to zero. It is the sun which provides the energy that keeps the molecules moving, and keeps the pressure up.

Over-unity, some?

Goddard, Motl, and WTFWWT - the gifts that keep on giving...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jul 2010 #permalink


...that gases are able to "store" heat energy...

I had Goddard's quotes on the brain.

Yeah, I know it's a subtle difference, but it's a difference nevertheless.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Jul 2010 #permalink

"Iâm talking about atmospheric pressure. Death Valley and the Dead Sea are below sea level."

The adiabatic lapse rate is controlled by gravity.


So gravity can tell you what A is.

But that doesn't say what T(0) is.

And that's defined by the energy input and energy output balance.

And, since the earth is an oblate spheroid, the ice fields of the Arctic are below "sea level" compared to the more equatorial regions.

(well, if Goddard wants to throw things out that "may plausibly" be true, that statement is just as well researched).

Anyhow, the surface pressure of Venus isn't enough to cause an extra 400C warming.

"If T dropped to zero, then P would also drop to zero. It is the sun which provides the energy that keeps the molecules moving, and keeps the pressure up."

Well, that's true.

But that doesn't cause gravity, does it.

Other problems include:

Ideal Gas: Has no zero point energy. Temperature is movement, so there's a minimum non-zero temperature.
Space: It's warm. Can't find any place colder than 3K.
Gasses are funny things: Helium goes superfluid. P=0 then? Other gasses also may never get to solid. P=0 in a liquid???

IMO it's not worth going into too much detail, since you'll never be believed even if you had a signed affadavit handed over by God Himself in person.

"I have been asking for volunteers, but no luck so far, to disprove that assertion that CO2 can absorb energy, or is any way active in the infra-red."

Mind you, that's a known hiding to nothing, so you won't get any takers.

If it has a temperature, it holds energy. It radiates. Maybe not much, but it radiates. That means energy is leaving.

Something warmer nearby radiates more.

Energy flows from one to the other, in both directions.

Energy flow is proportional to temperature to the fourth power.

Therefore NET flow is from the warmer to colder body.

(note: this is something no denialist will admit to: that it is NET flow)

But this doesn't mean the colder body isn't radiating. It's just that it's getting more than it loses.

It's really simple logic, so denialists won't persue it unless you get them riled up good and proper and their desire drops them right in it.

Hope this helps.


The plastic bottle page is amusing.

Indeed it is Paul!

I wanted to compare this absorption spectrum for nitrogen, linked to on the bottle page, to the spectrum for CO2.

Want to know something really depressing? The first google hit for 'carbon dioxide absorption spectrum' is , Gary Novak's web page. Novak is just one notch of nutty below Gene Ray of Timecube.

BTW, I couldn't find a plot for CO2 using the same units. Little help?

Eh scratch the search for a similar CO2 plot - I just replaced n2 with co2 at the end of the URL and hey presto!

It becomes immediately obvious that CO2's absorpivity is several orders of magnitude greater than N2 and O2.

As expected, really.

Thanks for the tips and links Wow and TS - that bottle experiment guy is good, I sure hope I can get him to stand in front of a CO2 laser, it's slim pickings so far :)

And back on topic (I should've said this earlier) - thanks to John Abraham for his calm expose of the psuedo-science behind Monckton and to the Uni of St Thomas for not caving into the threats that the anti-science level at science. Renowden has got my wee signature.

Pleeease don't ask that bottle man in for your experiment. I fear he might actually accept your challenge.

Re Bottle Man.

I can't actually see how you could prove the greenhouse effect was incorrect unless you reproduced the planets atmosphere in a lab scenario. eg. a largish container with 'ground' at the bottom, then the 'atmosphere' above that, then some sort of simulated vacuum for space.
Plus on top of that you would need a source of electromagnetic radiation that mimicked the suns output that reached the upper atmosphere (minus the nasty stuff). Probably a light bulb, but definitely not an IR source!

You then might see the 'greenhouse effect' with a lapse rate running up through the atmosphere.
You could then try different gases.

The difficult bit would be simulating the vacuum above the atmosphere.

116 luminous,

I've seen this experiment a few times, including once in a BBC TV programme looking at the whole GW "debate" and there's one thing I really don't like.

The CO2 container contains 100% CO2. I know that we can't possibly mimic the atmosphere with such small containers, and the "air" container contains 0.04% CO2 anyway, but using 100% makes it appear to be a "rigged" experiment to any "sceptic". Surely 10% (or 5% or 1%) would be more convincing to us all?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 22 Jul 2010 #permalink

I have seen that page before luminous beauty.

But one of the reasons for having a vacuum above the atmosphere would be to make sure the only way heat could escape would be by radiation.

The more I think about it, the more complex it gets.
Maybe you could have the whole thing in a big centrifuge to simulate Earths gravity!

Having said that though. The espere experiment is far more convincing than bottle mans.

"The difficult bit would be simulating the vacuum above the atmosphere."

Actually, the difficult bit (the bottle is just to indicate that CO2 blocks IR) would be to have a stable temperature difference from one wall of the container to the opposite one.

The denialist use of Beers Law to "prove" CO2 has no effect is The Bottle experiment but doesn't apply to the atmosphere mostly because of the temperature difference between the ground and the top of the atmosphere.

121 luminous,

IIRC that was 100% CO2 too. It would be more convincing with a much smaller %age.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 22 Jul 2010 #permalink

What would ALSO work is to show how much wider the absorbtion spectra was at higher concentrations than "100% absorption".

You'd need more than a bottle of CO2 and a thermograph, though.

I think that BBC experiment is worse than the bottle man one.
What annoys me is the rubbish misleading animation of the carbon dioxide molecule radiating heat in all directions at the same time!!??
As if it were some kind of radiator in a central heating system.

I'm probably getting to the 'official bore' stage in the proceedings, by relating here the guff at JoNoClue, but I can't help but note that [Codling's thread](http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-…) is currently hosting one Brian W, who comes out with gems such as the one at #259:

Whether gases store energy or not has already been settled. TECHNICALLY they DO but it is IMPRACTICAL for us human beans. Both sides of the argument get their way. Donât worry, be happy.See my first post. Screw Louis Hissink. Your monatomic babbling gives it away. There is only one true monatomic gas, and that is HYDROGEN.

Et Voilà! The periodic table is overturned!

And it appears that my postulation (at #217) of the existence of a Schrödingerâs gas has been proven, if it is the case that "[b]oth sides of the argument get their way" about whether gases are able to store energy, or not.

If Brian W and cohenite are their best physicists, then one is forced to wonder if the Codling Crowd could actually boil a kettle for a cup of coffee without hurting themselves.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Jul 2010 #permalink

Bernard it is tempting to wade into the jo nova thread and throw the denial dogs another bone, but I have better things to do.

> ...by relating here the guff at JoNoClue...

Well, I for one, having spent a bit of time "debating" with said Ms Nova on the ABC website, find the scientific implications of these re-Novated gems pretty entertaining.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jul 2010 #permalink

"rubbish misleading animation of the carbon dioxide molecule radiating heat in all directions at the same time!!?? As if it were some kind of radiator in a central heating system.

Posted by: Paul UK"

Uh, next time a photon comes in and the CO2 absorbs it, the photon will probably not exit in the same direction as it did the last time.

Unless you're depicting a CO2 laser.


The Codling thread is really quite amusing, and I suspect that few of the crowd, nor Codling herself, really understand why.

Today's crowning glory came when, after repeated snipped (by Codling herself) postings from Lonny Eachus, Lonny said at #289 (24 July, 9:01 pm):

Waaah! Why are you questioning my infallible messiah? At least my unqualified crank gets up and consistently makes a fool of himself!

If you donât think that we shouldnât be represented by scientists then that is the problem here. Joanne is quick to label AGW supporters as being practitioners of a faith.

and Codling replied:

[That's the point Loony. We don't have scientific gods. we don't care about qualifications and degrees, we are impressed by people who can reason. You can't. No more ad homs from you. --JN]

Ah, the manifold hypocritical ironies...

Surprisingly, to date my posts seem to have been left alone. I was, in a fashion, hoping to be censored myself, because I've been archiving the thread each time I post, but it seems that the strategy in response to me is to ignore it and see if I will go away.

Fine, if that's the way they like it.

It doesn't make their physics any more correct.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Jul 2010 #permalink

Yes, Ms Nova seems entirely unaware that whilst having no "scientific gods" is a good thing, you need to:

a) **practice** the virtue that you preach - and that Ms Nova extolling the wisdom of every pronouncement from (say) Roy Spencer or Lindzen, especially before there has been time for sufficient peer review is indeed a form of "having scientific gods"

b) combine the virtue of "no scientific gods" with the ability to **discriminate** between those who can reason **correctly and in accordance with evidence** and those who cannot - an ability Ms Nova does not appear to routinely demonstrate.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jul 2010 #permalink

Following up on my own point (b), I remember on one of the ABC articles that I eventually got her to argue :-) that neither she or I had the skills to figure out whether a given just-published article by one of the contrarians was good science or not (a point I had made of myself several times before).

But even then she failed to see or admit - even after I pointed it out - that her touting of said article and others like it (that claimed to prove the point of view she held) was unsupportable, if not outright bogus. Surprisingly ;-) she was especially resistant to the notion that my practice of deferring to the strong majority scientific opinion regarding articles/hypotheses where I myself wasn't competent to make the assessment was entirely in line with - nay, pretty much required by - the very principles she espoused.

All of which made her invitation to me to come to her website to "learn" about climate science even more unintentionally amusing ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jul 2010 #permalink

>[That's the point Loony. We don't have scientific gods. we don't care about qualifications and degrees, we are impressed by people who can reason. You can't. No more ad homs from you. --JN]

Ahhh, the triumph of mediocrity.
Seems quite common throughout modern society.

Here in the UK it has become a business club. You can only be successful if you are not qualified for the job. This results in those that are unqualified employing more people that are unqualified and sacking those that are qualified because they don't fit in.

130 Lotharsson,

Oh, Nova is discriminating all right. *Anything* that attacks or casts doubt on global warming or greenhouse gas theory, no matter how dishonest, incompetent, or contradictory to anything else that casts doubt on global warming or greenhouse gas theory, is correct with absolute certainty. See how easy it is? ;)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 Jul 2010 #permalink

Thanks TS, I get it now.

It's like letting 3 year olds dress themselves. They put on *all* their favourite things. The green socks with the red sandals with the floral leggings under a too small striped purple skirt and the torn tartan shirt - all crowned with the tiara from the fairground and the sparkly remnants of the lei from last week's party.

Doesn't matter - they're all loved and paraded proudly.

The comparison with 3-year-olds is apt.
It's all impulse without reason.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 25 Jul 2010 #permalink

> Oh, Nova is discriminating all right.

Indeed. As you pointed out, the problem is that she espouses useful scientific discrimination, but practices the opposite...and most of her sycophants don't show evidence of ... well, *discriminating* between the two.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Jul 2010 #permalink

having heard both sides of the argument I favour Monckton's. The science is well evidenced and as far as can be seen supports the fact that since 1998 the planet has been cooling.
Abraham doesn't seem to have done his homework or checked the facts so thoroughly. It is no use relying on non-linear differential equations to justify a position. That is the same as forecasting chaos.

"having heard both sides of the argument I favour Monckton's"

This is proof you haven't heard both sides...

"The science is well evidenced"

From Monkey?

I don't think so. Try looking here: http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

And Monckton's "reply" (or, rather response, since there was no replying being done...) to J Abraham's presentation had NO SCIENCE WHATSOEVER.

"Abraham doesn't seem to have done his homework or checked the facts so thoroughly."

Oh dear. Poed?

His were the only fact checking done. In many cases not possible because Monkey didn't manage to cite who he was referring to.

"That is the same as forecasting chaos."

Just like the planets. After all, the maths that begat Chaos Theory was in response to a king asking "are the planets stable in their orbits" (the answer to which was at the time "it depends"). This is because orbital predictions are the same as forecasting chaos.

As is any attempt to be a bookie: predicting the chaos.

Any staff sergeant in charge of logistics (E4?) also is forecasting chaos.

None of this seems to mean their jobs are impossible and unable to be useful.

"It is no use relying on non-linear differential equations to justify a position. "

F=ds/dt from which all ballistics and orbital mechanics comes.

All of which produce a position in time.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?