The battle of the graphs provides a learning opportunity says "American Elephants", and indeed it does, though possibly not in the way they're thinking.
I haven't been able to clearly identify the source of this image (which is the reason for this post: I'll show you how far back I've managed to go, and your job is to go further, or find a reason why my answer is right). The top pane is clear enough; its a borked-up version of MBH from IPCC 2001 or similar. The lower pane is similar to the famous fig 7.1.c from the FAR in 1990. Wiki's [[Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports]] has a nice set of pix.
The Manchurian Candidate
My candidate for the source of this nonsense is Monkers, in the Torygraph, with a copy of Photoshop. That's from 2006, and I can't find anything earlier. That article includes the pic I've inlined above, and the text "The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today." There is no such graph; the 19951 IPCC report used a northern hemisphere summer temperature reconstruction (fig 3.20) from 1400 to 1979 by (Bradley and Jones 1993) (text ripped shamelessly from wiki, but anyway I wrote it).
That's the source of the combined image. The borked-up thing resembling IPCC '90 but which Monkers erroneously sourced to IPCC '95 has a long history that I ought to remember; I'm hoping someone will remind me.
[Update: K points to http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Using-Gr… which says that the Torygraph article is indeed the source of the pic, in that graphical form. I may have been wrong about the "long history" of *that* image; its the multiple versions of the real 7.1.c that have the history.]
[Ha ha. another update: the text on that page has mysteriously changed, removing the graph. Isn't that just a bizarre co-incidence? And yes we all believe in fairies. Here's a cite of a wayback if you want to see the original -W]
BTW, if you're wondering why the "skeptics" want the pic from IPCC '90 to be part of IPCC'95, the answer is that they want the IPCC to have "suddenly" thrown out the One True MWP as revealed in Holy Writ by Lamb, and replaced it by MBH. Adding in an extra 5 or 6 years rather spoils that picture.
Enter the Void
Enter BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling (yes, they really are up to 8 posts now) which presents - somewhat gratuitously - a fig 5 which I'll include below:
captioned "Figure 5: From the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996, via here" where "here" is a link to http://junksciencearchive.com/Hide_the_decline.html. You won't be surprised to find that is, indeed, junk (arf arf) and includes the same pic, introduced by "the IPCC maintained the warming in its Second Assessment Report as follows". So JoNova (actually its DE) has (to their credit) actually sourced the image, but the source they've chosen to rely on is, ermm, junk. And doesn't source its image. But it looks very much like the bottom half of the Torygraph image cut out. In which case its obviously not from any IPCC report, and has got the provenance of the pic wrong.
Your mother was a hamster
So, it looks like DE has been rather careless with his sourcing. Which is a bit embarrassing for him, as he is trying to be all science-y; look, he's even got falsifiability criteria, it must be science. And so on. The question then becomes, what is he going to do about it? My best guess is stonewall: pretend that nothing is wrong, and rely on the denizens to just lap it up. That would be petty of him; simply fixing it up would be better and much easier.
[Update: they've done the right thing for the pic and updated the graph to the right one, for which I give them some credit. However, the problem now is that they've got an updated figure, for which the text makes no sense (see my comment). So, only partial credit.
1. The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) is variously known as IPCC '95 or '96. Take your pic.
Oh, good fun, this surfaces again. The Internet has greatly enabled rapid spread of poorly-sourced, misleading images. :-)
The false claim of IPCC SAR(1995) for Lamb(1965) includes Steve McIntyre in 2005, using an image slightly different than the real one in IPCC(1990), but identical to one in John Daly's <a Waiting for Greenhouse (2001).
Compare images carefully: different fonts, capitals, Years before present changed to Years, etc.
The 1995 attribution also appeared in McIntyre & McKitrick's May 11 2005 talk for Washington thinktanks, later given to Wegman, and more or less became the blueprint for the Wegman Report.
That's a dandy cornucopia of falsification and/or incompetence by M&M:
p.10 A Daly-equivalent Lamb graph ascribed to IPCC 1995.
p.11 the Huang borehole paper misused, long before disavowed
p.12 Quote from David Deming's 2005 essay in our favorite dog astrology journal JSE magically becomes
"D. Deming, Science 1995".
That's an amazing upgrade, and even more amazing, McKitrick got the Science/JSE right a few weeks before in a presentation that Mcintyre referenced. Of course, they didn't get the essay from JSE, since it was to be published in June, but it had strangely appeared on Fred Singer's SEPP website by March 7, where McIntyre had referenced that.
The evidence is quite consistent that M&M had neither IPCC(1990) or (1995) when writing about them, and thus did not see the caveats in the pages around Fig 7.1(c).
p.13: claim that MBH detects hockey sticks from red noise.
FALSE, see Effection of Selection in the Wegman Report, a nice graphical summary, and the more detailed DC's Replication and due diligence, Wegman-style....
A 100:1 cherry-pick in the code, required to manufacture the claims, is not a mistake. Fraud is a better word.
And still, Lamb(1965) appears in myriad of forms, often with bizarre commentaries.
This may well be the most-abused graph around ... although it is interesting to note that in the Battle of The Graphs (as in the cover of The Hockey Stick Illusion), the shaft is drawn horizontal, which is falsification of MBH99 (p.761) and IPCC TAR (Fig. 2.20), which clearly show a decreasing linear trend line to 1850. So people falsify that as well.
Great points helping skeptics avoid jumping on the new Evans' bandwagon. Today I pointed out the silliness of adding an atomic testing kludge since his matching algorithm could just match the temperature perfectly instead without it with merely different parameters, but I suspect then they don't get the big cooling prediction. However, Marcott 2013 is the the Godzilla sized elephant in the room:
Michael Mann [redacted -W].
That blade [again, redacted -W]. That the paper remains unretracted, the headlines not corrected means your side is now on the losing side of a great backlash brewing. Once the kids take it up instead of just the seniors, your own knowing and shameful support of fraud will be spotlighted. You are well aware that it's not just some old Hubert Lamb claim but the vast majority of proxy studies that show near perfect precedence for today's warming as falsifications of hockey sticks. Ignoring that consensus in real science is a social phenomena not a scientific one. The science is clear in the actual primary literature as well as historical records that today's warming is not unique so hockey sticks are historical revisionist lies. The site CO2Science.org even has a map of dozens of hockey stick busting studies and more arrive each year. Mann's hockey stick was a massive revision of existing understanding, but it was not supported by the needed overwhelming evidence.
Pretending evidence that Lamb's plot was essentially right instead of wrong isn't scientific, it's Orwellian.
[This comment sat in the moderation queue for a bit. And if you continue to post stuff that I redacted, you'll remain under moderation (though I should still deal with posts in the queue promptly, so sorry about the delay). As to the rest: yawn. We've been through this before, endlessly -W]
VisionLearning uses the "Battle of the Graphs" image in their section on "Misuse of scientific images."
They also cite Monckton's 2006 Telegraph article as the source for the "Battle of the Graphs" image and give a quick rundown of how it misuses scientific data.
William, the graph makes no material difference to anything in Evans' work. It was added as a late side note. But I've added a link to your post to ours, crediting you with helping proofread the post. I will update when we get the actual SAR graph or the proper source. Thank you. - Jo
[If it makes no difference it shouldn't have been there. Parsimony, remember. Its good that you've updated the pic. Its bad that you're now stonewalling my comment re the text: see http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts… -W]
Is it just me, or is there also something not quite right about that "20th century average temperature" line? I'm forced to use the eyeball method here, but it appears to me that from 1900-2000 there is more are above that line than below.
Graph is no longer on JoNova. Has been replaced with correct one.
Have these clowns not realised that the IPCC are up to AR5? You can tell they're in a circus as they have elephants too.
Potholer54 talks a lot about that IPCC 1990 schematic use by the anti-AGW media, including Monkers at 11:16
#4 Marco I agree, the 20th century average highlighted does not appear to match that graph. But if it was derived from the IPCC 1990 schematic, I guess it is no surprise they got the temperature scale wrong. Plus the original schematic only went up to 1950.
Frank, you'd think those "skeptics" would be a little bit more skeptic, no?
Anyone who shows IPCC(1990) Fig 7.1(c) as evidence of a big MWP, *without* reading and addressing the caveats and text around it (pp.199-203) is either
a) a seriously incompetent scholar
b) being deliberately deceptive, as per "How to Lie With Charts", one of the easier ways.
Graphs are striking and propagate easily.
Try Google images: medieval warm period
That doesn't even include the numerous variants found in books that reside on my special shelves where I don't let science books go. For instance, Singer and Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years" (2007), on p.68 they ascribe a variant of Fig 7.1(c) to IPC(1995) Fig 22, which of course has no resemblance ... outright fabrication.
Even more amusing, that claim was copied (although without mention of Singer and Avery) by Alexander(2009) (If anyone has the 2012 edition, I'd be curious if anything got fixed. Among other things, he gave credence to E. G. Beck's CO2 claims.)
The same fabrication got copied again by Steve Goreham (2009, 2012), in his Climatism books.
In academic terms, these are false citations on top of Singer & Avery's fabrication.
Mr Connolley falsely accuses me of having fabricated a graph in whose selection, drafting and publication I played no part whatsoever. I should be grateful if he would remove all references to my having "faked" or fabricated this graph, and if he would kindly notify me when he has done so.
In the Torygraph article, you claim your graph comes from IPCC '95. But it doesn't. It doesn't come from any IPCC report.
But since you're here: could you clarify whether the graphic I've inlined at the top was created for your Torygraph article? If so, who by: you or the newspaper? And if you know, what sources was it created from? -W]
[Oh, and "unspeakable" is hardly polite either, no? -W]
[Somewhat confusingly, you're now claiming that the graph I've inlined is on "in whose design, production and publication I played no part at all." This, in an article headlined "By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph 12:01AM GMT 05 Nov 2006". That's very hard to understand; I'd be grateful if you can explain -W]
So much fail!
And now we have someone claiming to be Monckton of Brenchley falsely accusing WMC (with an incorrect Mr) of falsely accusing him of having fabricated a graph, when WMC makes no such accusation.
The double graph is clearly borked, and it does indeed appear in a Telegraph web page of an article by Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph, dated 05 Nov 2006, which falsely says "The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today." Nope, no such graph in the SAR.
So, if a Monckton of Brenchley denies any part in selection, drafting and publication of the graphs, is he (or she) accusing the Telegraph of faking the article?
Bonus points: thanks to Kevin O'Neill for linking to VisionLearning's use of the “Battle of the Graphs” image in their section on “Misuse of scientific images.”
They correctly point out that the graphs represent different datasets, and have different scales on the y-axes.
However, they seem to accept the Telegraph falsehood that the top graph was used by the IPCC: the actual IPCC graphs had a shaded area showing uncertainties, had much more variation (perhaps due to the y-axis being flattened in the Telegraph version?) and had a distinct down slope from the MWP to the Little Ice Age. And of course the IPCC didn't superimpose a horizontal hockey stick shape.
VisionLearning says "The author of the article, Christopher Monckton, created the graph on the bottom using different calculations that did not take into account all of the variables that climate scientists used to create the top graph", has the commentator here asked the to remove that statement?
The VisionLearning conclusion is "These are common techniques used to distort visual forms of data – manipulating axes, changing one of the variables in a comparison, changing calculations without full explanation – that can obscure a true comparison." They should have mentioned another common technique, faking the graph entirely, or "creating an illustration" and mislabelling it.
[I agree that VL's discussion is poor, or ambiguous. The reason that the two graphs disagree is not just, or even principally, the different datasets: its that the top one, insofar as it follows IPCC, is a numerical multiproxy reconstruction whereas the bottom one is schematic. Its possible to interpret "The author of the article, Christopher Monckton, created the graph on the bottom using different calculations that did not take into account all of the variables that climate scientists used to create the top graph. In other words, the graphs simply do not show the same data" as meaning that, but its rather unclear. Its also probably wrong: my best guess would be that M copied or transcribed the graph; I don't think that he created it from raw data.
As to the top graph, I hadn't looked before, but its certainly similar to MBH - see, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#mediaviewer/File… Though as you say, without the uncertainty shading -W]
Ha, checks it out in photoshop. It would be similar to MBH/TAR fig. 5, but it's hugely compressed so that 1.0 on the y-axis is represented by about 0.32 so a much flattened curve.
Stretch it vertically by 3 times and it does look the same as the central 40 year smoothed reconstruction curve, but it's missed out the "Reconstruction (AD 1000 to 1980)" and of course the gray shaded two standard error limits.
Mr Connolley has said, on another website:
"The figure was faked. By Monkers."
The moniker "Monkers" was intended to be understood, and was understood by other commenters, to refer to me.
Mr Connolley now concedes he does not know whether I faked the figure. He made a serious, libellous allegation of dishonesty on my part without knowing whether the allegation was true.
I now invite him to retract his grave allegation of dishonesty on my part and to apologize for it.
[Dr. As above. But it doesn't look like reading what other people write is your strong suit. I'd also suggest that scattering this conversation across several blogs isn't a great idea: [[DRY]].
So, as above: did you create the graph under discussion or not? -W]
Intriguing. Visionlearning say "The author of the article, Christopher Monckton, created the graph on the bottom using different calculations that did not take into account all of the variables that climate scientists used to create the top graph."
How would they know what calculations he'd used?
They'd be expected to have followed the link at the top of Moncton's article, "Download Christopher Monckton's references and detailed calculations [pdf]"
Now dead, but available on Wayback complete with the Monkers Barbie Pink pseudo-HoL logo:
No sign of the infamous double fake, but p. 6 has one of the many fake versions of the FAR graph with the false caption "Upper graph: Temperature history from UN 1996 report, showing the mediaeval warm period."
It also has on of the the real TAR MBH graphs, with another lie in the caption: "Lower graph:”Hockey-stick” from UN 2001 report. The mediaeval warm period is absent."
Of course it's not absent, just not as big as he wanted.
So, did Monkers provide this info to the Sunday Telegraph and they helpfully faked up a misleading double graph, or did someone find it on the internets?
My guess is the former, so apparently Monckton of Brenchley was dishonest in the info he gave to the Telegraph, but someone else actually produced the fake. Can Monckton of Brenchley confirm that's the case? Or plead ignorance?
[Well spotted, I'd missed that. So, the mystery of the graph remains. We can only hope that Lord M will clear it up -W]
Well, my dear Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (if that is your proper title), the graph appeared in an article you wrote. As others have asked, if you didn't construct it, who did? Did someone on the Telegraph's staff? Did you get someone to construct it for you?
Enquiring minds wish to know.
A preliminary congratulations on the real possibility of making it to Monkers' famous vaporwware list of people to sue for defaming or libel.
Or did you already made it to that list before? :)
[Its new, I think. But who knows? I might be the first he actually sues -W]
The facts. Mr Connolley accused me of having "faked" a graph. He now confirms he did not know whether I "faked" it or not. In the circumstances, he must now apologize and retract his false allegation.
[Dr. As above, twice. But it doesn't look like reading what other people write is your strong suit.
So, as above, twice: did you create the graph under discussion or not? -W]
Be it noted that I have made three requests for an apology for an allegation made by Mr Connolley when, as he now admits, he did not know whether it was true or false. As I have noted above, it was false. Be it noted that, notwithstanding these facts, Mr Connolley persists in his libel,
... and you persist in not giving him his correct title. Which is rather rude. You have also ignored his simple question repeatedly. That too is uncivil.
Maybe the Viscount got help from his endocrinologist, who looked at climate abstracts for him, long ago. He at least called me Dr, or actually "Dr", as here.
I still treasure:
"Perhaps it would be better if “Dr.” Mashey were to write a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Mr. Schulte’s paper, rather than interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere, which is not the best place for serious scientific discourse."
I hope it's clear that it is necessary for VM to establish the provenance of this graph for any claim he makes based on that provenance to have substance?
In answer to "BBD", it is for Mr Connolley to establish that the provenance of the graph is me. He cannot do that, but has repeatedly admitted he does not know the source of the graph he had accused me of having "faked".. He should apologize. He has not apologized.
[Dr. As above, thrice. But it doesn't look like reading what other people write is your strong suit. Or... perhaps you're talking to someone else? I'm not Mr Connolley, of course, but their are people called Mr Connolley in the world. Perhaps you mean one of them.
It seems to me that the balance of evidence strongly supports you having authored the graph: it appears in an article with your name on, after all. That makes your assertion of the graph, at WUWT, "in whose design, production and publication I played no part at all" rather difficult to understand (how can it possibly be the case that you had no part in the publication of a graph in an article that you wrote? Are you really suggesting that the Torygraph inserted it with no reference to you? And that, following the publication of your article, you didn't notice this inserted graph? That's very difficult to believe) -W]
It must be hard on the poor Monckton, to be reduced to a parody. Yet he seems unable to help himself.
Well, there are more important matters. World Cup football, [snip -W]
[ it is for Mr Connolley to establish that the provenance of the graph is me. He cannot do that, but has repeatedly admitted he does not know the source of the graph he had accused me of having “faked”.]
Well, unless I've missed it, you have still not answered Dr Connolley's question as to whether or not you did create the graph under discussion. It would seem that Dr Connolley is indeed trying to establish the provenance of the graph and you're failing to aid him in his quest. Why would that be?
ATTP, looks like elsewhere Monckton claims he didn't create it. In fact, he even claims not to have been involved in its publication. Which is odd, since it is published as part of an article in the Telegraph that he supposedly authored.
How strange that Monkers is now demanding that WMC "establish that the provenance of the graph is me", when the [Sunday] Telegraph put online their source for what they titled "news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf" which is in Monkers' inimitable lack of style. Does he also want it established that Monkers wrote falsehoods in that pdf and in the article itself, or does he want to blame the sub-editor? Or perhaps the tea-boy?
[That's a pretty good point, DS -W]
It would seem to be necessary for VM to establish the provenance of the graph in order to demonstrate that his grievance with Dr Connolley has any basis in fact. His apparent refusal to do so is indeed baffling.
Thanks, but presumably Chris knows the provenance if he included it in something he published?
The graph was in YOUR article. Either you put it there or the publication did. Which is it?
Thanks, but presumably Chris knows the provenance if he included it in something he published?
And presumably VM endorses the graphic since he is not on record complaining that the Telegraph misrepresented him by inserting it into his article.
C'mon - give the guy a break ... it's only been 8 years since it was published ... these things take time to get corrected
Eight years without MV making an on-record complaint to the Telegraph that it misrepresented him by its insertion of this graph into the article is strongly suggestive that MV endorses the graph. If the graph is misleading, then MV's complaint against WMC has no weight.
Excitingly (indeed, so excitingly that I shall comment on my own blog), Lord M is now threatening to report LS for "research misconduct": http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment… -W]
"I still treasure: “Perhaps it would be better if “Dr.” Mashey were to write a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Mr. Schulte’s paper, rather than interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere, which is not the best place for serious scientific discourse.”"
of course not: newspaper opinion pages are clearly the most appropriate venue ;-)
The comments made at WUWT under the name "Monckton of Brenchley" are not in what I recall as Mr. Monckton's usual style, and do not use characteristics typical of British English (e.g., he/she/whoever writes "apologize" instead of "apologise").
Just an observation. Conclude what you will.
[That's a fair point; we have no direct evidence that the person commenting here, or elsewhere, is indeed Lord M -W]
I would expect MV to be vociferous in his complaints if someone has hijacked his screen name.
I attempted to leave a comment on the WUWT takedown of the Evans/JoNova BIG NEWS theory showing that the original posts included the Monckton/Telegraph graph.
Second comment - questioning the 'off topic' rationale for snipping the first, got this reply:
"This is not a Monckton bashing site. Lord Monckton is a valued contributor who writes regular articles. If you want to go on the attack, there are plenty of blogs available..."
I don't visit WUWT very often and didn't know he was so highly thought of there that no criticism is allowed.
Seems like the real thing to me; and I wouldn't use the 'ize' suffix as evidence.
Contrary to what most of us think we know about British English "[t]he use of ‘-ize’ spellings is part of the house style at Oxford University Press"
Yes, I was shocked, too.
Let's assume for a minute that Monckton didn't create the graph. That raises at least four questions in my mind.
1 Did he not have any prior sight of the graph before publication and therefore no chance to correct it?
2 Did he not ask for a correction or clarification to be placed the the Telegraph after publication?
3 Does he agree with what the graph shows?
4 Does he agree that the graph is at best flawed, at worst downright wrong?
Disowning something published under your own name and blaming it on a minion, that's responsible behaviour.
Fragmeister, I think you mean "irresponsible". Having said that, your questions are excellent ones, and I feel that Monckton should answer them.
Pedantic English uses "-ize" with Greek roots, "-ise" if the word comes from French. I hope you realise that there's no need to apologize for that.
Meanwhile, it's outrageous for William to assume that Monckton is responsible in some way for a chart which appeared years ago in his article and which he has never disowned. It's only Monckton's great personal magnanimity which stops him suing. That and the fact that he hasn't got a case.
"Lord M"'s threats against LS become actual promises: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment…
I would like to see one of these bullying threats of "libel" to come to trial - all sorts of evidence could be subpoenaed I imagine.
I haven't been back to WUWT since my comments there were snipped - but I now have two emails in my inbox; one from dbstealey apologizing for the deletion and the other from Anthony.
The one from AW is interesting in that he claims he spent 35 to 45 minutes researching the graph and now has proof of who produced it.
[Weird. AW is very chummy with Lord M, so can just ask him. Perhaps that's what his "research" consisted of -W]
re #44, thanks WMC
I am pleased to learn that "rocket scientist"
"Dr Evans himself is a quiet and modest man."
Very classy of Monkers to blame the Irish potato famine on solar radiation in that comment, William. Ain't he a charmer?
[Sorry, but let's keep it civil please -W]
....he is trying to be all science-y..
where he refers to David Evans (DE).
New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling.
According to DE's text, the discussion is all about energy and hence the term global cooling in this prediction must refer to a fall in the global energy.
According to DE's criterion on the other hand this prediction is going to be tested by looking at the mean global surface temperature which is only loosely connected to the total energy.
The test is inconclusive. It can neither falsify nor corroborate the new solar theory... not unless it is supplemented by more theoretical hypotheses.
This 'theory' would have led to a more interesting study of the failure (see ref.1) of dogmatic falsificationism if the criterion had involved a more suitable measurement closer to the total global energy.
Ref.1 Imre Lakatos in e.g. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.
(Apologies to those who may have said it before).
H/T J Bower's over at Eli's
I almost missed clicking on that, and would have missed Rocket scientist for hire.
So he's a gold bug too? An all around nutter, that one...
I've found proof of provenance ...
"You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated."
Read the full story ›
Anyone want to speculate who was contacted and by whom to have the section removed? Apparently threats of libel scared VisionLearning.
[Thats very interesting; thanks -W]
> “You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates
> is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated.”
When you think about it, Adobe Illustrator didn't even _exist_ the year that document was created, so, obviously ...
The Obama birth certificate scan DOES split apart into disparate elements if you open the file in Adobe Illustrator: I tried it!
What I also tried is scanning my own, venerable, birth certificate using OCR software rather than a straight image scan - an easily imaginable 'mistake' in a busy hospital.
Guess what happened?
You see, unlike Sheriff Arpaio and co. and their '6 months' (IIRC) of 'research', and his later admirers, I tried disconfirming their pet theory.
And that has made all the difference.
Since AW apologized and offered to have me resubmit my comment - I expanded upon the original and changed the emphasis given the removal of the 'Misuse of scientific images' section from the VisionLearning website. We'll see if it ever appears.
VisionLearning *had* a section on the 'Misuse of scientific images' with an image titled 'Battle of the Graphs' -- but if you follow the link today you'll find no such section.
If you use the Wayback Machine - and look at the page just one day ago (June 29th version) you'll see it.
The lower panel of the graph that VisionLearning used as an example of the 'Misuse of scientific images' accompanied the David Evans BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling post at JoNova's. The graph has since been replaced after Stoat pointed out it was incorrectly sourced and not an IPCC graph as purported.
Monckton has since been unwilling to take any responsibility for the 'Battle of the Graphs' image that accompanied his article 8 years ago. He has threatened libel suits against those who make him responsible for it. He has also refused to answer who *is* responsible for the graph.
VisionLearning's section on the 'Misuse of scientific images' has been on the web since at least 2009. But the day after I mention it in a comment thread visited by Monckton the section disappears. A comment thread where he threatened a libel suit against a blogger for the making the obvious inference it was Monckton's graph that accompanied the article with his byline. Or at the very least approved by Monckton. If not, Monckton had 8 years to correct the record. To my knowledge he has made no attempt to do so.
And while his legal threats are unlikely to sway Stoat, it would appear Monckton of Brenchley has succeeded with legal threats insofar as VisionLearning is concerned. Or pehaps it's just a big coincidence they decided to delete the section at the exact same time that Monckton was threatening libel suits against all and sundry.
The Lamb 1965 'schematic' is the most abused and misused graph in all of climate science. Monckton provides another sad chapter in its history.
Ok, the 'hockey stick' is probably the most misused and abused - I took some poetic license.
What's this all about?
June 29, 2014 at 2:42 am
[Pending legal proceedings this comment has been removed - JN]
Another piece of logic that escaped me: Monckton now considers that being accused of creating the "Battle of the Graphs" image is a libelous accusation. I'm not a legal scholar, but doesn't that imply that it would be damaging to his reputation? To damage his reputation the graph would have to be a very bad piece of science. Inaccurate misleading, intended to deceive, etc.
In other words, by threatening libel Monckton is implicitly agreeing that the graph is exactly what we say it is - a piece of trash.
[Its hard to know. If we assume that the Lord M who has commented here is indeed Lord M, he's gone to great lengths to avoid stating whether he is, or is not, the originator of the graph. Presumably that's intended as some kind of cunning legal trap; but (if it is indeed he) it also shows bad faith in attempting to resolve the dispute. OTOH, perhaps the person commenting here, and elsewhere, isn't Lord M at all. How would we know? -W]
If it is VM and if he is remotely serious, he will have to write to you on paper and in person.
He will also have to deal with the difficult issue of his effective endorsement of the graph, something that I suspect is going to be problematic.
I should say, his solicitors will have to write to you on paper and in person.
WC - "OTOH, perhaps the person commenting here, and elsewhere, isn't Lord M at all. How would we know?"
The Monckton posts at WUWT have to be real - or they have AW completely hoodwinked, no? And there he is defending DE to the hilt.
Given his staunch defenseof DE, I would be surprised - at least to some extent - if JN was also duped by a Monckton impostor. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) they have correspondence channels outside of blog comments..
I do not know how VisionLearning was contacted. Though I have sent an email to Anne Egger asking how the 'Misuse of scientific images' became disappeared.
[Well done. I almost did. Do let us know what reply, or lack thereof, you get -W]
So, the Monckton here could be a fake, but is in character with all the other Moncktons.
Can we set up a legal defense fund with officers, meetings, press conferences, etc "I'd like to thank the press for joining us for today's briefing from the Stoat Climate Accuracy in Media defense fund (SCAM). On day 1246 of this long legal siege we have nothing new to report as we're still awaiting an initial filing from VM. As a consequence, most of the committee is down at the pub. Feel free to join them there. I believe today is John Mashey's turn to buy. See you tomorrow." :)
Watts has replied to Kevin O Neil's comment saying he will address it tomorrow. Is he preparing to throw Monkers under the bus? Monkers appears to have ratted on LS to his university, which has Willis "the most popular poster at wtfuw!" Outraged! I tell you! Outraged! Maybe Watts is being forced to take sides by his (definitely not personality-disordered oh no! Not me!) most popular contributor?
Never a dull moment!
Hasn't Google been told to forget about Monckton yet? They still find, e.g.
Lucky we are that they haven't pulped all the paper books and closed all the libraries yet, eh? Find one near you:
Someone basically asked my questions over at WUWT. Monckton evaded them. Not a straight answer to any of them. Good to see him put on the spot and how he reacted. Can't say he did come up with the graphs but no outright denial.
In case this never sees the light of day over at WUWT, I post it here so I don't have to try and remember it :)
I will state here and now that Monckton faked an IPCC 1996 graph. The proof is on page 6 of the reference materials that accompanied his 2006 Telegraph story. Yes, that’s right, not only was there a fake graph published with the story (a graph Monckton claims he had no part in creating) there is also a fake 1996 IPCC graph in the reference materials.
Is Monckton going to now claim that he had no part in the reference materials? They have the logo on them that he used when he was pretending to be a member of the House of Lords. The caption on page 6 says, “Upper graph: Temperature history from UN 1996 report, showing the mediaeval warm period.” No, it’s not. The graph was not used in the 1995/6 IPCC report. It’s a fake 2nd Assessment Report graph. And Monckton is the one responsible for it.
I don’t care about fake British royalty. Rather than threatening libel Monckton ought to own up to his mistakes. You want to sue me for libel? Fine. Have at it. I’ll win, you’re wrong. Even in England the truth is a valid defense – despite the fact I may be just a poor commoner.
[Your comment has appeared over there. Interestingly, when I *first* looked, it hadn't appeared. So that means your comment was held in moderation, and that the mods read and passed it -W]
"The mediaeval warm period and little ice age were clearly shown in a schematic (left panel) in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990.(0) Yet in 1995 Dr. David Deming, who had recently published a paper reconstructing 1000 years(1) of global temperatures by thousands of borehole measurements worldwide(2) and showing clearly the existence of the mediaeval warm period, received an email from Dr. Jonathan Overpeck an IPCC author (3) saying, “We have to abolish the mediaeval warm period(4) Sure enough, by the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001 both the mediaeval warm period and the little ice age had been abolished(5) and, by ingeniously confining the new graph (right panel) to the northern hemisphere, the global warming of the 20th century was exaggerated by 50%.(6)"
(0) Apparently Monckton did not actually read the section in which Fig. 7.1(c) is found.
(1) False, Deming (1995) went back no earlier than 1700CE, but most records started in 1800s.
Monckton could not have read the paper, so that is a false citation/fabrication, which if Monckton were an academic, might rise to academic misconduct.
(2) False. Deming listed ~368, none outside North America, most from Oklahoma north. Apparently, Monckton is also challenged on both numeracy and geography. So, that was fabrication as well.
(3) Deming has never provided the slightest evidence of the existence or context of such email, much less that it was Overpeck. The evidence is that McIntyre manufactured that without the slightest evidence (I have a good collection of WebCites).
Overpeck was one of 29 contributors to IPCC(1995) SAR Section 9, but not to Section 3 on paleoclimate. He did contribute to IPCC TAR, as one of 140 authors in the paleoclimate section. Of course, by 2005, he was one of two Coordinating Lead Authors for AR4, likely why he got chosen in 2005 as the author of a non-evidenced quote that made no sense in 1995. In 2005, scientists *were* fighting the ongoing effort to promote Lamb(1965) as Eternal Truth, as resurrected by McIntyre and others.
(4) Wrong. The real quote was:
'‘A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’'
(5) False. MBH99 had more realistic MWP and LIAs, like other serious reconstructions. Monckton apparently adored the Lamb, still in 2013.
(6) Silly. Monckton preferred a schematic of Central England over the Northern Hemisphere, and of course, the N.H. had more proxies available.
At the very best, Monckton's scholarship displayed breathtaking incompetence.
I'm in awe of the ability to pack so much wrongness in such a short paragraph.
Kevin: is there a link to the reference materials? Sorry if I missed it.
[Its right at the top, link-text "Download Christopher Monckton's references and detailed calculations [pdf]". The original link is now broken, but the wayback machine has copies, e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/20070206202759/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne… -W]
Hi John,thought you'd have already compared the fake graph at the Telegraph link with your collection of Fig. 7.1(c)'s which use a serif font and are misattributed to the 1996 SAR.
Nice find by Marco of Monckton to Parliament, Nov 2013, at least getting the year right as IPCC 1990 but a blatant fake falsely implying that the FAR was in color, with graphs in dayglo red, pink, purple and yello. Wonder who Monkers will blame that one on?
Good point by Marco that Monkers makes several accusations of fraud in that document, a serious matter in a submission to Parliament which has been published by Parliament. Not least, "The IPCC used fraudulent artifices so as falsely to abolish the mediaeval warm period".
Said cunning artifices including "The terms "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" have been used to describe two past climate epochs in Europe and neighbouring regions during roughly the 17th to 19th and 11th to 14th centuries, respectively." Oh, but m'noble mcLord wants them to be global, and "The timing, however, of these cold and warm periods has recently been demonstrated to vary geographically over the globe in a considerable way." Calling that "fraudulent" looks rather like libel by Monkers.
[Rather than looking like like, I think that (and other comments, by M and others) establishes the obvious precedent that robust language is commonplace in discussing GW -W]
Aha, may have found where Monkers ripped orf the dayglo version: a Sept 2010 blog attributes it as "Source - Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine". Is Monkers an affiliate or a signatory to their spurious petition?
[Sorry: just fished this out of spam. However, I think you're wrong, the look-n-feel is different -W]
Kevin: many thanks. that 2006 report is a dandy that I will save.
dave s: No, I hadn't seen that one, but these versions proliferate like rabbits. The Telegraph piece was obviously a redraw.
The one Kevin provides will get included in my list, although the density of error and fabrication in these pieces are wearying. Numerous people simply copy junk without bothering to check at all. Too bad more are not academics.
A comment of mine disappeared, no doubt due to a nasty link to a 2010 blog which shows the dayglo Monkers 1990 graph, but attributes it as Source – Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine. Easily spotted on the google image search you suggested. Monkers seems to have used it a few times without attribution, is that plagiarism or fraud?
"Oops, Monckton also repeated the fraudulent claims of McIntyre and McKitrick..."
Should Michael Mann sue you?
Monckton is now blaming it on an eminent professor who misattributed the date, and is claiming that there is nothing written anywhere on the graph that claims its from the IPCC. So Kevin had some success - at least he finally answered the question, if only to lie.
Tom Fuller, why should any Michael Mann sue John Mashey over the statement that McIntyre and McKitrick made fraudulent claims?
Michael E. Mann has already published a description of the "massive cherry pick" produced by McIntyre and reiterated mindlessly by Monkers in his spurious statement that "even with this entirely random data, altogether unconnected with the temperature record – the model nearly always constructed a “hockey-stick” curve similar to that in the UN’s 2001 report".
It would be very unwise of McIntyre and McKitrick to try getting that in court.
[I too was a touch baffled by TF's comment -W]
Captain Flashheart, well noted.
Monkers in his Wotsup comment (on July 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm) adds the excuse that "was not able to verify it directly because the IPCC reports in question were not then online and I was a very sick man, confined to barracks and quite unable even to travel to the nearest village, let alone to the nearest university library 150 miles away. It was not until two years later that I was cured, and by then the world had moved on." Whether this is true or not, he doesn't seem to have moved on. Odd excuse for false and defamatory statements published in a newspaper, that he hadn't checked his sources.
Including his claim that the UN 'used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".' By "scientists" he apparently meant McIntyre and McKitrick with their cherry-pick, elevating a [semi]retired mining company executive and an economics prof to the status of scientists.
As the noble captain rightly indicates, Monkers now says the double graph was "published without my knowledge alongside an article of mine" and invites assistance in telling him what corrections they would have made to the graph, before claiming the "graphs did not purport to be the IPCC’s graphs and were not labeled as such", and acknowledging "the squidging of the graph to make it fit the page".
For a start, the "Battle of the Graphs" graphic states on the top graph 'The IPCC "Hockey Stick",' giving the lie to his claim, and his text under the graphic says the 'large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times', reinforcing the impression that the fake graph was the IPCC figure.
Of course no-one should trust the Torygraph, but since Monkers published blatant lies there, there seems no justification for his claim that a blog comment “The figure was faked. By Monkers.” is a "serious, libellous allegation of dishonesty" which might in some way damage his reputation.
p.s. source for the Monkers spurious statement discussed in my comment #80: see my comment #17 above.
re John Mashey #76, Monkers does indeed repeat in that pdf the fraudulent claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, but rather than the 12 graphs discussed by Deep Climate, he showed 7 graphs from the 1:100 cherry-pick along with one based on MBH99. This was the graphic McIntyre found useful at the December 2004 AGU Meeting for showing to non-mathematicians, and put online in a link from his blog on Jan. 5, 2005.
Lord M's latest (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment…) is just utterly wacky.
Incidentally (for the lawyers present) I'm pretty sure that there's an issue about who is responsible for the libel, say at WUWT. That's a heavily moderated forum, we know (for example, "oneillsinwisconsin"'s comment sat in moderation for a bit - I saw this personally - before appearing; which means it was explicitly cleared by the mods (and Lord M has seen it, and not objected)). And I think that means that the site owner gets some responsibility for the comments posted there. Opinions?
IANAL, but I happen to have some experience in these matters.
'Yes' to the last question. It's all 'publishing'. But... there's always a but;
Australian law and English are, I believe, similar in these circumstances - you could read from page 946 of this PDF (relax, it's only the specific Media Law section of a much larger legal guide - there are only 20 pages! and only a few pertain to defamation) http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/law_handbook/pdf/Ch33_medi…
I believe the US, with its First Amendment, sets a higher bar in matters restricting free speech.
I would also like to know. Is this Munchkin, Evans, or someone else threatening action? Or is William not allowed to discuss this?
[Lord M is best buddies with JN / DE. That snip is either because he's asked for it (my best guess) or proactively by JN (not likely I'd say). No-one asked me; I'm free to discuss it -W]
BTW I skimmed through that thread. What a nasty, nasty bunch most of them are, and so stupid they don't realise how stupid they are. In contrast, Jo Nova herself seems neither nasty nor dishonest, just deluded.
[There's a lot of unpleasant stuff on display in that thread. I'm hoping they'll go really nuclear, but I suspect they'll back off, or AW will step in to save them from themselves. Or he might maliciously not: after all, chopping down a few notable "skeptics" makes him look taller, no? Re JN: yes, agreed, somewhere she's taken a wrong turn on the science; who knows why -W]
There was a libel action against Google a couple of years ago in which the test applied for potential liability was "knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words". Active moderation would seem to imply "knowing involvement".
Left this at WUWT. I wrote it in a hurry as I was late for work. Probably should have waited until I had more time.
Monckton of Brenchley in his recent posts has added a lie and (if he were an academic or serious researcher) revealed misconduct. We have a saying in America, when you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is STOP DIGGING!
The lie - Monckton now says:"The graphs did not purport to be the IPCC’s graphs and were not labeled as such:..." In his reference materials the caption on page 6 says, “Upper graph: Temperature history from UN 1996 report, showing the mediaeval warm period.”
The misconduct - Monckton now admits that he did not have the 1990 report. As Dr. John Mashey has explained, "In academe, this is called false citation, misrepresentation of a source, or falsification/fabrication. Such things can be academic misconduct, not because the curve [on the graph] is wrong, but because the different image (not labeled “after” or “derived from”, etc) strongly implies that the original source was not consulted." No inference needed. Monckton has admitted he didn't refer to the source material. Perhaps that's why he never mentions the caveats in the original text of the 1990 report that apply to Figure 7.1.c. Shoddy research.
The graph Monckton used is NOT (as stated in the reference materials) from the IPCC 1996 report.
Not only is it not in the 1996 report, it isn't the authentic 1990 graph either. It's a fake. Compare the 1990 Figure 7.1.c graph with the one in Monckton's reference materials - they are NOT the same graph.
It's easy to lay blame on others (someone sent it to me - I was sick). Monckton's name is on the article and his name is on the reference materials, but some unnamed source is at fault. Own up to your mistakes, Monckton. And quit digging deeper!
Eric Dillalogue, Project Manager for Visionlearning.com, has informed me they removed the 'Misuse of scientific images' section after receiving a letter from Monckton's attorney. They will update after review.
Mr O'Neill says I have lied. No, I have not. The graphs in the Sunday Telegraph were not labeled with their source and I do not know where they came from. They appear to be schematics intended to convey the difference between the IPCC's earlier and later versions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years, and that is all.
The graph in the reference materials seems to be in all material respects the same graph that appears in the IPCC's 1990 report.
And I am not an academic, and I was not writing a scientific paper. I received the graph from a reliable source who had made an inadvertent error in the date. And that is all.
If Mr Connolley will kindly give me his address for service, my lawyers will write to him. If he will not give me his name and address, they will serve an order on the ISP requiring it to provide the necessary details.
[There are several questions taht you haven't answered above. Do please show some good faith and answer them, before making any demands of your own. And any requests will need to be addressed to Dr Connolley; there is no Mr Connolley at this address -W]
[Looks like you've got a lot of people to write to - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment… -W]
That's your defense, Monkton? Is that really the best you can conjure up? You didn't put the graphs in an article you authored, you never checked them, and you received the graphs (that you don't know where they came from) from someone you trust who put the wrong date on but you didn't check. That's your defense?
And you complain about the poor academic standards of climate scientists?
How exactly can you "not know where they came from" if *you* supplied the reference materials that included one of the graphs (that came from a friend)? I guess for someone who thinks Obama wasn't born in America, this kind of nonsense makes perfect sense. But for the rest of us ... you really are completely beyond the pale.
Listen to Wondering Willis being a naive arsehole:
And to use your position and reputation to attempt to threaten Leif’s employment his University? That is equally unacceptable.
To date, that kind of cowardly attack has been the exclusive province of the alarmists. I know of no other occasion when a climate skeptic has threatened to cost a man his job because of his scientific beliefs. I am deeply distressed that you have brought such filth to the skeptic side.
I have had emails at my work threatening me, after just two identifiable excursions into climate science (this is why I no longer put any identifying details on any climate-related websites, and never comment on denialist sites). Denialists are famous for this shit. This is McIntyre's entire schtick. These people are so completely stupidly self-important, it's a wonder to behold.
Words fail me, Lord Monckton. They really do. If there is one thing you of all people would have expected to have learnt is personal responsibility. All you have given is excuses, evasion and threats. To be honest, that seems to be all you do. When someone picks up on your mistakes, you don't have any other response really.
You claimed you were ill when sent the graph and could not check, it being 150 miles to the nearest university library. When did you receive the graph and where were you living at the time? I believe you reside near Edinburgh at the moment, a city of three universities. I rather think all Dr Connolley was interested in doing was finding the source of the graph and he couldn't trace it back any further than your Telegraph piece. If you had come forward then, been open and honest and given chapter and verse, as your faith would have wanted you to do, this would have been a squall, all over in minutes. Because you seem incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question, you have made it so much worse, made people dig deeper and made yourself look incompetent.
Thanks. I knew that Jo and Munchkin were friends: he's stayed with her on recent "lecture" tours of Aus.
What I don't know is what you said that was snipped and replaced with the "legal proceedings" message. I can't believe it could've been incendiary to any sensible person. If you've already copied it here just show me where.
I've also skimmed the slanging match at µWatts between Monckton, Svalgaard, and Eschenbach. Truly hilarious, but how come it's taken S & E all this time to realise that M is a deluded humbug?
[Its probably best not to repeat it, perhaps it would even be a sign of good faith; if you've read the rest, you haven't missed anything.
As to "realise" - I'm not sure they have. WE is still desperately trying to persuade M not to immolate himself -W]
On Wikipedia the [[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley]] has a box which gives him a title of Right Honourable. The Right Honourable page suggests he would need to be member of House of Lords, House of Commons, a Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty or a Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations (the Board of Trade). Is he any of these? If not should that title be deleted? Anyone volunteering to make the change if it is needed?
In order to libel someone, you need to damage their reputation.
As Chris Monckton already has the reputation of being a liar(1), fantasist(2) and buffoon(3), it's actually very difficult to libel him.
Wiki has a slightly more technical description of this defence
Claimant is incapable of further defamation – e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defensee is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement
Public domain examples:
(1) Liar: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/dance-monckey/
(2) Fantasist http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/08/monckt…
(3) Buffoon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton
88, 89 Kevin,
Excellent comments at µWatts, and we can all chuckle at Munchkin's threats in response.
You correctly say that the Lamb 1965 schematic is the most abused in climate blogs but one thing rarely pointed out is that the vertical (°C scale) has no numbers. Many assume they must be whole degrees but that is unwarranted IMO. It's just a sketch, really. This makes its misuse by "sceptics" even more reprehensible.
Can you guys hold it right there for an hour or two? I've run out of popcorn.
Eschenbach's inversion of reality is something to behold, isn't it? He can't really be that ignorant of the true situation so it can only show the power of delusion acquired in supporting "the cause".
I still don't get Svalgaard, though. What made him a "sceptic"?
crandles: Various members of the aristocracy, including (I think) viscounts, can use the style "in a personal capacity". He is a viscount, although not a member of the House of Lords, so I think that people who use such honorifics would use it for him.
However, there's essentially nothing in law requiring the use of any honorific. To me, he's Christopher Monckton.
This thread is a keeper.
#83 Dave S: thanks, I hadn't seen that one, another for my collection. How odd, in all the graphs from his code,I've yet to see any of the 50% downward sticks appear.
Sources: deja vu...
1) In 2001, Western Fuels Association (~Powder River coal) "science advisor" Tasmania-resident John Daly published a variant of Fig.7.1(c). He's deceased, so we can't ask him where he got it, and it wasn't online at that point, and there were few copies.
2) That was mostly forgotten, until resurrected by McIntyre in 2005.
However, read Tom Curtis's 2012 question and the reply there (see whole comment, but the key section here is:)
" Would you care to clarify who first brought the image to your attention, and in what context?"
"I don’t recall where I picked up the version used in the post. "
3) So, Monckton continues the tradition of using unsourced material whose provenance is multiply-murky, as the key claim, ignoring the caveats in the surrounding text. But the way, James Inhofe's The Greatest Hoax(2012), p.33 uses the same graph.
False citation, falsification.
How about the rest of the original article by Monkers which may well have influenced numerous influential readers? He might have to defend some of it.
Isn't accusing the UN's IPCC of malpractice without producing valid evidence libel? Just a few quotes taken almost at random.
The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.
That would have been too elementary to be described as an oversight. It implies malpractice on a conspiratorial scale.
They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".
That relates to the graphs attributed to the IPCC. I don't know the law about adapting someone else's libel.
Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.
Thats too silly to be libelous. At a technical level he is accusing the IPCC of censoring the clouds.
This week, I'll show ......how the UN undervalued the sun's effects... repealed a fundamental law of physics .....
The alleged repeal sounds exciting and is another accusation of malpractice , designed to draw in the lay public to read more by the same author.
I hope our mutual friends at the Torygraph, like Atticus, will persuade the Editor to lay the matter to rest by running This graph instead
By the way, Powder River coal is ~ 40% of US coal production, so if it is indeed Daly's version and meme that have propagated, think of it as a present from Dick Cheney's state's big industry.
NIce one, and nice name for the blog too. ;)
The Visionlearning "Misuse of Scientific Images" page is back!
Now without the references to Christopher Monckton and to the Daily Telegraph.
Opps. Sorry I forgot the hyperlink:
RE: ... Visionlearning ...
But there is absolutely no reference(s) to said Telegraph/Monckton anymore.
It's like Visionlearning is saying, lookie here, some climate science pron, found under a mattress/bed.
I speculate: lawyer told them to remove that attribution until the dust settles.
My last WUWT comment in the popcorn viewing thread - and Anthony has a teaser comment immediately following mine implying his research will side with Lord M :)
I have made my last comment in that thread (or at least that's my intent), but somebody needs to point out that MoB made this statement, "For my part, I am referring Mr Svalgaard’s long list of malicious comments about Dr Evans (but not about me: I give as good as I get) to his university..."
And ask MoB how to square "but not about me: I give as good as I get" with the fact he has had used threats of libel suits at JoNova's, with VisionLearning, with Stoat and with Kevin O'Neill.
And that's just regarding *this* matter - I haven't the time or patience to track down all the other libel suits he's threatened others with over the years :)
@17 dave s
It is interesting that the PDF was there 2006-2013 but in 2014 either moved or got deleted sometime.
Awesome performance from 'Chris Monckton'.
I love his work. Better even than Ali G.
The commitment to living the character is incredible.
Another interesting tidbit: the November 5, 2006 Telegraph article was reproduced in full in the Australian Institute of Geoscientists Quarterly Newsletter No 86 November 2006.
Monckton's article is prefaced by this: "Reproduced with kind permission of Lord Monckton of Brenchley" -- no mention of the Telegraph (though the text includes the Telegraph web link to the reference materials). The reprint also includes the double graph "Battle of the Graphs." So, Monckton was giving permission to run a graph he had nothing whatsoever to do with? Odd.
[That one is pretty good. I don't believe Lord M's assertions that the Torygrpah slipped in the graph without him noticing - that's not really believeable - but that one makes it absolutely clear that he knew all about it -W]
JM - here's another link with a variant of IPCC 1990 Fig. 7.1.c This has a nice watermark of Monckton's House of Lords ripoff logo on it - the pink portcullis and chains. This is the 4-color variant with the 'Mediaeval Warm Period" spelling.
Great finds. For all, the 2nd one is hysterical. Just page through.
There you have it: endorsement.
"Mr Connolley falsely accuses me of having fabricated a graph in whose selection, drafting and publication I played no part whatsoever. I should be grateful if he would remove all references to my having “faked” or fabricated this graph,
As a Torygraph Photo Editor selected it, a Torygraph Graphic Design operative drafted it, and the Torygraph Publisher published it, this specimen of Question Time rontonomade is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go so far as to aver that the articles Author did not author it.
It may therefore be constued as a demonstration of proletarian solidarity, in which, as a Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Broderers my former shirtmaker doffs his cloth hat in the general direction of the trade union comrades who grind out Torygraph and Grauniad alike.
114 Kevin & 115 John,
Yes, the PDF is wonderful, especially the pic on p11. I first saw this years ago at Hot Topic and assumed it was a "photoshop job" designed to make Munchkin look (even more) ridiculous. Of course, the truth is even funnier.
As an aside, I just found this about Lamb and the MWP and found it interesting.
It links to an extract from Lamb’s 'Climate, History and the Modern World' (1982)
So those who want to cling to Lamb and ignore everything that's been published since have been getting Lamb wrong about what he wrote anyway (or lying by omission if they've actually read him).
WC write: "That one is pretty good. I don't believe Lord M's assertions that the Torygrpah slipped in the graph without him noticing - that's not really believeable,,,"
That is a charitable interpretation. Others might say he's lying :)
re: #119 TrueSkeptic: Nice! Thanks.
I hadn't looked at Lamb(1982), but had gotten a Kindle copy of Lamb(1995), which David Holland had misrepresented:
'Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications”'
in Energy and Environment. (2007)., writing:
'‘p.955: The existence of earlier warm periods, supported by research documented, among others, by Hubert H Lamb7 and accepted by the first IPCC assessment report, contradicted the alarming predictions from the models. At that time global temperatures were thought to have varied by more than 1°C over the previous 1000 years despite little change in greenhouse gas concentrations until the industrial era. It was also thought that it was still not as warm in 1990 as it was in the Medieval Warm Period.’
Hubert H. Lamb: ‘Climate History and the Modern World’(1995) Routlidge, London and New York.
“WE MUST GET RID OF THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD”
The second IPCC assessment report9 in 1995 shows a change of mind over the issue of earlier warm periods, and ignores previous warmer interglacials and the well established early-middle Holocene climatic optimum. …’'
From your link, the 1982 and 1995 editions seem the same in this section.
But there is more...
In 2009, Nigel Lawson (who as we recall is both a Monckton in-law and Chairman of GWPF)) wrote An Appeal to Reason: A cool look at global warming.
He wrote a 163-page book on global warming, with no figures, just text. :-)
p.126, fn39 quotes the Wegman Report, but back to the topic at hand:
p.16 ‘…it is well established, for example, from historical records and accounts, that a thousand years ago, well before the onset of industrialization, there was what has become known as the medieval warm period, a benign time when temperatures were probably at least as high, if not higher than they are today.(fn33) Going back, even further, during the Roman Empire, it was probably even warmer. There is archaeological evidence that in Roman Britain, vineyards existed on a commercial scale at least as far north as Northamptonshire.'
‘See, for example, Huang et al. ‘Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements’, Geophysical Research Letters, 24, issue 15, 1997, pp.1947-50, G. Bond et al, Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene’, Science, 294, 2001, pp. 2130-6; and L. Keigwin, “The Little Ice Age and Mediavel Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea’, Science, 274, 1996, pp. 1504-08. See also H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World (1995).’
'‘For an excellent non-technical account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga, see D. Holland, “Bias and concealment…"'
The sugestion that the viscount would incestuously embrace a book by the father of his brother in law is deeply shocking ,and absent an apology invites a writ.
Serendipity .... at the bottom of the first page of results of a Google search for the title of Lamb's 1982 book, "Climate, History, and the Modern World," we find:
"But Lamb was eminent, in his field".
You could say that, about the founder of the CRU. ;)
So I'm a little curious about this:
Which is just the text written by Monckton (copy edited by the Telegraph TBD).
Which even sleuth Sherlock Watts doesn't mention in his latest post. That being, that nowhere does the text, as written, make any mention of the included image "Battle of the charts", everything mentioned in the text is to IPCC graphs/charts/figures.
Here's another copy of the Telegraph story:
at the bottom of the above PDF:
"© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2006"
and another copy:
at the bottom of the above PDF:
"Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright"
And if you print to PDF the Telegraph article:
"© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2014"
Which was mentioned above (AIG NEWS) has this at the beginning:
"Finally, Lord Christopher Monkton of Brenchley allowed AIG News to reproduce an article he wrote recently for the UK Sunday Telegraph summarising the whole global warming issue."
"(Reproduced with kind permission of Lord Monckton of Brenchley)"
and at the end:
"(Reproduced with kind permission from the Author)."
But nowhere in that AIG article is a copyright shown for the Telegraph.
So does Monckton own the copyright or does the Telegraph own the copyright, or do both own the copyright?
Lamb's "Climate, Hisotry and the Modern World" is akin to the Bible to septics. Its a much better read than the Bible (Lamb had an easy writing style), but where its alike is that its full of contradicotry messages for the current beliefs of the septics, but these are ignored. The messages they do like are held up like Commandments written in strone.
EFS - Many of the bullet points that Monckton goes thru in the Sunday Telegraph article can be found in earlier writings by Monckton. My suspicion is he provided the Telegraph with two graphs - probably different sizes - and the Telegraph's graphic artists 'gussied them up' to make a more striking visual graphic.
How much input he had may have been nothing more than, "yeah, that will work." But I'd be very surprised if he didn't give them two graphs that went along with his text - namely some variant of IPCC 1990 Fig. 7.1.c and some variant of MBH 1999. More than likely the Telegraph's graphic artists used the versions from the reference materials as the starting point.
The 'Battle of the Graphs' title could as easily have come from Monckton, an editor, or the graphic artist. Each are equally plausible.
"The ‘Battle of the Graphs’ title could as easily have come from Monckton, an editor, or the graphic artist. Each are equally plausible."
More than plausible- Mockton's bio reveals that before going into trade as a haberdasher,
" He joined the London Evening Standard newspaper as a leader-writer in 1982."
I have about 50 books that I keep on separate shelves where I forbid science books to go. Quite a few of them use some variant of Fig.7.1(c), attributed to IPCC(1990) or (1995).
Very few mention Lamb, and generallyI doubt most of them had any clue where it originally came from, and few mention Lamb.
The whole thrust of the modern argument was:
1995: Fig.7.1(c), and the IPCC wanted to get rid of it, so voila: MBH99 ... and David Deming's hearsay in a dog astrology journal proved it!
Well. OK, it was 1990, but see the IPCC believed it! Show the graph and ignore the even more absurd chronology!
I'm not sure admitting this came from 1975/1982 and for C.E.T, would have helped the story much.
The Holland/Lawson sequence seemed rare to me, but if you have more examples, please post. I like to collect examples of false citations/misrepresentations, not just plagiarisms.
OT - but in case anyone has missed THIS you really need to read it to believe it.
I keep waiting for someone - anyone - to tell me I've been fooled by a faux news article from The Onion, but alas I believe it is real. Makes Monckton look like a MENSA candidate.
Kentucky State Senator Brandon Smith, R-Hazard, from a
Committee on Natural Resources and Environment meeting to discuss new EPA rules to fight climate change by limiting greenhouse gases from power plants:
" I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.
I really don't know what to say.
Hey, there are no coal mines on Mars! What's the problem? ;-) And it all depends on what you mean by 'here'.
'We' is also good.
Anthony gives his take and Monckton adds a whine.
I dropped a comment as well.
As one of the many people that Monckton of Brenchley is pursuing accusing of libel, I will add my two cents.
First, Anthony does the discussion a disservice by not *accurately* reproducing both the IPCC 1990 graph and the graph from Monckton's reference materials. When you are discussing the difference between two graphs is it not important to reproduce them accurately? Monckton claimed his "inexpert eye" couldn't tell the difference. And lo and behold Anthony fails to reproduce them accurately and in full. Hmmm. Forgive me for being just a bit .... disappointed.
1) The graph in Moncton's reference materials is captioned as being from UN 1996. It's not. Let's bypass the year error. Even if it had been labeled from UN 1990 it would have been wrong. It's NOT an authentic IPCC graph. When something is not authentic it's a knock-off, a fake, a counterfeit. The graph in Monckton's reference materials that purports to be from UN 1996 is a fake. Monckton - not the Telegraph - is responsible for his reference materials. Monckton (re)produced the fake graph.
2) Monckton has admitted he did not have the IPCC 1990 report. His excuse for the reference materials graph is that:
a) an eminent scholar sent it to him
b) he got it from a reliable source
c) he reproduced the IPCC 1990 graph
Take your pick - Monckton has given all three responses - though c) conflicts directly with his statement that he didn't have the 1990 report.
3) Not having the 1990 report is evidence in and of itself of falsification/fabrication. You do not cite materials you have not read. Not having the report Monckton jumped to the conclusion that the graph wholly represented the expert's opinion. The text, on the otherhand, clearly raises questions. To this day, nearly a decade after his Telegraph article, I have *NEVER* seen Monckton mention the caveats in the text. One could draw the conclusion he's *still* never read the report.
4) In the original thread where this started Monckton said, “For my part, I am referring Mr Svalgaard’s long list of malicious comments about Dr Evans (but not about me: I give as good as I get) to his university…”
Got that, "but not about me:I give as good as I get" -- yet he's pursuing libel charges against how many people? Right. Obviously Monckton of Brenchley can't keep his own words straight. Some might call that a lie. Some might call him a liar. Hell, I would. I have :)
Now, in most internet flamewars, people don't run around threatening libel suits, but then again most of us don't have a lawyer on retainer as I suspect Monckton does. I don't like intimidating tactics. I don't like bullies. I don't care about fake British lords. I am very easy to find. Anthony has my email address. My home address can be found in less than a minute of internet search time. I have made my offer to Monckton of Brenchley to withdraw my assertion that he lied. He has ignored this. All I asked is that he explicitly state several simple, self-evident truths.
I have absolutely *zero* fear of losing a libel suit. In fact, I would welcome the opportunity. So the "Right Honorable" gentlemen ought to actually sh*t or get off the pot.
The takeaway for me is that to excuse his research misconduct Monckton says he is neither an academic nor a serious researcher. That we should all remember the next time he opines on anything.
Brandon Smith's words of wisdom are on video at 2:20 here.
I like the idea of "separate shelves where I forbid science books to go". As you are unlikely to think that some sort of contamination or infection might result from close proximity, I can only guess that you do this so visitors don't get the wrong idea about what you consider to be actual science books. Am I anywhere near?
As they say, "you couldn't make it up". How does someone like that get elected (rhetorical)?
There needs to be a site called "Sceptics Say The Darndest Things" or similar (there's already a "Republicans Say…" and a "Fundies Say…".
What, no one laughed out loud??? Or perhaps it's miked in a way to reject background sound?
IA definitely NAL, however surely even a member of the aristocracy has heard of the Streisand Effect?
Seems to me, while it is true that, narrowly defined, the accusation of fakery may actually be unfounded, His Lordship also has to show damage to his reputation. Now if the plaintiff (have I got that right?) already had a long history of being economical with the graphical truth, (Cuffey and Clow springs to mind, others too numerous to etc), had a history of publically accusing prominent climate scientists fraud and crimes up to and including genocide, well, the subsequent legal proceedings might make a not inconsiderable contribution to the gaiety of nations.
Do be sure to post the solicitor's letter, there's a good chap.
In the US courts are not hospitable to libel claims.
You have to prove more likely than not that the defendant made a statement, publicly made it, the statement had to be false, the defendant had to know the statement was false, the defendant had to have the intent to cause harm, and the statement was the proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff's reputation.
I seriously doubt Mockton will be going to court in the US.
Re: Brandon Smith's "words of wisdom".
They are neither stupid nor aimed at the stupid. Rather a plausible deduction based on a falsehood, possibly a lie
....., but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here.
But why should anyone expect the lay public or even some scientists to know anything whatsoever about measurements of Martian temperatures?
What, no one laughed out loud???
I am sorry to be so serious but it is no surprise to discover that some people are extremely badly informed about this subject. Sometimes beginners visit these threads, so I think comments like this should include an educational element, at the very least to highlight outstanding falsehoods or even better to provide
By the way I must admit to having ignored my own advice.
A whole lot of time wasted by people who don't realize headlines and graphs for an article are quite often not supplied by the author, especially if they are reproduced.
You never should have declared LM "faked" anything without doing some fact-checking (esp w LM himself).
F for journalism, A for slander.
re #140 Harkin, you've not read this very carefully.
My #17 asks "So, did Monkers provide this info to the Sunday Telegraph and they helpfully faked up a misleading double graph, or did someone find it on the internets?
My guess is the former". Which seems to be confirmed.
As for misleading, Monkers still seems to think there's nothing wrong with comparing NH mean temps with supposed "climate changes in Europe", or with squishing one more than the other so the y-axes are to different scales, or with using a fake graph by the non-expert denier John Lawrence Daly, with a spurious extension to something looking Lambish and which "a reader" suggests has a temp scale matching fig. 4.4 on page 53 of “Weather Climate and Human Affairs” of 1988.
What's rather shocking is that the Sunday Telegraph apparenly printed the falsehoods by Monkers and this fake graph as news, rather than comedy or as a denier opinion piece. I didn't think their standards had fallen that low.
1) Has anyone asked the Daily Telegraph?
2) There is of course an alternate hypothesis that explains some of this in which Monckton is not lieing and might actually be accorded some modest sympathy.
John #142, point one is good, nice if someone asks them: online it's telegraph.co,uk and headed The Telegraph, but Monckton's epistle and the fake graphs appeared in the Sunday Telegraph.
Point two, Monckton has not been slow in asking for sympathy. Indeed, it's the classic Billy Bunter defence: it wasn't him, he didn't know it was there, he was ill at the time and anyway there was nothing wrong with it, it was only a schematic and it tasted delicious.
As, rather appropriately, in http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1969/feb/18/exclusion-of-pee… at 4.15 p.m.
Speaking of which, he's insistent that the "Battle of the Graphs" fake version of the TAR graph, labelled 'The IPCC "Hockey Stick",' is actually a schematic, saying "even to the meanest intelligence that no claim was being made that the graphic was anything other than a schematic", while also claiming that the FAR Figure 7.1(c) which is labelled "schematic diagram" is to his mind a graph, indeed The Graph which all recent studies have tried to usurp. He goes on to write "But we are dealing not with the meanest intelligence but with people who are mean but not intelligent." What an intelligence!
Minor clarification: Monckton is saying that a figure labelled "Battle of the Graphs" is obviously a schematic, and a figure labelled "Schematic diagrams of global temperature variations" is "The graph from p. 202 of the IPCC’s 1990 report".
Once again, failing to note that the same 1990 report discussed "a shorter Medieval Warm Period (which may not have been global)".
And in his original article described that schematic as a graph, after repeating the old canard "'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' " –
"The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period."
Obviously unaware that MBH99 explicitly noted "warmer conditions during the earlier part of the millennium" and gave support to "Lamb's original (1965) concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch", having previously noted that "Lamb, examining evidence mostly from western Europe, never suggested this was a global phenomenon."
Something those "skeptics" seem to have misunderstood.
So, you see, I'm into this copyright thing wrt Monckton, The Telegraph and AIG.
Over at WTFUWT? Monckton states:
"... It is my custom, when I am asked whether anything I have published may be reproduced in a respectable medium, to consent subject to the condition that the copyright-owner (in the present instance the Telegraph) also agrees.
I have no information to suggest that the respectable journal that reproduced my article did so without the consent of the Telegraph."
However, over at The Telegraph we have this:
"Except where otherwise agreed in writing, these terms will apply to individuals that Telegraph Media Group Limited (“Company”) (or its affiliates) has specifically commissioned to provide content for publication (“Contributor”)."
Contributor will retain the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in all work written, compiled, created or otherwise provided (“Work”).
Contributor warrants that the Work will be original and will not be owned or controlled by a third party who has not irrevocably consented to the use of them nor will use of them infringe the rights of any third party."
If Contributor intends to publish in any medium any work based or derived from the Work, whether as a book or serial or otherwise (Publishing Work), Contributor will offer to Company in writing a right of first refusal to publish the Publishing Work.
Company shall advise Contributor writing of its decision within 21 days of receipt a complete typescript of the Publishing Work. Publication of the Publishing Work shall be subject to a separate agreement.
If Company decides not to publish the Publishing Work or cannot agree the terms of the publishing agreement within a reasonable time, Contributor is at liberty to enter into an agreement with another publisher on terms which are not less favourable terms than those offered by Company."
So, it would appear that Monckton is the "Contributor" and "Company" is The Telegraph.
AFAIK, "Contributor" did not contact "Company" prior to publication of said article in AIG.
There is also the issue of the "Contributor" having obtained permissions from all 3rd parties wrt "Contributor" to use those 3rd party materials.
IANAL, but there are avenues of redress, those being contacting "Company" and/or "Contributor" and/or AIG.
#137 Phil Clark
If Mockton were to go to court, in the US at least, the trial would be limited to the actions directly about the libel in question. Prior bad behavior by the plaintiff would be hard to introduce, unless Mockton or his lawyer screwed up.
#146 JO'S, I don't know about the UK, but in the US the context of the supposed libel definitely is taken into account.
A relevant question in a case like this is whether the plaintiff is a "public figure" in which case the burden of proving libel is very much greater, so great that such cases are seldom brought. Mr. Monckton would almost certainly be found a "limited-purpose public figure" in that he has willingly participated in a public controversy and has actively pursued the media and publicity.
More broadly, evidence of the plaintiff's "reputation and character" can be entered as evidence by either plaintiff or defendant. See for example Ehrhardt (1986), "Reputation and character in defamation actions," Washington University Law Review, 64, 867-902.
This goes back to 2007 and Monckton's attack on Oreskes using his London *endocrinologist* as a surrogate to do a Peiser-like refutation. They wrote a letter to Oreskes and her Chancellor... a pattern that was repeated over the next few years. Any time I'd see an academic refuting Monckton, I'd immediately send them a heads up of what would follow and offer to writte to their administration in support.
By now, the behavior pattern
is well known.
See following and skim the comments, as useful data appears:
How can you guys just ignore the MWP revealing proxy studies from the Southern Hemisphere in order to discount the MWP as being just a local event that didn't amount to real climate history? Just pretend out loud they don't exist?! Claiming the MWP was just Northern itself is a claim that falsifies hockey sticks since most of them are Northern hemisphere claims too. The highly technical wording of your arguments can't and hasn't concealed this intellectual circus. It's shocking that mainstream climate “science” also promotes your activist view of things that falsifies itself upon closer examination. I call it a circus since the argument goes in circles such that hockey sticks are real since the MWP was only Northern and look here we found a hockey stick in the South too so that confirms the Northern one and Monckton presented a falsified diagram of the MWP that was only local so our also Northern hockey stick is real since the MWP didn't occur in the South too, since we ignore studies that say it did since those studies are only tabulated on a “denier” web site called CO2Science.com. Also don't talk further about Marcott fabricated blade or we will “redact” you since we “covered” the latest hockey stick before.
[What you say isn't very interesting, since you're spending all your time fighting with strawmen. It would be best if you read, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period and the references therein and tries arguing against that instead -W]
#147 Don Brooks
I was thinking of the general inadmissibility of character or prior acts in US courts because of the possibility biasing a jury.
The article is interesting, and the admission of reputation before the alleged libel is complicated, particularly when it used as a defense. The most intriguing part was that sometimes the plaintiff's prior actions are so bad that he is essentially libel-proof. Without looking at the cases cited I don't know just what the standards require for a defendant to use such a claim, but I wonder if Mockton might be incapable of being libeled.
John #149, thanks, I think.
Not sure if i really wanted that in my head, have you thought of suggesting The Life of Monkers as a screenplay?
Makes The Matrix look sane and ordinary..
I'm with EFS-Junior. I find it odd that Daly wasn't credited. It really would be normal practise to seek permission from Daly's estate and credit it properly. But no attribution at all is curious. Why wouldn't they? They even credit picture sources from Facebook. Even Wikipedia credits or attributes such things.
To Nik #150, we're discussing a fake graph of European temperatures, probably Lamb with a couple of extra bumps added by Daly, presented alongside the Monkers Sunday Torygraph article with a direct comparison to a slightly more squished smoothed line from MBH99 in a figure which is almost exactly unlike anything in the IPCC TAR.
A spurious comparison, put on print by the Torygraph illustrating Monkers
Clue: Europe isn't in the Southern Hemisphere.
Consider Monckton's behavior from 2006 onward and reactions thereto:
a) Constant adulation from done dismissives and support, including a few hundred who signed Monckton's petition to retract Cook, et al(2013), (consenus psper).oddly including one Fellow of the Royal Society. Sponsored trips around the work. in AU, Lord Monckton Foundation, and revered as the white knight who could rescue Murry Salby. Earlier, praise from the president of the US National Association of Scholars.
b) Frequent rejection by others, such as APS's rejection of his claims that his article in APS FPS newsletter was peer-reviewed, as by the House Of Lords for denying him his hereditary rights, by various people refuting his arguments, and by numerous people mocking him endlessly.
As far as I can tell, b) has had zero effect, except to inspire instant responses/threats..
Now, the following is not a diagnosis, as I Sm not a clinical psychologist and none of them would make a diagnosis without serious contact... So the following is not a statement that I think something is true, but a possibility to consider on dealing with Monckton.
1) It is a public fact that he suffers or has suffered from Graces Disease, whose effects can range from mild to extreme.
2) Now, Google:
"Graves Disease" delusion persecution
Again, this is not a claim that this is the reason for his behavior, just a hypothetical possibility to consider, including legal implications, although its use as a defense seems unlikely.
Nevertheless, if this were true (and we'd never know), there is an element of sympathy.
[Vignette from today at work at lunch:
me: Lord Monckton is threatening to sue me
everyone else: who?
There is strong evidence that many people have picked up images related to Fig.7.1(c), attributed them to IPPCC 1995 or 1990, either without sayin where they got the actual image or not having the foggiest clue of the provenance chain.
None would want to credit Daly, even if they knew, and Daly was deceased before this hot rolling in 2005.
The versions of that graph are like the smile of Alice''s Cheshire Cat.
> zero effect, except to inspire instant responses/threats.
Look around for the real action, from which he's a distraction.
The picador and the rodeo clown go into the ring to distract the bull’s attention away from the matador or rodeo rider until the matador or rider can get back in position.
He’s not here to win arguments. He’s here to distract people from the arguments.
Be smarter than the bull.
Well, for what it is worth I hope Monckton doesn't sue you. I'm not terribly fond of libel except in the most extreme of cases and I don't see that here.
There are more mature ways to handle perceived offenses and they usually start with private communication of grievances.
I'd recommend that you both have a beer together to work it out, but I suspect your personalities are not particularly compatible.
JM: "Nevertheless, if this were true (and we’d never know), there is an element of sympathy."
Sympathy for his physicians and counsel?
When Monckton is 'on tour' his first action always is to pick a fight / threaten to sue / accuse misconduct the nearest convenient journalist or academic that so much as rolls his eyes at his witterings. It's the best he can do for much-needed publicity.
Monckton is always 'on tour'.
1) The 2007/2008 report above, as far as I know, was one of the earliest to address Monckton's behavior pattern, back when those were unknown, at least over here. I expect there was a period when I was #1 on the Monckton Bad List, although John Abraham displaced me :-)
2) Again, taking a hypothetical:
a) Graves' can be serious, both physically and mentally.
b) IF someone had the (rare, but do occur) more extreme delusional behavior I can have sympathy for that.
c) I'd have a much harder time having the slightest sympathy for anyone who would cater to delusional behavior, promote it., raise funds to support it.
IF (and we don't know) that were true in this case:
a) What was his endocrinologist Schulte thinking of?
I did send copies of my report, with polite cover letters to Schulte's bosses at NHS and KIngs. Monckton didn't like that too much (and he did confirm the doctor-patient relationship in the DeSmogBLog comments.)
b) Lawyers: I'm not sure. Monckton mentions them often, but as far as I know, they have yet to appear in the various battles. For instance, here's Monckton vs John Abraham & U of St. Thomas.
If anyone has any examples where his lawyers sent something, I'd love to hear of them.
Again, we do not know if teh Gaves issue is real, but the behavior pattern of reacting to any criticism or even to critcism of ExxonMobil by Snowe&Rockefeller with instant demands to apologize or quit ... is unusual.
Here's a quote from the 2006 letter from a British citizen to US Senators:
'Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold.'
Read the PDF for context. It includes the old logo that the House of Lords didn't like and it offers a sample of his eaerly thinking. He quotes Deming.
Just a small note for NikFromNYC...
When discussing the MWP, please learn the term "heterogeneous."
(If you actually read a few papers on the MWP you'll get what I'm talking about.)
John Mashey writes:"There is strong evidence that many people have picked up images related to Fig.7.1(c), attributed them to IPPCC 1995 or 1990, either without sayin where they got the actual image or not having the foggiest clue of the provenance chain."
I used TinEye's Reverse Image Search and found 42 links with the 'Battle of the Graphs" image. I found 17 links with the Daly version of IPCC 1990 Fig. 7.1.c (the Dickens Winters graph). And 6 links with the 'Mediaevil' yellow background version.
The 'Mediaevil' version is the one that I personally find intriguing. There are at least three variants. It can be found at notrickszone, the hockeyschtick, and iceagenow. The cruder versions appear to have been created using a paint program and have put a numerical scale in degrees C off to the side - though theses numbers appear to be tacked on.
"The versions of that graph are like the smile of Alice”s Cheshire Cat."
Yes - they are, nice phraseology :)
I did a partial phrase search on Google for some of the text from the IPCC 1990 Chapter 7 Executive Summary. I was trying to find *a single* skeptic site that had ever mentioned the caveats in the text. I couldn't find one. Not one.
In addition to counterfeiting the logo of the House of Lords, Monckton has used an appallmalling electronic copy of Brooks's letterhead to threaten New Zealand scientists with writs- lock up your stationary if you see him coming!
JM @#160.... M is always prolix, feels compelled to present himself as sufficiently well-read to have a sound opinion, and is quite reckless, and I've idly wondered whether his condition and/or medication contributes to this...but as we know he has this in harness for touring duties. Some medications induce states of permanent hyperactivity....
Ah, memories: IANAL, but, as I mentioned above, I have been 'around' to some very interesting court disputes here in Australia.
So, again, IANAL, but here's a question that I'm musing over;
Let's imagine the unlikely event that I was claiming that an allegation in blog comment on one (obscure-ish) site had done substantial damage to my reputation.
Let's further imagine that I then went to another, higher-traffic, blog - which might even just happen to be a much-touted 'world's most popular such-and-such blog' - and repeated the substance of the allegation made in that comment myself (several times, in fact).
How would a court - and the hypothetical 'reasonable person' - then be likely to view my claim that the original comment represented a real 'harm' to my reputation?
[I think the "repeated the comment" point is a good one -W]
Interestingly since Kevin O'Neil went on the rampage over at WTF-ville, Monkers has gone strangely silent. It's great fun watching the village idiots' convention trying to come to terms with Kevin's arguments - great work Kevin. Do let us know if you receive a threatening letter from Monkers (or, more worryingly, if the other lizard brains on there start threatening in you in real life).
@ John Mashey #156
It's just standard practise for a newspaper. When I say 'standard practise' it really doesn't matter one way or another to them and avoids paying out for copyright infringement, which costs more than just asking and probably getting to use it for free.
On an ironic note, it's used at WUWT in 2010 (without credit), which ends: "h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard".
And the Daly plot (which is actually from 1989) appears in The Canberra Times, Wednesday 15 June 1994, in his article 'No Proof of Global Warming', where it's credited properly.
Source: John Daly; The Greenhouse Trap. Bantam Books 1989.
(Just saw that's been found at WUWT anyway)
Roger Highfield might be someone to talk to.
Regarding Monckton's threats of libel vs me:
AW has asked for permission to forward my email address to Monckton of Brenchley at MoB's request.
I pointed out that legal writs are not served via email and provided my full name and address.
I also said that he could forward the email address if he verified Monckton of Brenchley is actually Viscount Christopher Monckton.
AW has replied that he is forwarding the email address. So, AW believes that our intrepid Monckton of Brenchley is the real thing.
Interestingly, I believe a claim of defamation, if untrue, is itself a libelous statement. Hmmm ..... now to find a pro-bono lawyer who's bored and wants to have some fun :)
Kevin, I suspect that Monckton is more bluster than anything and is hoping you would back off. I wonder where he would try to sue you. In the States I understand it is harder to win if you are a public person. So one defence would be to play to his ego and go on about his TV appearances and lecture tours. Another would be to point out his contradictory stories until Monckton loses his temper in court. You just know it will happen.
That's if Monckton's lawyers didn't tell him to stop playing on denier websites.
> used at WUWT in 2010
Broken link, and the phrase is too common to search on
The Wisconsin Bar Association has a well-written chapter on Defamation, by Russell Ware. Wisconsin is where I live and where I would file a libel per se claim against Monckton.
Wisconsin law allows for the award of three types of damages; general, special, and punitive. General harm is assumed by the court and general damages are awarded in all successful claims - though the amount varies. While I have suffered no special harm (to date), and could not seek special damages, Monckton has made such an ass of himself over the years threatening so many different people with libel suits that punitive damages could be in order.
While punitive damages require 'express malice' (ill
will, envy, spite, or revenge), I don't think his ill will would be very hard to prove. Compiling all the instances in which he has shown that ill-will, OTOH, would be a monumental task :)
This seems like such a slam-dunk that I'm wondering if anyone else has contemplated or tried the countersuit tactic against Monckton.
[I can't see that Lord M would have a chance in the US. But I doubt your countersuit would have merit either.
Incidentally, have you remarked upon the total absence of Willis "please don't sue" E in the recent WUWT thread? When it was a question of Lord M suing someone he liked, WE was full of it -W]
This thread is indeed a keeper, like some others in the saga of Fig.7.1(a) :-)
Kevin # 162
Good find, more examples for me of abuse of the figure.
I have *never* found any pseudoskeptic site or book that mentioned he caveats ... the graph is always treated as Truth. I'll be happy to see examples if anyone ever finds one.
J Bowers @ 168 great find, many thanks!
Of course, that's yet another image, since it isn't exactly Lamb, either. and the curve is different.
As a reminder,study Western Fuels Assoication(2000).
"Where does our advocacy stand, today? Based on work by our newest science advisor John Daly concerning the fatal flaws of the
ground-based temperature record and revelations concerning agreement among ground-based thermometers, instruments
onboard satellites, and carried aloft by weather balloons, Western Fuels is now prepared to argue that no reliable record exists to
show a warming globe, and second, to establish the lack of warming, apocalyptic or otherwise.
Several environmental groups working under the umbrella of something called The Turning Point Project have defamed us (and
coal-fired electricity) for the commercial advantage of their corporate sponsors. We have sued them in Federal District Court in
Wyoming under provisions of the Lanham Act. And if we prevail, Americans will hear the truth about climate change. It also will
become less easy for fossil fuels’ opponents to spread malicious lies."
FWIW, In UK, you cannot normally receive legal aid for the
following types of case:
• defamation (libel and slander) or malicious
falsehood (knowingly spreading lies about people);
This might be why threats do have an effect in some cases. Maybe not this one if the number of comments are anything to go by.
Monckton mentioned Scotland.
@174 John Mashey
You're right, it's not the same plot as the digital Daley Dickens Days of Sunshine doodle.
I offer a comment made to one of the editors (Google: APS FPS Monckton) who'd unwittingly (and not maliciously) walked into a minefield, as to what to expect:
imagine a loudly-barking, but toothless Chihuahua will will gum your ankle for a long time.
And, I would >100% believe that Lief sent just a link;
The "Battle of the charts" image at the top along with the blog post title at the top along with the sentence at the top is >100% the work of one Willard Anthony Watts:
Some of us do computer history.
Recall that IPCC FAR(1990) was created PDF even existed and was only digitized and put online in 2010. Very few paper copies existed, but that did not inhibit people using unprovenanced graphs to misrepresent the FAR.
Slight shift of topic. Another wee learning opportunity from “American Elephants”, as linked at the top of the page: it alleges that MBH 'also eliminated the Little Ice Age of more recent history. Historian Arthur Herman has written about the “killing time”, the years beginning in 1695 when Scots suffered three failed harvests in a row.'
The history book cited does indeed describe these failed harvests 1695–1698, but on the previous page it correctly notes that the “killing time” name was applied retrospectively to the persecution of the Covenanters in the 1660s and 1670s. So the Elephants got that wrong, and another attempt at LIA myth is rubbish.
A minor amusement: the book they cite is titled "How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It".
It has a cover illustration trimmed from a painting of the tubby Anglo-German Hanoverian King George IV, in the kilt he wore for just two occasions; during his 1822 visit to Edinburgh. With pink tights to avoid looking too naughty.
This might be of interest. It comes from the blog purporting to be UKIP insiders. Not sure how true that is but I take it on face value in the absence of something else. The piece I quote below is about UKIP's position on libel reform in the wake of the Simon Singh case while Monckton was the, don't laugh, science spokesman for UKIP:
"What will your party do to reduce the chilling effect of our libel laws on science? Currently there is no statutory public interest defence, so scientists risk running the gauntlet of London's High Court if they publish material they believe to be in the public interest, but that a major corporation or litigious charlatan believes to be libellous.
Monckton's original response was a resounding "no", but a further response from the press office clarified things, suggesting a personal lack of familiarity with this issue on the part of its science spokesman.
It seems Ukip is against the idea of a public interest defence, but would like to see the costs of libel law reduced. The problem, of course, is that this combination would make it even easier for companies to bring lawsuits like the one filed against Peter Wilmshurst, who is being sued for criticising a company's research findings at an academic conference.
Open debate is the cornerstone of science, and Ukip does not appear particularly committed to preserving it. "
The whole piece can be read here: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/ukip-swivel-eyed-loon-become…
[Thanks. That page, if right, is also interesting for a view on GW from UKIP folk; clearly LM's views aren't universally popular. Its a bit hard to see how LM can sue for libel when there are people calling him a "swivel eyed loon" whom he doesn't care about -W]
dave s (#180),
About the "purported" LIA see here (CLAIM! BOMBSHELL! TOP STICKY POST FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS):
Introduction - The Editors
The Waning of the Little Ice Age: Climate Change in Early Modern Europe
(not free, can be found elsewhere in 2 different formats)
The Real Little Ice Age
(not free, can't find this one, I written the author for a copy)
The Little Ice Age in Scientific Perspective: Cold Spells and Caveats
(not free, can be found elsewhere online for free)
Debating the Little Ice Age
(not free, can be found elsewhere in 2 different formats)
The same two authors (Morgan Kelly, Cormac Ó Gráda) also have the following:
Change Points and Temporal Dependence in Reconstructions of Annual Temperature: Did Europe Experience a Little Ice Age?
Willard Tony Watts head explodes.
As for me? I stumbled across these about a week ago.
I have no comment or opinion as to the correctness of the authors papers.
However, blame MIT Press for choosing to publish, in what can only be described an off topic obscure history journal, by two economists no less.
Say, looking again at those graphs at the top of the page, on the second one -- it has the horizontal line labeled "20th Century Average"
But -- when I look at the chart between 1900 and 2000, it appears there's a lot of red above that line and just a little blue below it. Are my eyes fooling with me?
Yes, it would certainly appear that the 20th was the Lake Wobegon of centuries.
Hank - IIRC, the line was intended originally to mark the temperature at the beginning of the 20th century. Somehow the temps at the beginning of the century were higher in the original than the 20th century average is in the knock-off - even though the rest of the century was pretty consistently warming. Hmmmm.....
So, your eyes are fine.
re #182 EFS_Junior, thanks for pointing out the arguments now going on about the validity of the LIA.
Mostly rather paywalled for me, but the "contrarian view" of Morgan Kelly and Cormac Ó Gráda can be seen in their reply to the criticisms:
They've criticised the historical arguments pretty well. As their abstract says, "the series of resonant images, ranging from frost fairs to contracting glaciers and from dwindling vineyards to disappearing Viking colonies, often adduced as effects of a Little Ice Age, can also be explained without resort to climate change."
So, as discussed above, the "Killing Time" was a religious and political dispute with no known relevance to climate.
Kelly and Ó Gráda also apparently dispute the statistical methods of paleoclimate reconstructions, arguing against the Pages 2k reconstruction's affirmation of the LIA, and citing in their support McShane and Wyner.... oh, wait a minute, wasn't the latter one of Wotsit's favourite studies?
In fairness, they seem to be using McShane and Wyner to support the idea that "tree rings are not a reliable proxy for weather in most parts of Europe." So, a need for discussion of their statistical arguments.
Has it been mentioned yet that warm-refs was not just a download from the Telegraph web-site?
Monckton's document was published in two parts and distributed with the Sunday Telegraph. A somewhat shocking decision for a "quality" newspaper to make.
George Monbiot described it here:
Interesting. One hopes we can track down a copy of each?
Steve Milesworthy #187, great find. I don't know if it really was Monckton's pdf that was published in 2 parts, or merely the article itself, but "a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references" suggests it included the pdf info. Maybe Monbiot was referring to the online edition?
Monckton now says it was "the first time I ever went public on the climate question", and "With the article I supplied some background material for Telegraph readers on its website." So online edition looks more likely.
Good commentary by Monbiot, also see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/ by Gavin and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/11/14/the-perils-…
Yep, hav found the second Monkers article in which he shows his unique "genius" as an economist, what a polymath!
"What will your party do to reduce the chilling effect of our libel laws on science?"
The biggest whinge bag victim bullies in the British political spectrum? Nothing.
Monckton doesn't stop at climate science or economics. Let's not forget his pharmaceutical talents or his ability to deduce where in the world the current US President was born (in spite of contemporary announcements in Hawaian newspapers). It's almost as if there is no beginning to this man's talents. Certainly his attempts at satire are wooden, unfunny and usually just insulting.
The Barclay Brothers and scientific publishing.
I originally missed this bit from George Monbiot on the Sunday Telegraph's generosity:
Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references.
This refers to Moncker's calculations, presented a bit like an article for a journal, and opinion piece. 52 pages! Can anyone think of other examples of this kind of coverage given to any scientific topic.
The Spectator, which is also owned by the Barclay Brothers, included a sympathetic reference to the naive and long report on the violation of the 2nd law of Thermod. but at least the reference was short.
Try Bottling nonsense p.12, with Monckton;s appearance at a strange conference and (National Association of Scholars (a NAS, but not "the" NAS) President Peter Wood's commentary.
The (hypothetical) argument that Graves disease might manifest as extreme delusional behaviour would surely only apply in Monckton's case if his claimed cure for the condition (and other conditions - it was practically a panacea, IIRC) turned out not to have worked.
Then again, perhaps the claim of having invented a cure was instead a symptom of the disease...
Certainly he keeps applying for therapeutic patents, though they keep getting terminated before being granted:
njp: thanks! Useful.
That resembles pattern of threats/demands without follow-through.
There are lots of interesting comments about legal issues in this thread.
#174 John Mashey
The Western Fuels Association is using a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit to scare off their opponents. These suits are intimidation attempts against their legal/political/scientific opponents who usually have less money and unsophisticated or no lawyers. As is often the case there is not much of a legally valid claim backing SLAPP suits, but the prospect of having defend oneself in a legal proceeding can be unsettling.
I think Mockton's threats of libel are particularly ham-handed SLAPP suits.
The WUWT thread has degenerated, as these things are wont to. Monkers is now asking AW to ban any further discussion of him being told to stop pretending he is a member of the HoL (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/about-that-graph#comment-1677933). http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-mon… refers, of course.
I think John Abraham's takedown of Monckton is the right at the top of my list. I've run through the slideshow several times. I think the takeaway from Abraham's slideshow is: If you're a denier, then you should only misquote/misinterpret/cite dead scientists; otherwise it's too easy to have it thrown back in your face :)
Does anyone know
Joseph O'Sullivan - ham-handed threats of SLAPP-like suits, yes. I rather doubt he'll file them.
Many states in the US have passed anti-SLAPP suit legislation as, by their nature, they are designed to make exercise of one's first amendment rights too expensive for the target. Technically a libel suit wouldn't fit, but Monckton's motivation seems exactly the same.
A great example of a SLAPP suit here in Oregon (which added to the motivation to pass legislation) involved a geologist testifying at a public hearing regarding landslides caused by clearcutting of forests above homes (which had resulted in the homes being destroyed).
He was sued by the timber industry for "practicing geological engineering without a license" for merely standing up in a meeting and giving his opinion.
And, of course
Sorry - last comment got truncated somehow - meant to ask if anyone knows if there's a more text manageable version of Abraham's slideshow available.
WC writes:"The WUWT thread has degenerated, as these things are wont to..."
Yes, I spent my day (the 4th, a holiday) in the dungeon trying to swat the unlearned flies away, but it is filled with such dim bulbs it's hard on the eyes. So far I have resisted the temptation to revisit.
I did forget one non sequitur reply I intended to use: "I never said Monckton is a churlish cretin who makes dung beetles look savory."
I think instead I will write something to make Monckton's views on science and religion better known. His SPPI essay What is science without religion? includes this gem:
"Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not."
Which segues nicely into his diatribes against the banning of DDT and his claims to have a cure for Graves disease, malaria, HIV, MS, and the common cold. What moral man could withhold a cure that could save thousands, millions of lives? Monckton of Brenchley, of course.
Agaiin, I'm no clinical psychologist, but t this old joke may well apply to some in the blogosphere:
Ah well, we'll just have to wait for the court reports.
One amusing piece of legalese from the Wotsup excuses post: Monkers shows images of the famous 1990 FAR fig 7.1.c schematic (leaving out the Years Before Present line) and the fake version he used in his pdf, "mistakenly captioned as 1996 rather than 1990". In response to earlier challenges that this was "not the same graph", he writes "There seem to me to be no material differences, and I think it would be hard for the defendants to convince a court that there were any."
Strange that minor differences don't matter when he publishes fakes, when in that very article he was pushing attacks on the MBH99 graph over minor issues of statistical techniques which don't make any material differences to a reconstruction.
The Barclay brothers are the lesser known pox on the face of british journalism. Previously owners of the Scotsman, which they made into a boring mainstream 'newspaper' with nothing interesting or particularly scottish about it.
dave s - Monckton wants the respect of a peer-reviewed scientist or academic, but he doesn't want to actually be held to their standards.
Other than money and family connections he has no credentials to be pontificating on science. His opinion should carry no more weight than any random blogger on the web; less since he's been shown to be wrong, ignorant, and/or deceitful in virtually every area he chooses to spout an opinion.
But anyone that's spent 10 minutes researching his claims knows that.
Any claim of 1995/1996 is a false citation:
a) at the very best, it is such incompetent scholarship that people would be advised to distrust anything said further.
b) At worst it s deliberate falsification to support the semblance of believability for the Deming quote and idea that the SAR still supported Lamb, and MBH99 had to be created to eliminate that.
Again quoting Monkers:
"So I am going to court. My lawyers say the libels are plain and indefensible. They comment additionally that no judge would regard the schematics in the Telegraph (whoever had drawn them) as significantly misrepresenting the difference between the 1990 and 2001 reports’ images of the past millennium’s global temperature anomalies. As far as they can see, there is not a lot wrong with the graphs in any event."
Why should the "Battle of the Graphs" figure (oops, they meant schematics) have anything to do with 1990? Nothing I can see in his Torygraph article about 1990, he specifically comments about "The UN's second assessment report, in 1996".
The second fake graph is clearly labelled "Climatic changes in Europe", there was no graph or schematic in the TAR showing Europe over 1,000 years, and while the fake has some resemblance to fig 7.1.c it has a couple of extra wiggles as well as the spurious 20th century average line. Of course, his lawyers can't see these problems.
oops, meant to say "no graph or schematic in the FAR showing Europe over 1,000 years", don't think there was one in the SAR or TAR either but this argument is really about the 1990 FAR.
Just realised another bit of fakery in the fake "IPCC 'Hockey Stick'", the zero line (relative to 1961–1990) has been moved down so far that the curve around 1170 actually goes above it, when in the original 2001 TAR the smoothed curve keeps well below the line until around 1950.
Looks like a material difference to me, but Monkers and his lawyers can't see it.
I question the statement "and his lawyers can’t see it."
Is there any evidence that his lawyers are involved?
(Does anyone know who any identities of lawyers? I've kept an eye out for letters from lawyers to the many people out there, but have yet to see one.)
This seems akin to: Monckton's comments years ago:
“Dr.” Mashey says Mr. Schulte plagiarized my research. He did no such thing. It was he, not I, who conducted the research. “Dr.” Mashey was told this.
“Dr.” Mashey submitted his over-long complaint formally to Mr. Schulte’s academic institution, whose investigator rejected it on all counts.
“Dr.” Mashey is now himself under investigation for circulating his complaint publicly, in a form in which which inter alia he breaches doctor-patient confidentiality. For this reason, please remove all links to “Dr.” Mashey’s document.
One realizes that the news that the scientific “consensus” no longer believes in climate alarm (if it ever did) is unwelcome in certain political circles. But the science is the science.
Perhaps it would be better if “Dr.” Mashey were to write a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Mr. Schulte’s paper, rather than interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere, which is not the best place for serious scientific discourse."
A bit later, Richard Littlemore wrote:
"Our experience with lawyers suggests that they discourage bullying actions when their client is entirely in the wrong, and when the evidence of their perfidy is a) freely available and/or b) already in the hands of the proposed “defendant.”
But if Monckton wants to rattle a his weapon, I’ll be happy to provide the coordinates of our own lawyer, who gets great entertainment from answering insincere letters full of belligerence and bluster. "
People may find my later comments in that thread amusing, Monckton's comment had indeed confirmed that he was a patient of endocrinologist Schulte.
Yep, the "Battle of the Graphs" graphs aren't graphs, one has no known factual basis but seems to be a doodle by the late Daly, the other is to different scales in both x and y axes, is squished in the y axis and has a fake baseline.
And Monckton may be fantasising about "his lawyers". Time to call in Scrotum, his wrinkled retainer.
John #212 - hey, I'm in that thread as well. My I did get around, despite at that time feeling rather ill from glandular fever.
That's the fun thing about the internet, it brings you closer to all sorts of protagonists.
guthrie: yes, that was an interesting start to Monckton's US career, and investigating that was what got me started chasing the social networks, funding flows and use of the Internet for propagation of misinformation....
Monckton must be thanked for getting me started!
An actual libel suit would be interesting just for the discovery process. When MoB wrote, "...in whose selection, drafting and publication I played no part whatsoever." Does anybody believe he's *NOT* prevaricating? For instance, he's not denying that he discussed it with the Telegraph. He's not denying the Telegraph based it on materials he provided them. He's not denying he knows who made it. He's not even denying whether they ran it with his approval. Any examination of Monckton's prior actions shows he uses legal semantics to avoid telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Likewise the graph in the reference materials, the knock-off 1990 FAR, mis-captioned as 'From UN 1996' is of unknown provenance. MoB has said that it was sent to him by "an eminent professor", obtained from "a reliable source" or alternatively he reproduced it based on the 1990 FAR.
We know Monckton didn't reproduce it because he didn't have the FAR. So, who was the eminent professor/reliable source that sent Monckton the knock-off instead of the real thing? That might be an interesting revelation.
I question the statement “and his lawyers can’t see it.”
FWIW, I have long suspected that Monckton is his lawyers, which would explain why they can't see the differences.
And why shouldn't he be his lawyers? He's his own expert(s) in so many other domains.
One thing I've not seen mentioned here is this statement by Watts.
If Monckton was wrong I certainly would’ve had no trouble pointing this out just as the Stoaters were doing, but I have one advantage that neither Monckton nor the Stoaters have: I have actually worked at a newspaper and I have submitted articles as a guest author to newspapers. So, I am familiar with the artwork process. Further, I have also published a number of articles from Monckton myself here and I am quite familiar with his style of producing graphs.
Strange that Watts would not know that
Monckton joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 at the age of 22, where he worked as a reporter and leader-writer. From 1977 to 1978, he worked at Conservative Central Office as a press officer, becoming the editor of the Roman Catholic newspaper The Universe in 1979, then managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph magazine in 1981. He joined the London Evening Standard newspaper as a leader-writer in 1982. After a hiatus in his career as a journalist Monckton became assistant editor of the newly established, and now defunct, tabloid newspaper Today in 1986. He was a consulting editor for the Evening Standard from 1987 to 1992 and was its chief leader-writer from 1990 to 1992.
Monckton’s document was published in two parts and distributed with the Sunday Telegraph. A somewhat shocking decision for a “quality” newspaper to make.AC
I have a memory of His Lordship saying his interest in climate was piqued by a City Fund Manager friend asking him if there was anything to worry about (profit-threatening) in this whole 'global warming thingie' and on investigation found out the IPCC were a load of charlatans and there was no need for any kind of economy-chilling action. Now somebody more suspicious than I might infer a link between Rosa Monckton, Chris's sister, who is married to Dominic Lawson (son of Nigel of the GWPF), who edited the ST up until the year before the piece was published.
Maybe Chris got Sis to pull a few strings in the Old Boys Network to get his critique published in the (city-friendly) ST.
Some might find that a credible scenario. I could not possibly comment.
you might take a look at Monckton/Schulte/Oreskes, especially p.11, where detailed chronology starts, including earlier events.
That includes the 11/05/06 Monckton article, but also some earlier relevant items, such as:
12/03/04 Oreskes Published in Science
01/04/05 Peiser Letter to Science
06/21/05 Ferguson Posts Peiser Attempted Rebuttal vs Oreskes
02/28/06 UK Conservative David Cameron Starts Talking Greener, “Built to Last”
This is not welcomed by all UK conservatives. Some have speculated that Monckton was especially unhappy with this, and that his 2006 interest in climate change dates from this time.
(more) Note that Ferguson runs SPPI (Monckton's virtual home in US, really a front for Idsos' CSCDGC, Fergsuon is/was highest-paid employee), PDF at Fake 2 p.78 has some of the money flows. Frontiers ofreedom was getting regular money from the Claude Lambe Foundation (i.e., Charles Koch), 2004-2007, then Ferguson left, started SPPI.
But $25K Was given in 2007 via Lambe to CSCDGC ... but at Ferguson's Haymarket, VA address.
Also, read pp.12- on Manthorpe's 05/07/07 "Monckton Saves the Day”, on long interview with him:
“This confidence is never more apparent than in Monckton’s analysis of the subject on which his mind is now engaged pretty much constantly, the science and politics of climate change…”
"When I mention Naomi Oreskes's famous evaluation of 928 articles referencing 'climate change' that 'proved' the consensus of catastrophe among scientists, he announces not only that he has read the 928 articles in question and would argue 'only 1 per cent explicitly predict doom, while 3 per cent are specifically sceptical of apocalyptic ideas', but also that he has sent a further 8,500 related articles to be evaluated by a team of two dozen scientists across the globe."
Thanks, John. That interview was the source of my half-remembered connection to the City ...
in the years since, and in particular in the last year, he has continued to look at the question, has done the maths ('Radiative transfer calculations I can do standing on my head') and formed his own conclusions. These conclusions were first made public after he received a call from a fund manager from the City: 'Monckton, climate change. What d'you think?'
Monckton told him. 'I said basically I think there is very little for us to worry about at all,' he says, brightly, which no doubt comes as a great relief to the anxious majority of the world's population. [...]
He sent the man from the City the conclusions he had drawn from 'the back of an envelope' and more extensive calculations he had done (outsmarting at a stroke thousands of the world's scientists). The man was so impressed he apparently passed them on to Patience Wheatcroft, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph. She decided to publish them under the heading 'Climate chaos? Don't believe it'.
Or that's the peer-reviewed version, anyhow,
n 2006 a finance house in London consulted Lord Monckton on whether “global warming” would prove catastrophic. His 40-page report concluded that, though some warming could be expected, it would be harmless, and beneficial.
[Wow. Was that CV written by him, or one of his enemies? -W]
Another gem from that same PDF.
The European Union is now making plans for a “European Environmental Criminal Court” to prosecute those who publicly express scientific doubts about the magnitude of “global warming”. Journalists in Australia have demanded that “deniers” be publicly branded with tattoos to mark them out as society’s pariahs, and have also called for them to be gassed.
I wonder who those journos could be? Do they know?
MoB "To those who say it is unwise to go to law, I say that I have never yet entirely lost a libel case. I only pursue them rarely, and only when the libel is particularly damaging, particularly persistent, particularly widely circulated, demonstrably false, and not retracted or apologized for upon request. In such cases, it is not likely that one will lose, particularly in the Scottish courts, which are very businesslike and down-to-earth in their approach and will have absolutely no patience with the various evasions and circumlocutions that are the stock-in-trade of the climate communists."
What libel cases has MoB won, not entirely lost (if any)
Sorry, should've mentioned that the PDF is linked from http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com
"Lord Monckton’s two articles on global warming in The Sunday Telegraph in November 2006 crashed its website after attracting 127,000 hits within two hours of publication." Hmm. Unlikely but which form of publication do we mean? The Telegraph website tends to put tomorrow's main stories on its website about 9pm. The physical paper is available at some London newsstands (often at railway stations) by about 11pm. Certainly that was what it was like about ten years ago. So crashing the website happened between 11pm and 1pm the night of publication. Don't think so.
Ahh, I see he mentions the 2008 APS FPS affair in which I was involved:
'The commissioning editor who had asked for the paper and the review editor – an eminent Physics professor – who had reviewed it were both dismissed for publishing it. The new editors then pretended it had not undergone any scientific review, leading several dozen fellows of the American Physical Society to protest, and to demand that it should revise or abandon its official statement on global warming.'
False. There was no peer review and not even any scientific review by the editors, neither of whom knew this topic.
Here's how all this happened: the editors were looking for pro- and con- articles by physicists aboutt AGW science. They asked around, and as I understand it, an APS member Gerald E. Marsh
who participated at FPS gave them half a dozen names, ending with Monckton.
It turns out Marsh spoke at the 2010 Heartland ICCC and he had lots of earlier history. They ended up with Monckton, assuming he was a British physicist they didn't happen to know. Oops.
I've posted a little screed around the Heartland's ICCC event in Vegas and featuring Monckton at Daily Kos. It's sitting at #3 in the Community Spotlight right now which ensures it front page visibility for a little while. It's titled Hobby Lobby? Does the GOP and Tea Party Want Climate Scientists to Pass a Religious Test Next?
"Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him" in Barry Bickmore's Lord Monckton's Rap Sheert is a enumreation, although he may be missing one or two. If you run accorss more ,send them to Barry, he does update this.
[I've corrected your Freudian slip :-) -W]
"Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet" - so there appears to be lots of threats of libel, but no action.
W, I see that over at Watts's Home For The Terminally Deluded, 'dbstealey' (who I think is also a moderator) has once again told lies about you, repeated by incorrigible liar Richard Courtney. You will, of course, follow Lord Munchkin's example and threaten to sue both unless they retract those false claims? ;)
[Somewhat weirdly, my replies on that thread are actually making it through, albeit strongly delayed in moderation. My comment of July 9, 2014 at 4:52 am still hasn't appeared (I'm tracking my replies at http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/about-that-graph.html if you want to play along). I'm pretty sure that the delay is because the monkeys they employ as mods need to check back with the organ grinder before they allow anything from me through -W]
dbstealey aka Smokey = Dave B Stealey is indeed one of the most enthusiastic moderators.
See picture of Team WUWT, 04/01/12.
"Left to right
Charles Rotter, Alec Rawls, Dr. Ryan Maue, Tom Fuller, Dave Stealey, myself, Steven Mosher, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, and Willis Eschenbach."
Oh, I see. I did wonder what had happened to 'smokey', one of the stupidest *and* nastiest creeps to be found in the deniosphere.
More comments are getting through at Watts, including a nice one from JBL nailing Courtney.
(I'd join in there as well but I really don't want those disgusting creeps having my email address.)
[FWIW, don't worry about email addresses - they don't get verified - worry about leaking your IP address -W]
> having my email address
'oogle "free forwarding email" and use a different one for each site that wants one -- then when a wave of spam addressed to that address comes , you know who sold it and you can cancel that one so further email to it bounces.
p.s.: yes, caution is appropriate:
re: W in #232
Mark Knopfler has a song that might apply.
Looks like the censorship curtain has come down again at WUWT, the noise to signal ratio got a bit too low, what with myself, Margaret Hardman, JBL and J Murphy representing the concerned community. And Stealey went into meltdown - 4 posts in 10 minutes and my last two ended up in the bitbucket.
About time somebody reminded Courtney of his fake self-awarded Doctorate, of a piece with Monckton's seat in the legislature.... ;-)
FWIW, I don't use my usual e-mail addresses when posting there. It's interesting if discouraging that Courtney can't get over the idea that I might be a sock puppet to reach deep enough to wonder about the content of what I'm saying.
You've done it now: by appearing here you've proved Courtney's assertion that you are, if not a Connolley sock, a Connolley minion. ;)
(Actually I even 'fessed up to it there; odd that my "admission" isn't sufficiently damning and he needs to make up weird stories.
dbs also goes as "D Boehm Stealey" or "D Boehm" or variations thereof with umlaut like "D Böehm".
dbs tries to defend his position using Easterbrook style plots of GISP2. Here's a comment WUWT tells me can not be posted, seems to be testy about the links contained. If anyone wants to copy the info over to WUWT feel free to do so (verbatim or not).
Anyone care to explain, why dbstealy is happy to link to a graph that labels the 1790-1850 uptick in the GISP2 data as "Mann Hockey Stick"? The MBH99 uptick starts in the 1920ish era. It is also known, that the Greenland temperature shows a variability that is about a factor of 1.6 larger than the variability of the Northern Hemisphere mean (see Box et. al. 2009. Furthermore we have temperature reconstructions for the GISP2 site spanning the time period 1840-2009. If you plug that into the graph it looks like this: http://i2.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klar…
The 2000-2009 average eclipes all prior max temps in the GISP2 dataset.