<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Viscount Monckton, a British peer, says his paper was peer-reviewed by a scientist]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ataventure http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:49:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/1 Finally

I was originally pointed toward this article by a fellow Livejournal user, a woman who is not as familiar with global warming/climate change/environmentalism, and thus was more interested than appalled by Monckton's "evidence".

Intrigued myself, not to mention skeptical and a bit disturbed, I decided to dig into the SPPI's supposed credibility. Oh Internet, what did I do before I had you? I read up on SPPI's "publications," Monckton's "credibility", and even went so far as to call the offices of SPPI (they don't answer the phone, and they don't have voicemail...). After ten minutes of Google-ing, I smirked, returned to my friend's blog to make some jovial commentary, and scanned blogs for other mentions of Monckton's theory.

Sadly, I could find none! Well, unless they were praising Monckton's debunking of the "Global Warming Scam". Finally. Finally someone intelligent (and published) takes a good, solid look at the loony toon that is TVMOB. Thanks for the article. Keep up the good work.

]]> Finally

I was originally pointed toward this article by a fellow Livejournal user, a woman who is not as familiar with global warming/climate change/environmentalism, and thus was more interested than appalled by Monckton's "evidence".

Intrigued myself, not to mention skeptical and a bit disturbed, I decided to dig into the SPPI's supposed credibility. Oh Internet, what did I do before I had you? I read up on SPPI's "publications," Monckton's "credibility", and even went so far as to call the offices of SPPI (they don't answer the phone, and they don't have voicemail...). After ten minutes of Google-ing, I smirked, returned to my friend's blog to make some jovial commentary, and scanned blogs for other mentions of Monckton's theory.

Sadly, I could find none! Well, unless they were praising Monckton's debunking of the "Global Warming Scam". Finally. Finally someone intelligent (and published) takes a good, solid look at the loony toon that is TVMOB. Thanks for the article. Keep up the good work.

]]> Comment #2 by josullivan58 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:11:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/2 RealClimate joins in

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/onc ...

]]> RealClimate joins in

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/onc ...

]]> Comment #3 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:52:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/3 Mockery if all else fails

I wonder why it is necessary to make the inference that Monckton is some kind of a buffoon, with that silly photo above etc?   He is undoubtedly a very intelligent and diversely skilled man, ex Harrow, Cambridge, and Cardiff.

I wonder how many of you writers above are smart enough to publish his nine intellectual books of diversity?  There was also his million pound challenge "eternity puzzle", that was eventually cracked by two mathematicians with a computer programme.  He's a clever guy, with lots of other works too!  Can you do better?

I wonder if you are even smart enough to have read the science in his paper, let alone understand or critique it?

I wonder if any of YOU have made valuable CONTRIBUTIONS to this world, as he has?

]]> Mockery if all else fails

I wonder why it is necessary to make the inference that Monckton is some kind of a buffoon, with that silly photo above etc?   He is undoubtedly a very intelligent and diversely skilled man, ex Harrow, Cambridge, and Cardiff.

I wonder how many of you writers above are smart enough to publish his nine intellectual books of diversity?  There was also his million pound challenge "eternity puzzle", that was eventually cracked by two mathematicians with a computer programme.  He's a clever guy, with lots of other works too!  Can you do better?

I wonder if you are even smart enough to have read the science in his paper, let alone understand or critique it?

I wonder if any of YOU have made valuable CONTRIBUTIONS to this world, as he has?

]]> Comment #4 by Notsniw http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:56:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/4 Mocking the Mockingbird

I wonder if you have even read Christopher's article, and have not seen the glaring indefensible scientific errors that have been analysed to death?     Furthermore:

I wonder if you know that Christopher is a liar who likes to make things up?  

I wonder if you know that he falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords?

I wonder if you know that Christopher fabricates his owns Wikipedia entries?

I wonder if you know that Christopher slandered Naomi Oreskes, and has not owned up to the truth?

I wonder if you realise that Christopher can only respond via (IMO) hilarious ad hom attacks, willfully ignoring facts that have pointed out to him?  

I wonder if you are Monckton in disguise?

]]> Mocking the Mockingbird

I wonder if you have even read Christopher's article, and have not seen the glaring indefensible scientific errors that have been analysed to death?     Furthermore:

I wonder if you know that Christopher is a liar who likes to make things up?  

I wonder if you know that he falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords?

I wonder if you know that Christopher fabricates his owns Wikipedia entries?

I wonder if you know that Christopher slandered Naomi Oreskes, and has not owned up to the truth?

I wonder if you realise that Christopher can only respond via (IMO) hilarious ad hom attacks, willfully ignoring facts that have pointed out to him?  

I wonder if you are Monckton in disguise?

]]> Comment #5 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:40:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/5 APS versus Monckton (July 31)

Here is some background with an extract from the initial issue of  July 2008 APS newsletter, Physics & Society:

This editor [Me, Jeffrey Marque] invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cf ...

However, later, and clearly against the spirit of this, the on-line newsletter had the following red flag added  SOLELY against Monckton's article on the index page, and WITHIN his article. (without consultation with the author)

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Monckton protested to APS, and as of  July 19 the index was revised to delete the flag, and some time later, it was also removed from his article:

Articles  [Index - revised]
A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change. By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. By Christopher Monckton

As of  July 31 (EST Oz, 10:30), BOTH articles now contain at their head, a more "carefully worded" disclaimer in normal black font; thus:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Quite apart from the fact that existing APS disclaimers and policy WRT to authors views make the insertion of such flags unnecessary, the APS semantics, (Monckton claims that his article WAS peer reviewed), and the APS internal political conflict, the the APS does not appear to have responded adequately to Monckton's complaints!

Watch this space!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh BTW, Monckton's article includes:
Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly-received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture-notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data. Any errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding from any source for this research






]]> APS versus Monckton (July 31)

Here is some background with an extract from the initial issue of  July 2008 APS newsletter, Physics & Society:

This editor [Me, Jeffrey Marque] invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cf ...

However, later, and clearly against the spirit of this, the on-line newsletter had the following red flag added  SOLELY against Monckton's article on the index page, and WITHIN his article. (without consultation with the author)

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Monckton protested to APS, and as of  July 19 the index was revised to delete the flag, and some time later, it was also removed from his article:

Articles  [Index - revised]
A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change. By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. By Christopher Monckton

As of  July 31 (EST Oz, 10:30), BOTH articles now contain at their head, a more "carefully worded" disclaimer in normal black font; thus:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Quite apart from the fact that existing APS disclaimers and policy WRT to authors views make the insertion of such flags unnecessary, the APS semantics, (Monckton claims that his article WAS peer reviewed), and the APS internal political conflict, the the APS does not appear to have responded adequately to Monckton's complaints!

Watch this space!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh BTW, Monckton's article includes:
Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly-received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture-notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data. Any errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding from any source for this research






]]> Comment #6 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:26:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/6 Seeems to have gone quiet here!

Now why could that be?

]]> Seeems to have gone quiet here!

Now why could that be?

]]> Comment #7 by Black Wallaby http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:40:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/7 APS versus Monckton

Has anyone been able to dispassionately analyse the significance of the penultimate post above, versus the mocking out-of-context nonsense from Joseph Romm?

]]> APS versus Monckton

Has anyone been able to dispassionately analyse the significance of the penultimate post above, versus the mocking out-of-context nonsense from Joseph Romm?

]]> Comment #8 by Johnny Cool http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/ Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:12:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/irony-gate/8 Personal Abuse of TVMOB

Yeah, I have.

Let me first say that I am a Climate Change sceptic. But I am not anti any-one. I am happy to believe either For or Against IF they can convince me. So far neither party has.

I came across this website after reading TVMOB's (someone's abbreviation above) letter to John McCain. Must confess I had never heard of him so Googled his name to see if he was real and stumbled here.

As far as the arguments above are concerned. There seems to be more personal abuse in the Pro climate change mob than TVMOB. I am not interested in personal abuse or the Monty Python characterisation above which is pretty unrepresentative of some-than can present such a comprehensive paper.

As far as debunking is concerned the maths lost me on line one and statements like:

 "Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity"

is bebunking? You gotta be joking.

One of the debunks actually said "Here I confess to sharing a concern with Monckton."

OK, I looked at the Wikipedia thing and was convinced that TVMOB stuffed up here and changed the entry about the "reported" £50,000 libel ( I guess it could have been "reported" some-where or maybe it was wishful thinking). Al Gore is also known to have corrected a few untruths. I cannot see anything wrong with editing your own Wikipedia biography and that one misdemeanour seems to be the only one. TVMOB does not come across to me as an habitual liar.

I think Black Wallaby has a point, cut out the personal abuse and stick to the facts or if they are facts, make them more convincing.

]]> Personal Abuse of TVMOB

Yeah, I have.

Let me first say that I am a Climate Change sceptic. But I am not anti any-one. I am happy to believe either For or Against IF they can convince me. So far neither party has.

I came across this website after reading TVMOB's (someone's abbreviation above) letter to John McCain. Must confess I had never heard of him so Googled his name to see if he was real and stumbled here.

As far as the arguments above are concerned. There seems to be more personal abuse in the Pro climate change mob than TVMOB. I am not interested in personal abuse or the Monty Python characterisation above which is pretty unrepresentative of some-than can present such a comprehensive paper.

As far as debunking is concerned the maths lost me on line one and statements like:

 "Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity"

is bebunking? You gotta be joking.

One of the debunks actually said "Here I confess to sharing a concern with Monckton."

OK, I looked at the Wikipedia thing and was convinced that TVMOB stuffed up here and changed the entry about the "reported" £50,000 libel ( I guess it could have been "reported" some-where or maybe it was wishful thinking). Al Gore is also known to have corrected a few untruths. I cannot see anything wrong with editing your own Wikipedia biography and that one misdemeanour seems to be the only one. TVMOB does not come across to me as an habitual liar.

I think Black Wallaby has a point, cut out the personal abuse and stick to the facts or if they are facts, make them more convincing.

]]>