Monckton: part two

[Mr Sleet]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/nclim12.xml

Another good job by Chris.

[Extreme Alde]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../12/nclim12.xml

Another good job by Chris.

Really don't know why this deserves its own thread and why it is being posted so long after the article? :unsure:

Nonetheless, whilst Mr Monckton does ask questions of the scientific community he has been discredited across the net with his answers. Meanwhile a scan through the letters they have printed in the PDF (very pro Mr Monckton) shows what he considers to be the best site on the net;- www.co2science.org

Very illuminating.

[Mr Sleet]

Really don't know why this deserves its own thread and why it is being posted so long after the article? :unsure:

Nonetheless, whilst Mr Monckton does ask questions of the scientific community he has been discredited across the net with his answers. Meanwhile a scan through the letters they have printed in the PDF (very pro Mr Monckton) shows what he considers to be the best site on the net;- www.co2science.org

Very illuminating.

As I note that you are a newbie I will be nice I posted the part one bit as a new thread so I posted the part two bit as a new thread as well. I have only just noticed it so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of others.

Some will agree with Monckton ( like me), some will not ( like you.)

He has been discredited across the net by....surprise, surprise, Mr Hockey Stick Mann ....who himself has been widely discredited.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[jethro]

Thanks for posting this, I'd missed it. Certainly interesting stuff. I can't really be bothered with the tit-for-tat over which scientist is right/wrong etc, nor do I have enough time to do much research but my gut instinct says it's not all our fault; nor is the outcome in our control. It's reassuring to know I'm not the only one and big questions on the validity of the research are being asked in the mainstream press. As an aside...I'm sure I read somewhere that one minutes energy output of the sun=all the energy used by mankind globally for a whole year. If that's true then how come the variences in solar output are dismissed by all and sundry? Surely even minor changes would be so huge that they must have an effect on our climate? When I get time, I'll trawl around and see if I can find the article again to post a link.

[Extreme Alde]

As I note that you are a newbie I will be nice I posted the part one bit as a new thread so I posted the part two bit as a new thread as well. I have only just noticed it so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of others.

Some will agree with Monckton ( like me), some will not ( like you.)

He has been discredited across the net by....surprise, surprise, Mr Hockey Stick Mann ....who himself has been widely discredited.

Believe me I mean you individually no discourtesy, so I'll be nice in return.

I do though have several misgivings about the Monckton piece away from the science which I can already see we will probably agree from the outset to disagree on. :unsure:

I have a wonder about why Mr Monckton invested so much time in this from the outset. Are we to believe that he was so motivated by the perceived injustice ongoing on the Climate Change reportage he felt he ought put the record straight? Or did he pitch the idea first, or even be commissioned to write the article, in which case I suggest that the outcome was preordained. I would contend you simply do not commission a journalist with no science background to prove one way or other an argument such as this.

The family connection with Nigel Lawson, a well known sceptic, is also intriguing although I accept that this could be circumstance.

What is far more dubious is the timing; we had Stern and then we had in quick succession rebuttals from Paul Reiter, Mr Lawson and Mr Monckton. If Mr Monckton had simply been responding to the Stern report he'd have been doing so night and day from his non-scientific background to get it sone so quick. Another explanation is that the rebuttals were rather more orchestrated than it is being let on.

As far as his second piece is concerned, as it is intrinsically linked to the first article and given that it is widely discredited I'm afraid that I don't see that it should be taken seriously though I accept your stance on it. Nonetheless, given its linking to its predecessor I believe it should have stayed in that thread. Your argument that you opened a thread for the first one falls down only because on that you had no choice.

Mr Monckton states in his article (jokingly, almost sneeringly) that he notes "The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon."

Interestingly the web site he lists his favourite has received some funding from Exxon, is thought to be funded by another carbon crunching conglomerate and his findings were apparently independantly also found by Steve Milloy's Junk Science. Big coincidence, and one i am really suspicious of.

Incidentally I have developed (as you may see) a largely cynical approach to all articles on this subject , trusting no one who has something to sell. I hope you don't object too much to my expressing my concerns here.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi - I've said in another thread that I'm not going to be posting much at the moment (for fear of annoying the wife, but she's out with friends tonight, so...while the cat's away, the mice will play...!), but I thought I'd just throw in a comment or two if you'll permit me! :lol:

I have a wonder about why Mr Monckton invested so much time in this from the outset. Are we to believe that he was so motivated by the perceived injustice ongoing on the Climate Change reportage he felt he ought put the record straight? Or did he pitch the idea first, or even be commissioned to write the article, in which case I suggest that the outcome was preordained. I would contend you simply do not commission a journalist with no science background to prove one way or other an argument such as this.

It's worthwhile reading through all of the pdfs associated with the article, and not relying on the article by itself. He mentions several times throughout the various attachments that he began researching the climate change debate when he discovered that the hockey-stick graph had been "debunked" but was still in use by the IPCC. He was not commissioned to write the article, but rather submitted it for publication once his analysis was complete - the fact that its release coincided with the publication of the Stern Report is neither here nor there. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps the Telegraph themselves held back publication until the Stern Report was out, perhaps he even rushed it out to coincide with the report himself, who knows?

As far as his second piece is concerned, as it is intrinsically linked to the first article and given that it is widely discredited I'm afraid that I don't see that it should be taken seriously though I accept your stance on it.

By "his second piece", are you referring to the second part of the article, which was published a week later? If so, he essentially ended the first piece by saying "To Be Continued", and the two articles are really one article that has been cut in half (if you hook 'em with the first article then you get great sales next week for the concluding part). As for the article's being "widely discredited", I found that Realclimate savaged the article (as can be expected, seeing as they are run by Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann and his cronies), then many others followed suit using, basically, Realclimate's arguments. However, if you read through the e-mails pdf (rather than just "scanning"), you will see that he addresses and, for the most part, overturns these objections. It is also worth reading his response to Al Gore's comments on the original article:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Interestingly the web site he lists his favourite has received some funding from Exxon, is thought to be funded by another carbon crunching conglomerate and his findings were apparently independantly also found by Steve Milloy's Junk Science. Big coincidence, and one i am really suspicious of.

I don't see any reason why these sites should rouse any more suspicion than Realclimate.

Incidentally I have developed (as you may see) a largely cynical approach to all articles on this subject , trusting no one who has something to sell. I hope you don't object too much to my expressing my concerns here.

I, too, have a largely cynical approach to the subject as, apparently, does Christopher Monckton. No objection to you expressing your concerns, I just feel that Monckton should be given more credit and more time. The pdfs take a while to plow through, but are really worth the effort. The pdf of e-mails he received is over 70 pages long and consists of all the responses he had received up to that point. The e-mails were not "cherry-picked" to show Monckton in a good light and, in fact, he received several quite abrupt rebuttals (each of which he replied to and, as I said earlier, for the most part dismissed).

Sorry for the long post, but I feel that Monckton has been attacked quite unfairly, if not unexpectedly! :lol:

TTFN

C-Bob

[Extreme Alde]

Hi - I've said in another thread that I'm not going to be posting much at the moment (for fear of annoying the wife, but she's out with friends tonight, so...while the cat's away, the mice will play...!), but I thought I'd just throw in a comment or two if you'll permit me!

It's worthwhile reading through all of the pdfs associated with the article, and not relying on the article by itself. He mentions several times throughout the various attachments that he began researching the climate change debate when he discovered that the hockey-stick graph had been "debunked" but was still in use by the IPCC. He was not commissioned to write the article, but rather submitted it for publication once his analysis was complete - the fact that its release coincided with the publication of the Stern Report is neither here nor there. Perhaps it was coincidence, perhaps the Telegraph themselves held back publication until the Stern Report was out, perhaps he even rushed it out to coincide with the report himself, who knows?

By "his second piece", are you referring to the second part of the article, which was published a week later? If so, he essentially ended the first piece by saying "To Be Continued", and the two articles are really one article that has been cut in half (if you hook 'em with the first article then you get great sales next week for the concluding part). As for the article's being "widely discredited", I found that Realclimate savaged the article (as can be expected, seeing as they are run by Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann and his cronies), then many others followed suit using, basically, Realclimate's arguments. However, if you read through the e-mails pdf (rather than just "scanning"), you will see that he addresses and, for the most part, overturns these objections. It is also worth reading his response to Al Gore's comments on the original article:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

I don't see any reason why these sites should rouse any more suspicion than Realclimate.

I, too, have a largely cynical approach to the subject as, apparently, does Christopher Monckton. No objection to you expressing your concerns, I just feel that Monckton should be given more credit and more time. The pdfs take a while to plow through, but are really worth the effort. The pdf of e-mails he received is over 70 pages long and consists of all the responses he had received up to that point. The e-mails were not "cherry-picked" to show Monckton in a good light and, in fact, he received several quite abrupt rebuttals (each of which he replied to and, as I said earlier, for the most part dismissed).

Sorry for the long post, but I feel that Monckton has been attacked quite unfairly, if not unexpectedly! :lol:

TTFN

C-Bob

Thanks for your reply! I knew from reading the exchange with P3 you were under pain of death (or worse) for spending too much time on here so the risks you take stand you in good stead! :lol:

I'm afraid the Milloy site is a site that was set up to discredit the reports from the Tobacco industry, that industry having realised that if the public understood the science to be settled, so would their attitudes quickly changed. It is a site that still posts plain wrong infornmation even after challenge. For example it still has papers on the site that suggest 55% of the worlds glaciers are retreating, despite this being described, politely, as incorrect by the world glacier service.

As for Monckton's calculations, I post on another site with an atmospheric physicist. His comments regarding the pdf. were absolute and he was happy to be challenged on them. I do though, rather like the Hansen / Lindzen argument - it is sometimes good to see two heavyweights slug it out even if I agree with one's outcomes. I didn't like seeing Hansen misquoted and then this false clain repeated across the Net though. It does really take away from a document if you use misleading information from the off. A similar claim to that made against the hockey stick?

Don't understand your comments about the second piece, I rather unclearly was arguing that they were one document? Never mind it is not important.

Time is short this morning - will no doubt read you after your next escape.

[Mr Sleet]

Believe me I mean you individually no discourtesy, so I'll be nice in return.

I do though have several misgivings about the Monckton piece away from the science which I can already see we will probably agree from the outset to disagree on.

I have a wonder about why Mr Monckton invested so much time in this from the outset. Are we to believe that he was so motivated by the perceived injustice ongoing on the Climate Change reportage he felt he ought put the record straight? Or did he pitch the idea first, or even be commissioned to write the article, in which case I suggest that the outcome was preordained. I would contend you simply do not commission a journalist with no science background to prove one way or other an argument such as this.

The family connection with Nigel Lawson, a well known sceptic, is also intriguing although I accept that this could be circumstance.

What is far more dubious is the timing; we had Stern and then we had in quick succession rebuttals from Paul Reiter, Mr Lawson and Mr Monckton. If Mr Monckton had simply been responding to the Stern report he'd have been doing so night and day from his non-scientific background to get it sone so quick. Another explanation is that the rebuttals were rather more orchestrated than it is being let on.

As far as his second piece is concerned, as it is intrinsically linked to the first article and given that it is widely discredited I'm afraid that I don't see that it should be taken seriously though I accept your stance on it. Nonetheless, given its linking to its predecessor I believe it should have stayed in that thread. Your argument that you opened a thread for the first one falls down only because on that you had no choice.

Mr Monckton states in his article (jokingly, almost sneeringly) that he notes "The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon."

Interestingly the web site he lists his favourite has received some funding from Exxon, is thought to be funded by another carbon crunching conglomerate and his findings were apparently independantly also found by Steve Milloy's Junk Science. Big coincidence, and one i am really suspicious of.

Incidentally I have developed (as you may see) a largely cynical approach to all articles on this subject , trusting no one who has something to sell. I hope you don't object too much to my expressing my concerns here.

I can understand your doubts about Monckton. I too have my doubts.I'm sure we are contibuting to GW but how much I sense has been exaggerated. You carry on posting what you like EA , let the mods worry about the content.

Good to have you on board.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks for your reply! I knew from reading the exchange with P3 you were under pain of death (or worse) for spending too much time on here so the risks you take stand you in good stead!

Got the day off today, so time for a quick post!

I'm afraid the Milloy site is a site that was set up to discredit the reports from the Tobacco industry...

Similarly, the Realclimate site was set up to "prove" that global warming was real, imminent and potentially catastrophic. I'm not necessarily defending JunkScience and the like, but I'm saying (rather unclearly myself ) that Realclimate should be taken with a similarly-sized grain of salt.

As for Monckton's calculations, I post on another site with an atmospheric physicist.

I'd be interested to hear what he has to say, if you have a link. I'm not suggesting that Monckton has all of his facts correct, but he does bring some interesting points to the fray and seems to be quite capable of defending himself! As for the misquotation of Hansen, when I have time I will look into that further - some websites say that he was misquoted while others say that Monckton's quotation was legitimate. If you have a link to a copy of Hansen's article I'd be very grateful. (With any luck, though, it's only a Google away!)

Don't understand your comments about the second piece, I rather unclearly was arguing that they were one document? Never mind it is not important.

Sorry about that - my bad! I misunderstood what you were saying However, whether it has been discredited or not depends largely on who you ask - Realclimate ripped it apart, but their objections have (almost) all been addressed by Monckton in his correspondance pdf. I shall see if I can dig out some references, but several scientists are basically agreeing with what he says (not necessarily in the details, but the broad objections he raises).

Anyway, as always there is plenty more research for me to do It's nice to have you here, EA - I apologise if my first post was a little on the aggressive side!

TTFN

C-Bob

[Extreme Alde]

Got the day off today, so time for a quick post!

Similarly, the Realclimate site was set up to "prove" that global warming was real, imminent and potentially catastrophic. I'm not necessarily defending JunkScience and the like, but I'm saying (rather unclearly myself ) that Realclimate should be taken with a similarly-sized grain of salt.

I'd be interested to hear what he has to say, if you have a link. I'm not suggesting that Monckton has all of his facts correct, but he does bring some interesting points to the fray and seems to be quite capable of defending himself! As for the misquotation of Hansen, when I have time I will look into that further - some websites say that he was misquoted while others say that Monckton's quotation was legitimate. If you have a link to a copy of Hansen's article I'd be very grateful. (With any luck, though, it's only a Google away!)

Sorry about that - my bad! I misunderstood what you were saying However, whether it has been discredited or not depends largely on who you ask - Realclimate ripped it apart, but their objections have (almost) all been addressed by Monckton in his correspondance pdf. I shall see if I can dig out some references, but several scientists are basically agreeing with what he says (not necessarily in the details, but the broad objections he raises).

Anyway, as always there is plenty more research for me to do It's nice to have you here, EA - I apologise if my first post was a little on the aggressive side!

TTFN

C-Bob

Have a look at this C-B - it is Hansen's site but is is fascinating as he attempts to outline the difference between himself and Lindzen - both infinitely more knowledgeable than I

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

The misquote or otherwise of Hansen is sometimes measured after the very hot 98 - a year which we had a very large El Nino. Many from the sceptical side have argued that the century actually cooled after that or used this year only as an example to prove GW wasn't happening (at least until 2005). Anyway see what you think. Out of interest I would really like to see what a really stron El Nino does now by way of comparison, although 8 years may be too few to comment?

From your cynical side, and time allowing, I would recommend you google Hansen though. He has been misquoted more than once and even shielded from talking by his own government, who were at the time unwilling to embrace the AGW thought! He wasn't on a list of approved speakers - only sceptics! Only proving we are right to be sceptical with regard to information.

I think many of the things we are slightly worried about when it comes to climate science, esp. past climate reconstructions are addressed specifically in the updated IPCC report update early next year with a specific section on paleo climate. I have steadfastly refused to read any purported leaks on this so far, Junk Scince for example says they have some, and will read it first hand.

By way of explanation my distrust of sceptical papers is obvious and I am ashamed to admit, manifestly unfair. It comes from the sponsoring of dodgy or disproven science by oil companies and the like, willing to risk extreme consequences for some peoples of this earth so that may continue to sell their products. I don't mind them arguing or sponsoring science thats sets out to disprove, but I draw the line at the republication of false allegations under a guise of new information. However, I also distrust pretty much all papers on the subject from anyone with something to sell, be that a paper or a barrel of oil.

The worry is that purveyors of this rotten science will actually get in the way of genuine sceptic scientists who have soemthing useful to say on the subject. Scepticism is part of science, fraud isn't. As such I tend to be very careful about where articles and the like come from.

Takes bloomin ages!

[Admiral_Bobski]

EA

I see where you're coming from (and appreciate your honesty!). It is true that some "dodgy or disproven science" is funded by oil companies, but that doesn't mean that all information coming from sources with links to the oil industry (or any industry with a vested interest) is false or distorted. Similarly not all "Pro-GW" information is false or distorted but, conversely, that doesn't mean that some of it is.

For a slight aside, I found a posting on another site about secondary smoking. An excellent response, I thought, that draws parallels with the AGW debate. I have italicised the pertinent comment below, but kept the post in its entirety so that you can see the context in which it was stated.

I think it is important that I explain that I am a Motel owner with a pub. I am a life long non smoker, my father died of a smoking related illness and my personal view is that smokers play Russian Roulette with their lives.

I have read lots of science over the last 2 years in my roll as The Secretary of a region of the British Institute of Innkeeping who support the voluntary charter on smoking in public places. I do not claim to be a scientist and having reviewed and hopefully understood the evidence, such as it is I have to say that the case put for ETS as a causal link to serious ill health is in my view non existant or at best scant. There are lots of 'smoke screens' erected such as the claim that the evaluation of the 39 year study was tobacco industry sponsored. As I understand it it was in the latter stages when health funding was stopped, when the results were not looking good for the Anti faction that sponsorship was sought and accepted.I think it is also slightly disengenuos to always intimate that science is flawed due to the sponsor. If that were the case then surely it is reasonable to criticise the WHO for acceptong funding for research and no smoking campaigns from the Phaumaceitical Industry who make many millions from anti smoking medicines.

Obviously in a medical journal my views can be dismissed as irrelevant and I accept that, but I would like to finally say that to abuse science who ever is the culprit does a disservice to a nobel profession. What I have read of ETS science I have to conclude that the 'anti's' seem to be well ahead in this regard.

I agree with you for the most part, though - as I suggested a while back, the sooner we get rid of the "denialists" and the "alarmists", the sooner there can be a rational, objective debate about AGW. I'm going to start a campaign, one day - the "Bring Back Objectivity to Science" campaign (BriBOtS for short)!

Until next time...

C-Bob

PS - thanks for the link - I'll check it out later

Edited November 24, 2006 by Captain_Bobski

[Extreme Alde]

EA

I see where you're coming from (and appreciate your honesty!). It is true that some "dodgy or disproven science" is funded by oil companies, but that doesn't mean that all information coming from sources with links to the oil industry (or any industry with a vested interest) is false or distorted. Similarly not all "Pro-GW" information is false or distorted but, conversely, that doesn't mean that some of it is.

For a slight aside, I found a posting on another site about secondary smoking. An excellent response, I thought, that draws parallels with the AGW debate. I have italicised the pertinent comment below, but kept the post in its entirety so that you can see the context in which it was stated.

I agree with you for the most part, though - as I suggested a while back, the sooner we get rid of the "denialists" and the "alarmists", the sooner there can be a rational, objective debate about AGW. I'm going to start a campaign, one day - the "Bring Back Objectivity to Science" campaign (BriBOtS for short)!

Until next time...

C-Bob

PS - thanks for the link - I'll check it out later

No worries.

With regard your quotation I still think we are thinking along the same lines (though undoubtedly as we enter heated debate over an issue in the future we will need to remind ourselves of this) and have no reason (as I stated in my post) to fear scientifc research. What I hope you agree with me on is that the funding of research where the answer is known, or the research is funded merely to enhance a position (sort of putting a lengthy, complex calculation in front of 2 plus 2 equals 3 to prove it), is wrong. There are numerous sites, organisations and corporations doing this (probably a few universties too).

Tell me what you think of the Hansen (albeit dated) article. I like the contrast he gives between his and alternative stances. For a non scientist it makes it easier to understand.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've had a scan through the link (I'll have a thorough read-through later on), and what Hansen says seems quite reasonable. The graph that has been questioned obviously needs to be considered in its entirety, and not one line at a time (or one line and ignore the others, as seems to have been the case in the past).

To give Monckton a little credit, though, he didn't take one line and dismiss the others - what he did was to take all three lines to calculate an average (or so he says in his notes). Whether this was a right or wrong thing to do I am not sure - it depends upon specifically how the graph was constructed which, it appears, is answered in the link you gave me. If the three graphs relate to three different models then the averaging may not be legitimate. If the three graphs are the same model with different forcing levels (which I think it is - I'll have to check) then, again, it may not be legitimate. In fact, the only case in which an averaging could be considered legitimate with no question at all would be if the three graphs all came from the same model, running the same data and showing a chaotic outcome due to perturbations in the model. More research needed on my part, I think :lol:

Anyway, I think we do both feel the same way about scientific papers (but perhaps have differing views on which papers can be "trusted" ). Hopefully we can both be rational and avoid a heated debate - the fact that "alarmists" and "denialists" get so heated is what has caused the debate to become so cloudy! Staying calm and analysing the facts are the way forward

Well, I've finished my coffee so I'd better get back on with things - I'll see if I can find any facts to analyse later on!

Cheers

C-Bob

[Admiral_Bobski]

PS - Apologies to Mr Sleet for hijacking his thread...

C-Bob

[Extreme Alde]

PS - Apologies to Mr Sleet for hijacking his thread...

C-Bob

And from me too.

This is a point by point rebuttal of Monckton being created at Wikipedia - see if it adds or not to your thoughts. It is now becoming confusing for me - perhaps this is the aim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbuckner/climate

[Admiral_Bobski]

And from me too.

This is a point by point rebuttal of Monckton being created at Wikipedia - see if it adds or not to your thoughts. It is now becoming confusing for me - perhaps this is the aim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbuckner/climate

Thanks EA, I'll have a look at that later! (Seems they spend a lot of time referring to Realclimate...hmmmm....) :lol:

C-Bob

[Extreme Alde]

Thanks EA, I'll have a look at that later! (Seems they spend a lot of time referring to Realclimate...hmmmm....)

C-Bob

Sorry C-Bob- they do use RC and one other site in defence. I thought a point by point would be interesting because plausability is effectively reduced (hence why on the net it is such an effective tool) in large documents like the Monckton pdf. I should have warned you though - sorry!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry C-Bob- they do use RC and one other site in defence. I thought a point by point would be interesting because plausability is effectively reduced (hence why on the net it is such an effective tool) in large documents like the Monckton pdf. I should have warned you though - sorry!

No problem EA! I'm going to read through it now (if the kids don't disturb me!) - I may comment on it later if it doesn't take me too long to read

C-Bob

[parmenides3]

I'd be grateful if somebody could explain to me what is wrong with the credentials of the climate scientists, such as Gavin Schmidt, or Rasmus Benestad, who run RealClimate. Their biogs are included on the website for anybody to check out. If, at the same time, you could explain to me why I should accept that a site run by political or industrial appointees, engineers or social scientists, who aren't climate scientists, should be considered to be equal or superior in status to one run by highly respected specialists in climate science, I'll happily concede that RealClimate is not to be respected.

Cap'n, you are still perpetuating a rather old argument that there is something wrong with the 'hockey stick'; also the idea that this somehow casts doubt on the plethora of evidence for GW. The IPCC does not, nor has it ever, validated any scientific theory; it simply collates and publishes it. The link I posted previously was a vindication of the 'Hockey stick' by the BASC, an august institution of the United States which has not traditionally been a great champion of GW. The scientists on the panel which reviewed MBH '98 are cited with the document. Should we also have doubts about their credentials, as they, too, have evidently been suckered into believing that the hockey stick is not misleading?

There is absolutely nothing wrong, ever, with challenging a scientific hypothesis by counter argument or new evidence. Monkcton evidently has his own feelings about GW, and has done some research which has led him to evidence which supports his own, existing opinion. We can all do this. What is far more difficult is to look for the evidence which contradicts our own existing views, and look at it dispassionately. Casting doubt on the work of others, especially when they are experts, on the grounds that their world-view does not match our own, is insufficient and unconvincing.

Finally, here is a link to the UKCIP summary of major science papers for October. It is useful, as many of these are published in technical journals and only available by subscription. It covers papers on most aspects of climate research and climate change impacts, as well as policy and adaptation strategies.

UKCIPOctoberdigest.pdf

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'd be grateful if somebody could explain to me what is wrong with the credentials of the climate scientists, such as Gavin Schmidt, or Rasmus Benestad, who run RealClimate. Their biogs are included on the website for anybody to check out. If, at the same time, you could explain to me why I should accept that a site run by political or industrial appointees, engineers or social scientists, who aren't climate scientists, should be considered to be equal or superior in status to one run by highly respected specialists in climate science, I'll happily concede that RealClimate is not to be respected.

There is nothing wrong with their credentials whatsoever, but credentials do not counteract the effect of bias (Einstein is still regarded a great scientists, yet he refused to agree with quantum mechanics because he was biased against it). Also, many scientists who weigh in to this argument are not climate scientists - those who aren't do not claim to be climate scientists, and rarely try to propose theories or construct models in climate science. These "nay-sayers", if you will, are often doing nothing more than collecting and analysing data. You don't need to be a climate scientist to collect and analyse data. The findings of these scientists' analyses are not "fundamentally flawed" just because they aren't climate scientists. I also said nothing of Realclimate being unworthy of respect, merely that I find it hard to trust their results due to their obvious bias (and I have said the same of other sites, too - not just Realclimate, and not just Pro-GW sites).

Cap'n, you are still perpetuating a rather old argument that there is something wrong with the 'hockey stick'; also the idea that this somehow casts doubt on the plethora of evidence for GW. The IPCC does not, nor has it ever, validated any scientific theory; it simply collates and publishes it. The link I posted previously was a vindication of the 'Hockey stick' by the BASC, an august institution of the United States which has not traditionally been a great champion of GW. The scientists on the panel which reviewed MBH '98 are cited with the document. Should we also have doubts about their credentials, as they, too, have evidently been suckered into believing that the hockey stick is not misleading?

Yes, P3, I am quite happily perpetuating that argument, because it is of particular importance. There is still cause to doubt the validity of the graph - the fact that it is accepted as being valid (by the IPCC) shows a bias on the part of those collating and disseminating the information. If the HS graph is being wrongly accepted then what other papers are being wrongly accepted? Also, while the IPCC may not actively validate papers, the fact that they continue to use contentious information in their reports is a cause for concern. As for the BASC paper, I have not read the relevant sections with anything more than a casual eye (so much to do, so little time!), but you said yourself that "The report does not 'fully support' the MBH graph, but its conclusions are reasonably clear". So they still consider there to be some distortion of the facts, then?

There is absolutely nothing wrong, ever, with challenging a scientific hypothesis by counter argument or new evidence. Monkcton evidently has his own feelings about GW, and has done some research which has led him to evidence which supports his own, existing opinion. We can all do this. What is far more difficult is to look for the evidence which contradicts our own existing views, and look at it dispassionately. Casting doubt on the work of others, especially when they are experts, on the grounds that their world-view does not match our own, is insufficient and unconvincing.

It is nothing whatsoever to do with their "world-view not matching" mine - it is quite simply the fact that I find their counterarguments "unconvincing". The oft-repeated argument against Monckton that the Earth isn't a perfect black body shows that they didn't read his piece properly, or else ignored the fact that he makes an adjustment (a perfectly valid one, at that) for this. Or perhaps they read it with their own viewpoint and weren't open to a competing one. Sound familiar? Even experts can be wrong. As for Monckton himself, he has said that he investigated GW because he had heard about the continued use of the HS-graph despite the cloud of doubt surrounding it, which he found to be suspicious. I am willing to accept that he went into his investigation with something of an open mind, just as I am willing to accept that you went into your own investigations with an open mind. The fact that he came to the opposite conclusion from you does not mean that he went in with an existing opinion.

Finally, here is a link to the UKCIP summary of major science papers for October. It is useful, as many of these are published in technical journals and only available by subscription. It covers papers on most aspects of climate research and climate change impacts, as well as policy and adaptation strategies.

I may have a look at the link at some point, if I get time. The reason I came into this thread in the first place was because I read a dismissal of the Monckton piece (which I considered to be unfair, but fair play to EA ). My point is that Monckton's piece deserves some credit, and that most of the objections to it are not valid. The one that irritates me most is "it's not peer reviewed". So what? If the findings of his paper are legitimate then what difference does it make whether it is peer reviewed or not? Since some of his findings have received some support, I suggest that this makes the Monckton piece an important piece in the AGW debate.

Finally, my debate on this thread is not about science, per se. One of the reasons I stopped posting was because of the time I was spending reading through papers and studies; time which I don't have to spare right now. This debate, while having some interesting asides of a scientific nature, is largely one of arguing whether or not Monckton's piece serves any purpose in the AGW issue. I am arguing that it does, since it raises important issues, and further I am arguing that many of the objections are not sufficient to dismiss the article out of hand.

It is incredible how every new pro-AGW paper's arrival is heralded as "yet more evidence", yet every tiny snippet of Anti-AGW information (be it a full paper, a newspaper article or a microscopic soundbite) is immediately stomped on and subjected to ridicule, whether worthy of it or not. I am not going to continue trying to argue the point on the HS-graph, or on the "CO2 following temperature increase" issue because there is no point - people who do not agree with my viewpoint are unlikely to be swayed by my repeated expression of it. BUT, I will continue to raise the point that these issues are not fully resolved because, as long as there is doubt, the court is not yet adjourned.

C-Bob

[Ken Ring]

It is incredible how every new pro-AGW paper's arrival is heralded as "yet more evidence", yet every tiny snippet of Anti-AGW information (be it a full paper, a newspaper article or a microscopic soundbite) is immediately stomped on and subjected to ridicule, whether worthy of it or not.

C-Bob

Hi Bob

I am on your side. Instead of the consensus brigade trumpeting that deniers and naysayers are unpatriotic, uncaring about the planet, uncaring about their children's environment etc etc, how about just one of them listing the actual evidence that the world is warming. It is not a big ask. By the world I don’t just mean the tiny areas occupied by the cities, I mean the oceans, icecaps, swamps, craggy mountain ranges, deserts etc that comprise, without human habitation, 98.4% of the Earth’s surface. Oh bother, there aren’t any thermometers in those places. (darn... aint that the inconvenient truth..)

On the other hand there is obvious evidence that carbon trading is the new game in town, in an international virtual casino in which the House purse is 22 billion US dollars. This never did have, and still has nothing whatever to do with changes in climate. May I direct readers to a website of climate scientists from NZ that include myself. Among the others are two ex-IPCC member/monitors, Vincent Gray and Chris de Freitas. Conservationist David Bellamy also features. Note that none of us receive any funding from oil barons or energy organisations. I wish. On the other hand most global warming climatologists are state-paid and toe a government line, which proves a necessary bias far worse than any that could be levelled at a funded skeptic.

Here is our collection: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

It used to be a forum, but global warmers bloggposted it up with inanities, forcing its closure. What does that tell you..?

ken Ring

www.predictweather.com

[parmenides3]

Hi to Ken, and C-Bob.

Ken: you are clearly an experienced writer on the subject, but I don't believe that NW is a place where 'anti-AGW' evidence is 'stomped on'. To my eyes, most of the debate is reasonable and often reasoned [there are always exceptions].

Asking AGW advocates to list the places where the earth is warming is disingenuous. The Global climate metrics vary, but include a large number of different types of measurement in a large number of places. Of course there aren't thermometers everywhere, but extrapolation is a perfectly standard procedure in scientific analysis of large-scale phenomena. Your post implies that the possible variables are not adequately represented in the results offered by several agencies and organisations, but given the amount of work that has been done on this and similar questions, I would want to see a more specific refutation than the one implied above. Your post also fails to address how it could be that so many different ways of measuring climate change all come out with the same, positive, temperature trend, unless perhaps you want us to believe that there is a global conspiracy of mad scientists determined to misinform both their employers and the public?

Mixing policy and climate change arguments is a familiar strategy, but not necessarily a helpful one. I agree heartily that the carbon-trading game makes a complete mockery of policy and represents no real advance in dealing with the issues involved, but this in itself is not an argument against AGW or against making good policy decisions which lead to effective action.

C-Bob; You touch on an important and difficult point: was/is the IPCC 'biased' in its representation of the science? There seems to be some agreement that, in the Executive Summary, the 150 page document which was the basis for most 'amateurs' knowledge, the complexity and (scientific) uncertainty present in many of the papers and research was inadequately represented. However, in the 1000-page plus scientific summary, all of the uncertainties, contradictions and anomalies are present. Given the need to provide a simplified, clear picture to policy-makers, it is not surprising, though perhaps regrettable, that some important aspects of research and analysis were glossed over or left out. This has been a subject of contention for several years now, with a number of well-respected scientists resigning their posts on expert panels, because of disagreements over how the science is represented and what is or is not included.

Mt observation about open-mindedness was not specifically aimed at Monckton or yourself, though I still tend towards the view that his research might have been tainted by an initial agenda, simply because of what he includes and what he leaves out, the way he presents some data, and the likely sources of information for some of his material. My intention was really to remind all the readers of the post how difficult it is to be truly objective.

Finally, I would say that it is important that you, Ken and others continue to challenge the so-called consensus view, just as I feel it is important that I post the information, links and evidence that supports my own opinion. It isn't really a matter of whether I disagree with you or not, but more importantly, whether the evidence that is offered is rigorous. if the National Academy of Science and the American Meteorological society are willing to accept that the MBH 'hockey stick' graph is an accurate representation of the recent global climate, then so am I. Note that they do not believe there to be any distortion of the facts in the hockey stick paper (this is as good as calling the scientists involved 'cheats'). What they question is the degree of confidence with which it can be stated that the temperature record beyond 400 years ago can be accurately enough represented to say that the current temperature is warmer than either four hundred, or even more so, a thousand years ago.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks for that Ken - I totally agree with that. It seems that it isn't possible to separate the science of GW from the politics of GW, which is a terrible shame because it is this politicisation that is muddying the issue. The debate seems to frequently come down to a case of "Who To Trust?", but with politicians weighing in on one side and the much-loathed faceless automaton that is Industry weighing in on the other it seems that the answer to the question is "Trust No-one". Who'da thunk the X-Files was so relevant?!

...I don't believe that NW is a place where 'anti-AGW' evidence is 'stomped on'. To my eyes, most of the debate is reasonable and often reasoned...

I wasn't suggesting that NW is guilty of stomping on contrary evidence (and nor did I see Ken make that insinuation) - I was making a generalisation about papers in the field rather than on message boards. My point (I seem to be saying that an awful lot!) is that the sacred peer-review process is clearly not without its own bias.

C-Bob

Edited December 11, 2006 by Captain_Bobski

[Essan]

2 points:-

Ken asks about all the parts of the world where we have no thermometers: how can we say they are warming? Well, leaving aside satellite measurements for the moment, by the same argument, how can you say they are not warming? After all, if all the places where we do have accurate measurements are warming .....

Regarding IPCC bias: I wonder if that's why early reports suggest that the 4AR will significantly downgrade the impact human activity is having on global warming and consequently half the expected sea level raise over the next century?

[Devonian]

2 points:-

Ken asks about all the parts of the world where we have no thermometers: how can we say they are warming? Well, leaving aside satellite measurements for the moment, by the same argument, how can you say they are not warming? After all, if all the places where we do have accurate measurements are warming .....

Regarding IPCC bias: I wonder if that's why early reports suggest that the 4AR will significantly downgrade the impact human activity is having on global warming and consequently half the expected sea level raise over the next century?

Nope.

This is most likely a 'confusion' (why such a 'confusion' is being spread I cannot say...) as explained here.