More Monckton

There is a fun wiki user page collecting a rebuttal of Moncktons nonsense. Mostly I'm impressed by peoples patience in bothering to follow it all through. One thing sticks out to me: Moncktons apparent use of references that totally fail to support his claims for them. For example, Monckton says "From c.1000 AD, ships were recorded as having sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa 2000; Lamb 1972a,b; Villalba 1990, 1994)." but apparently T2000 is concerned with hydrology on the Tibetan plateau; B2000 is, as you might expect, a general review of analysis of tree-ring proxy data for reconstructing past climate; Villalba lends no support. So where did M find these things? Did he totally make them up? Copy from elsewhere without checking? Or just fail to understand what he was reading?

More like this

Christopher Monckton and George Monbiot have an exchange in the Guardian and William Connolley is not impressed. Today's grauniad has a piece by Monckton, "This wasn't gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming". Its in the "response" column, where people get a chance to reply. Sadly its all…
A new study has recently been published that looks at the ecology of bristlecone pine growth at Sheep Mountain, and the tree ring signal those trees produce, at high altitudes in the Southwestern US. This is important because tree rings are an often used proxyindicator for reconstructing past…
One of the commenters to my last post, an attempt to explain why the hacked climatology emails do not constitute a scientific scandal, came up with a darn fine idea: If you think that global warming rests on a few temperature data sets and models, you are very wrong. If you don't understand this…
Deep Climate has been reading the stolen emails that Steve McIntyre didn't mention: Arguing from a cherrypicked selection of quotes from the "Climategate" emails, McIntyre has claimed that IPCC authors Chris Folland and Michael Mann pressured Briffa to submit a reconstruction that would not "dilute…

Did he totally make them up? Copy from elsewhere without checking? Or just fail to understand what he was reading?

It's the boilerplate template for skeptic/denialist argumentation. Of course when you follow up on their references they don't say what the mendacicizers claim. The text isn't aimed at people like you and me; rather, it is aimed at people who can't or won't read refs.

Best,

D

[Ah, but are the refs themselves bolierplate form somewhere? If so, where? Crichton? -W]

He got at least some of his stuff from co2science, which does engage in this type of distortion. Possibly there's a match to one of their articles. Crichton is a possibility but I didn't think he was quite that stupid.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 30 Nov 2006 #permalink

see-oh-too does their refs in a particular style. Lots of commenters cut-paste directly and you can tell where they get their arguments from. If Monckton's refs are in the see-oh-too style, there ya go.

Can't do the legwork for a while to see for myself.

Best,

D

This seems to be job for Social Network Analysis; let's hope that eventually Google provides for doing that in some automated way.

Either that or we're getting alternate facts leaking in from some not quite parallel universe, a.k.a dork energy.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 01 Dec 2006 #permalink

Off topic but relevant since today is World AIDS Awareness Day.

In 1987, Monckton, while an adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote the following in The Spectator:

"There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life [...] Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month [...] all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently".

Seems like climate science is not the only area where he seems to be a crank.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 01 Dec 2006 #permalink