New Monckton paper -- Must Read

[BUSHY]

This paper discredits the IPCC and Mann et al. without mincing words - take the time to read. LINK

Edited September 14, 2008 by BUSHY

[Devonian]

This paper discredits the IPCC and Mann et al. without mincing words - take the time to read. LINK

What all 30+ pages of it? And when in the first few lines he goes completely OTT with his allegations (not one of which is more than internet hearsay and in fact amount to something close to libel) "... corruption and cynicism .... alarmist climate scientists... systematically dishonest manner ....graph falsely" and then also misleads people by describing Stephen McIntyre as a "Dr." (he is not).

Then, towards the end of his screed he list a load of 'proxies' he claims show the MWP but fails to notice than they show a MWP that happens at differing times in different places and thus tend to cancel out each other on a hemispheric and global basis - hence the muted trend seen in temperature reconstructions.

I wouldn't trust a word of it myself.

[Mondy]

Similarly, I wouldn't trust a word the IPCC says as we all know how corrupt and disjointed that organisation is.

[laserguy]

This paper discredits the IPCC and Mann et al. without mincing words - take the time to read. LINK

This should be turned into a prime-time tv documentary,complete with a Monckton - Gore head to head for good measure. Can't see it happening somehow,wonder why not? If anyone who clicks the link and finds it heavy going,scroll down and read the conclusion. True believers in AGW and the IPCC (and there are plenty,but who swear to be open minded - don't believe a word of it) will naturally find problem with the conclusion too,let alone the main body of the article. A sentence therein states that "the IPCC is finished". AGW soon will be,too. That must be the fifth time this year that I've said that!

[Devonian]

This should be turned into a prime-time tv documentary,complete with a Monckton - Gore head to head for good measure. Can't see it happening somehow,wonder why not? If anyone who clicks the link and finds it heavy going,scroll down and read the conclusion. True believers in AGW and the IPCC (and there are plenty,but who swear to be open minded - don't believe a word of it) will naturally find problem with the conclusion too,let alone the main body of the article. A sentence therein states that "the IPCC is finished". AGW soon will be,too. That must be the fifth time this year that I've said that!

Great last three sentences - been reading them or similar for years

Edited September 14, 2008 by Devonian

[BUSHY]

Dev if you doubt that the HS has been discredited go here and find out why, although I doubt you will bother to put in the effort.

[Devonian]

Dev if you doubt that the HS has been discredited go here and find out why, although I doubt you will bother to put in the effort.

Well, you're wrong about that as well then. Like several blogs of various opinions I read it every day.

[osmposm]

Dev if you doubt that the HS has been discredited go here and find out why, although I doubt you will bother to put in the effort.

Please spare us the personal remarks, Bushy: what on earth do you know about Dev and what efforts he puts into trying to understand the climate changes of the planet? It's childish, and reduces the persuasiveness of any valid points you may make.

Thanks. Ossie

[osmposm]

Similarly, I wouldn't trust a word the IPCC says as we all know how corrupt and disjointed that organisation is.

Um, no we don't all, DXR. You may know it, but as you may have noticed, not everyone agrees with you about everything.

Dev gave several exact reasons why, after reading the link as requested, he wouldn't trust what was written. It would be nice to hear from you a clear explanation of some of the reasons that have led you not to trust the IPCC (or any other body that supports AGW), instead of just relying on quick links which you assume will make your points for you. Pleeeease give us some arguments, not just links!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I was looking for this earlier today. Thanks for the link!

Enjoyable polemic.

[J07]

Occupation: Politician, Business consultant - So he's never had a real job. Alarm bells.....ringing......

"he read classics and University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism"

Science is not supposed to be about the people, but he seems intent on making it like this (and it always happens anyway).

I find it hard to believe a person on scientific issues whose academic study was focussed solely on the arts. Even more, it is hard to trust in the beliefs of a man who was a policy advisor to Thatcher and a member of the Roman Catholic Mass Media Commission, without invoking copious grains of salt in your thinking!

The man has been involved in politics all his life, he is more than capable of spin. If he has a good point to make (and he may well do), then unfortunately he has lost it amongst a paper fuelled by vitriol. Perhaps if he eased back on the spite and bile he would become more believable.

[Iceberg]

I saw Moncton on last nights program and it reminded me why I have so little respect for spectics such as him and Calder etc.

They really are removed from sanity, claiming a big mass conspiracy by 1000's of scientists and governments etc..

There are good valid points made by science which is not covered by AGW theory currently and the theory should adapt to cover this.

Links like this, (if you thing it adds anything to the debate other than a laugh) are unfortunate.

Comparing it to the IPCC reports is like comparing a noddy book to darwins thoery of creation. If anybody is going to insult the worlds top climate scientists please back it up.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Then, towards the end of his screed he list a load of 'proxies' he claims show the MWP but fails to notice than they show a MWP that happens at differing times in different places and thus tend to cancel out each other on a hemispheric and global basis - hence the muted trend seen in temperature reconstructions.

Your criticism relies on a circular logic that those 'temperature reconstructs' which we have seen were accurate, which this article shows (with reference to the published peer-reviewed article in Geophysical Research Letters) they weren't.

The article before the MWP bit said why the modern temperature record is faulty - CO2 and rainfall influenced modern tree ring growth, cities and poor siting of temperature stations the modern temperature record.

The sausage machine which Mann invented to supposedly adjust for this modern bias creates a 'hockey stick' shape graph even when 'red noise' is fed into it, let alone climate data.

So the Mann graphs to which you are referring that cancel out the MWP would be a flat line through MWP, through LIA, all the way to the end of the 20C. It wouldn't show modern warming either.

In other words, the real Mann graph would show stable temperature over thousands of years.

Edited September 15, 2008 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Devonian]

Your criticism relies on a circular logic that those 'temperature reconstructs' which we have seen were accurate, which this article shows (with reference to the published peer-reviewed article in Geophysical Research Letters) they weren't.

So, you're saying the proxies Monckton uses are wrong? Because I was quite clearly talking about the proxies Christoper Monckton used, in his screed which we are discussing.

The article before the MWP bit said why the modern temperature record is faulty - CO2 and rainfall influenced modern tree ring growth, cities and poor siting of temperature stations the modern temperature record.

The sausage machine which Mann invented to supposedly adjust for this modern bias creates a 'hockey stick' shape graph even when 'red noise' is fed into it, let alone climate data.

So the Mann graphs to which you are referring that cancel out the MWP would be a flat line through MWP, through LIA, all the way to the end of the 20C. It wouldn't show modern warming either.

In other words, the real Mann graph would show stable temperature over thousands of years.

Erm, again, I haven't referred to 'Mann' (that's Dr Michael Mann btw) I was talking about the proxies Christopher Monckton uses. Look at them and come back and honestly tell me they al show a MWP at the same time.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

So, you're saying the proxies Monckton uses are wrong? Because I was quite clearly talking about the proxies Christoper Monckton used, in his screed which we are discussing.

Define right and wrong for me.

Erm, again, I haven't referred to 'Mann' (that's Dr Michael Mann btw) I was talking about the proxies Christopher Monckton uses. Look at them and come back and honestly tell me they al show a MWP at the same time.

You implicitly referred to Mann when you used the phrase 'temperature reconstructions'.

The MWP is only significant in reference to Mann's ghost warming machine, which has be proven to show recent warming graphs even when 'red noise' is plugged into it.

Mann's real graph would show no MWP, no LIA, no modern warming. In other words, noise.

Edited September 15, 2008 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Devonian]

Define right and wrong for me.

Proxies of temperature acceptable to you, right or wrong.

You implicitly referred to Mann when you used the phrase 'temperature reconstructions'.

Oh come off it. ReconstructionS - that's plural, all of them, the ones in the well know graph from Wiki for example or the one on Dr Ian Stewarts programme last night.

The MWP is only significant in reference to Mann's ghost warming machine, which has be proven to show recent warming graphs even when 'red noise' is plugged into it.

Mann's real graph would show no MWP, no LIA, no modern warming. In other words, noise.

ReconstructionS. You really need to read a bit more widely than Climate Audit or recycled bit of said.

Oh, and are you really saying there is no modern warming? Because if you are most AGW sceptics don't even agree with you (eg Dr Patrick Michaels or those at that sceptic conference Dr Stewart went to).

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Proxies of temperature acceptable to you, right or wrong.

That's not scientific. I could say, anything.

Oh come off it. ReconstructionS - that's plural, all of them, the ones in the well know graph from Wiki for example or the one on Dr Ian Stewarts programme last night.

Mann or Mannian-derived. They used the same bias correction machine as Mann did, so they got the same hockey stick result. A result you can get by plugging any random temperature walk into the machine.

ReconstructionS. You really need to read a bit more widely than Climate Audit or recycled bit of said.

Please tell me when your rebuttal to McIntyre and McKintrick is to be published in the Geophysical Research Letters.

Oh, and are you really saying there is no modern warming? Because if you are most AGW sceptics don't even agree with you (eg Dr Patrick Michaels or those at that sceptic conference Dr Stewart went to).

There has been periods of warming and cooling in this century, as the skeptic conference Dr. Ian Stewart attended showed. In the 1990s there was a warming. Last decade there has been no warming. Mann and Mann-derived graphs which use the same bias-adjustment algorithm show otherwise.

Edited September 15, 2008 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Thundery wintry showers]

Similarly, I wouldn't trust a word the IPCC says as we all know how corrupt and disjointed that organisation is.

It is true that the final report and summary for policymakers may contain political bias as it has to be "passed" by the world's governments before it is accepted.

However, if you read the analysis behind the conclusions (yes, the whole thing can be freely downloaded from the internet) you'll find that it's a literature review, summing up the current state of the science based on the available peer-reviewed literature. That doesn't mean to say that it's perfect (there are flaws in the peer-review system, and scientific understanding is continuing to advance and discover new things with time, which could refute older theories) but there is no corruption in the policy of doing a literature review. I've read many of the papers referenced in the chapters that cover rainfall variability, and can confirm that a number of them do question the extent of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change.

As for AFF's post, I've looked at the Climatic Research Unit and NOAA temperature reconstructions, and see fluctuations through the 20th century including an abrupt warming since the mid 1970s and a levelling off since the exceptional El Nino year of 1998- just like we would if there was no "bias".