|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2010 2:19:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 22, 2010 11:03:00 GMT
Monckton's arguing style seems to be that he paints a picture of the doubts about climate science and makes lots of quite indirect inferences that together give an impression of no AGW. When people pick on individual inferences he often claims that he said no such thing. Then he throws out the ad hominem accusations and threats to the bosses and funders of those critical of him. For example, the arrow on this image suggests to me that he is implying that he does not think that sea level would rise in the future. But when criticised for this he and his supporters will claim that he said nothing of the sort. Of course, subsequent to this presentation, sea levels did continue their rise: The article in the original post is useful because it quotes large parts of Monckton so people can judge for themselves the intended inferences and implications. It's important to show Monckton's knowledge for what it is when he is being invited to submit evidence to government bodies by denialist politicians.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 22, 2010 13:12:21 GMT
Monckton's arguing style seems to be that he paints a picture of the doubts about climate science and makes lots of quite indirect inferences that together give an impression of no AGW. When people pick on individual inferences he often claims that he said no such thing. Then he throws out the ad hominem accusations and threats to the bosses and funders of those critical of him. For example, the arrow on this image suggests to me that he is implying that he does not think that sea level would rise in the future. But when criticised for this he and his supporters will claim that he said nothing of the sort. Of course, subsequent to this presentation, sea levels did continue their rise: The article in the original post is useful because it quotes large parts of Monckton so people can judge for themselves the intended inferences and implications. It's important to show Monckton's knowledge for what it is when he is being invited to submit evidence to government bodies by denialist politicians. I am aware of few skeptics who follow Monckton in detail. But it is interesting how much attention he draws from the believer community.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 22, 2010 13:14:12 GMT
The response did not persuade me either. Seems like a group hatchet job to protect the cash cow. Easy to go into great detail about snowball earth and how CO2 saved the day, when the details are shrouded by a very long time. Genuflecting before CO2 $.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 22, 2010 15:51:52 GMT
I would not presume to insult any sceptic by suggesting that they are a Monckton follower. Monckton followers either do not know enough about the science because they get all their understanding from the Daily Telegraph, or they don't care about facts that get in the way of their ideology.
He will get a following from AGW people as long as he is invited to give evidence to government bodies, and as long as British people enjoy the spectacle of US people sucking up (or genuflecting perhaps?) to people with titles.
trbixler, you are kind of missing the fact that it is Monckton who is trying to prove something about CO2 from snowball earth.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2010 18:46:42 GMT
The thing I found interesting in all of this is that Mr. Monckton didn't really say anything worthwhile, and the rebuttal was filled with inuendo as well. The truely sad thing is the rebuttal was supposedly written by scientists who couldn't stay on topic and deff have not read current literature.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2010 18:51:33 GMT
The truely sad thing is the rebuttal was supposedly written by scientists who couldn't stay on topic and deff have not read current literature. Its authored by Michael Mann. One needs to say nothing more. This is a man who will go to the ends of the earth to cherry pick a statement.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 22, 2010 19:02:08 GMT
I would not presume to insult any sceptic by suggesting that they are a Monckton follower. Monckton followers either do not know enough about the science because they get all their understanding from the Daily Telegraph, or they don't care about facts that get in the way of their ideology. He will get a following from AGW people as long as he is invited to give evidence to government bodies, and as long as British people enjoy the spectacle of US people sucking up (or genuflecting perhaps?) to people with titles. trbixler, you are kind of missing the fact that it is Monckton who is trying to prove something about CO2 from snowball earth. I would trust Monckton more than I would trust any of those who attempted to rebut him.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 22, 2010 19:18:58 GMT
I would not presume to insult any sceptic by suggesting that they are a Monckton follower. Monckton followers either do not know enough about the science because they get all their understanding from the Daily Telegraph, or they don't care about facts that get in the way of their ideology. He will get a following from AGW people as long as he is invited to give evidence to government bodies, and as long as British people enjoy the spectacle of US people sucking up (or genuflecting perhaps?) to people with titles. trbixler, you are kind of missing the fact that it is Monckton who is trying to prove something about CO2 from snowball earth. I would trust Monckton more than I would trust any of those who attempted to rebut him. So, hunter, you may not follow Monckton "in detail" but you trust him because he isn't someone else. Basically if he tells a pack of lies, you don't care as long as he is on your side. It's nice to clarify that.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 22, 2010 21:54:22 GMT
I would trust Monckton more than I would trust any of those who attempted to rebut him. So, hunter, you may not follow Monckton "in detail" but you trust him because he isn't someone else. Basically if he tells a pack of lies, you don't care as long as he is on your side. It's nice to clarify that. No, Monckton is not trying to tell me that I and the rest of the world need to fund him and his beliefs with trillions of dollars, and that those who disagree with him are criminals in need of political trials. Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Gore, Suzuki, etc. etc. etc. all want my money and for me to be silenced. Monckton, even if he is a pathological liar, is not demanding my money. I will take the harmless crank over the thieving pack of liars who lead the AGW movement any day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2010 22:04:58 GMT
So, hunter, you may not follow Monckton "in detail" but you trust him because he isn't someone else. Basically if he tells a pack of lies, you don't care as long as he is on your side. It's nice to clarify that. Can you produce a lie by Monckton? And I am not talking about a misinterpretation of an arrow on a graph. You CAGW guys are sooooooooooo badddddddd at that kind of jumping to conclusions. I mean Steve can you really provide a complete physical explanation for why sea level would stop rising for a period of time if its being caused by ever increasing melting of ice and heating of the oceans? I mean you guys forever and a day go on about others not being able to describe alternative physical mechanisms as some kind of negative proof that any old unfalsified hypothesis is an adequate basis for taking drastic action to prevent CAGW. Does it really bother you that much when somebody borrows a page from the CAGW handbook? He goes around and shows a lot of stuff that is in dispute that are key to the CAGW theory. The response is usually a mischaracterization or some misinterpretation of a graph where some unsupported claim he is implying some devious unstated premise. Bottom line is that is all that Monckton talks about (or at least all I heard him talk about, but I am not a Monckton expert following his every word). But you and your buddies have seem to feel compelled to make up stuff as Monckton is quite effective in his presentations. Is that right? Please do correct me if I got that take wrong. Give us Monckton's worst in full context Steve and show how clearly he has lied not some dispute of a science point over which different unfalsified papers come to different conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 23, 2010 9:47:18 GMT
Following standard Monckton-style, how dare you accuse me of saying that he was a liar! I did not say that he was a liar, I said that if Monckton was a liar hunter would not change his opinion of him. Page 9 of the linked document is a good example of a man blabbering in the expectation that the members of his audience will sit politely while their eyes glaze over. The responses from the four scientists are eviscerating - none of the responses are by any of your favourite bogeymen. Mostly his methods involve waffly comments that are hard to parse that end up with an "if all the previous is correct then there is no problem" Two things that come to mind immediately are misrepresenting the IPCC projections for warming and misrepresenting the IPCC projections for CO2 rise, which are quite large porkies on the scale of things. Then there is the quote on his slide made in 2009 that "Arctic sea ice steady for a decade". But: I would say that that was a direct lie. Then of course there are the scientists who directly dispute Monckton's analysis of their own work, such as Rachel Pinker. And his claim to have found a cure for HIV. You and hunter and Anthony Watts won't support him fully and make feeble excuses for not looking into his claims into much depth, but are happy for him to operate the way he does, and have his say to your government representatives. He may just fade away in time, but if he does become a liability then you have plausible denial.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Sept 23, 2010 13:31:59 GMT
Following standard Monckton-style, how dare you accuse me of saying that he was a liar! I did not say that he was a liar, I said that if Monckton was a liar hunter would not change his opinion of him. Page 9 of the linked document is a good example of a man blabbering in the expectation that the members of his audience will sit politely while their eyes glaze over. The responses from the four scientists are eviscerating - none of the responses are by any of your favourite bogeymen. Mostly his methods involve waffly comments that are hard to parse that end up with an "if all the previous is correct then there is no problem" Two things that come to mind immediately are misrepresenting the IPCC projections for warming and misrepresenting the IPCC projections for CO2 rise, which are quite large porkies on the scale of things. Then there is the quote on his slide made in 2009 that "Arctic sea ice steady for a decade". But: I would say that that was a direct lie. Then of course there are the scientists who directly dispute Monckton's analysis of their own work, such as Rachel Pinker. And his claim to have found a cure for HIV. You and hunter and Anthony Watts won't support him fully and make feeble excuses for not looking into his claims into much depth, but are happy for him to operate the way he does, and have his say to your government representatives. He may just fade away in time, but if he does become a liability then you have plausible denial. Certainly no worse than the way Gore or Hansen are treated by the believers. But I granted you that Monckton is as bad as you claim: a serial pathological liar. That puts him league with, say, a UFO abduction believer- a crank with a powerpoint and a book. Hansen, however, wants my money and my obedience. Gore already has my money wants a lot more, and is looking to impose obedience. Suzuki wants trials against those who disagree with him. So do I do as you want and obsess on the one you have designated crank, or do I focus on those who want my money and want to impose their CO2 obsession on the world?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 23, 2010 18:59:09 GMT
I would not presume to insult any sceptic by suggesting that they are a Monckton follower. Monckton followers either do not know enough about the science because they get all their understanding from the Daily Telegraph, or they don't care about facts that get in the way of their ideology. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 23, 2010 19:02:05 GMT
I would trust Monckton more than I would trust any of those who attempted to rebut him. COOL! That means I might be able to sell you a bridge.
|
|