I went to the well attended presentation by Lord Monckton (and Ian Plimer) in Canberra yesterday. Both gave very polished performances – although I wish that Monckton would resist the temptation to play the man (his presentation did not need that part).
One interesting statement he made – which I haven’t separately verified – was that even if one took all of the IPCC estimates and projections at face value, and then one stopped the entire world economy for 41 years, then the temperature would be one degree Celsius below what it would otherwise be.
If true, surely this is a telling reason to oppose emissions trading schemes and rely on adaptation (and scientific research)? No one can seriously assert that we can stop all man-made emissions for 41 years.
Today’s article by Gary Johns is excellent and relevant.
None of his statements can be verified, including his CV.
Another one was that if Rudd was to bring in an ETS it would be found to be unconstitutional and would bring down the government.
And here he is even nuttier
1. NASA purposely crashed a weather satellite “because the last thing they want is real world hard data”
2. he was the first to explain the theory of global warming on British television in the late 1980s
3. the United Nations wanted to use climate change policy to create a world government
4. government attempts to tackle climate change as “a plot by the rich against the poor” that would “kill 5 billion, 6 billion people”.
5. he has a patented medicine that also “had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis.” and the flu
rog
4 Feb 10 at 8:27 am
Given his extraordinarily small estimate of climate sensitivity, his maths might work out. Then again, given his previous errors, it might not. Regardless, there’s almost no reason to take anything he says seriously at all. He’s a bit like our old Walkley winner Michael. Remember him?
Jarrah
4 Feb 10 at 8:58 am
By all accounts, Monckton has clearly rattled the alarmists.
Jarrah, so far as his estimate of CS is concerned, it is within the range of most, if not all, observationally-derived CS estimates (between 0.5-2 C/ doubling of CO2).
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 9:58 am
That so many apparently bright people at this site give succour to this lunatic is indeed alarming.
This applies to Monckton too.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 10:12 am
“Jarrah, so far as his estimate of CS is concerned, it is within the range of most, if not all, observationally-derived CS estimates (between 0.5-2 C/ doubling of CO2)”
Ooh yes FDB he’s “dangerous” as noted by our intrepid ABC Nightline interviewer.
Semi Regular Libertarian
4 Feb 10 at 10:14 am
sorry…lateline…not the US ABC!
Semi Regular Libertarian
4 Feb 10 at 10:14 am
That so many apparently bright people at this site give succour to this lunatic is indeed alarming.
Further evidence.
Monckton is simply engaging in the hyperbole of politics. He is, in this respect, no different to Hansen, who referred to coal trains as “death trains”, etc.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 10:24 am
Just as it’s alarming for the intellectual reputation of Catallaxy to have Samuel J here posting, so it is for that of our nation to have Monckton here getting a free pass from almost all mainstream media.
I don’t think either are particularly ‘dangerous’; just not a good sign.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 10:28 am
so it is for that of our nation to have Monckton here getting a free pass from almost all mainstream media.
They gave a free pass to every climate-botherer for almost two decades and you’re upset about a week given to Monckton. That is not a good sign.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 10:40 am
I gotta say, I like Monckton. He’s as crazy as a rattle snake on heat (do they go on heat?), but he’s likable with a pretty decent sense of humor.
I’m interested in getting more info on his claim that co2 sensitivity is around 1/7th of what Doc Pach’s outfit claims it is.
Here’s my question…
Who to believe? A crazy but obviously pretty smart lord of the realm, or a cheap lying bullshit artist who inserts crap into a study and uses Greenpeace and the WWF as sources while sticking his crubby hand out for money.
Getting back to the point…. Is Monckton right about sensitivity and are those studies he refers to suggesting much lower sensitivity correct?
JC
4 Feb 10 at 11:08 am
to have Monckton here getting a free pass
.
He’s not getting a free pass. Andrew Bolt describes how the ABC’s 7.30 report treated Monckton.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 11:17 am
Nice quote-snipping DD.
You’ve really been paying attention to CL’s techniques, haven’t you?
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 11:25 am
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains why critics of his vested interests, flawed science and deceits are wrong:
They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.
Doc Pach goes feral.
Question: Who’s is crazier?
JC
4 Feb 10 at 11:28 am
FDB, I wasn’t trying to misrepresent you. In general I try to keep quotes as short as possible while retaining the essence of what was said, particularly in relevance to what I want to say in response. The essence was that you think Monckton’s getting a free pass in the Australian media and I providing some counter-evidence.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 11:29 am
Doc Pach goes feral.
.
Let’s remember: this guy is the head of the IPCC.
This is a big deal. That organisation is clearly rotten to the core.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 11:31 am
I’m waiting to see David Karoly get a tough interview on what he knew about corruption and bias in the IPCC and when he knew it. And other stuff, like what he thought about the IPCC using Greenpeace and WWF as a scholarly reference.
David Karoly: getting a free pass from the Australian media?
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 11:33 am
DD, what FDB won’t address is the fact that Monckton, as Bolt demonstrates, is treated very differently from climate-botherers in the ‘serious’ media, like the 7.30 Report. If anyone of them cast a sceptical eye over well-worn claims like the Himilayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, that lie wouldn’t have persisted as long as it did, and so on. In comparison to them, Monckton has not been given a free pass; not even remotely.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 11:36 am
Calling someone nutty is rich coming from you, Rog. You’re someone who believes Abos are driving around in Land Cruisers shooting things and that “100 percent” of Labor Party members are Nazis.
Nobody provides links to quotes more than I do, FDB. Whenever you wheel out the ‘CL is a lying liar’ routine it usually indicates you’re 1) angry; and 2) intellectually flummoxed.
As for lunatics, failed divinity student and icon of the warmening left, Al Gore, was more or less found to be a mendacious crank in a British court and recently stated that the temperature of the earth’s core was “millions of degrees.” He is also mocked for supposedly claiming to have invented the internet. Here he is with now strangely chastened alarmist Kevin “The Great Moral Challenge Of Our Time” Rudd. Kevin believes his ETS “plan” will lower the temperature of the globe. James Hansen called for Nuremberg trials for sceptics and yesterday IPCC embezzler (and sex novelist) Rajendra Pachauri claimed there was a conspiracy theory at work involving aficionados of talcum powder.
No wonder every one of these warmening lions has chickened out of debating Monckton. He would, of course, destroy them.
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 11:48 am
Probably the easiest answer is to look at how Monckton establishes his claim and where he publishes his evidence.
On this site it says
The journal Physics and Society state quite clearly
In fact they inserted this header on top of the Monckton article
rog
4 Feb 10 at 11:48 am
“The essence was that you think Monckton’s getting a free pass in the Australian media and I providing some counter-evidence.”
No, I was quite clear that he was not getting a free pass from all media, and you removed that bit and made it seem like your single data point counted against my claim – a claim I never made.
Anyone who took the trouble to read what I actually wrote would know this, but going from your quote, it looks like I’ve made a stupid claim and you’ve refuted it neatly. As if that would ever happen.
And w/r/t past treatment of climate scientists D_B, and some comparison with Monckton? Hilarious – do you really want the same standards to apply (in other fields than climate science, which seems to deprive you of your rational faculties)? Say, for GMB to be given a respectful space on the national stage to talk about gold, carbon nano-rods and Martian paleoeconomics – a space commensurate with that given to actual economists who are actually working at economics institutions and understand how economics operates?
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 11:51 am
Monktons article receives peer review and over 100 errors are compiled
rog
4 Feb 10 at 11:52 am
“Nobody provides links to quotes more than I do, FDB.”
Yep, I’ll give you that. Most of the time when you grossly distort someone’s words, you provide a link so that everyone can see exactly what a dishonest person you are. It’s very strange, but there you go…
“Whenever you wheel out the ‘CL is a lying liar’ routine it usually indicates you’re 1) angry; and 2) intellectually flummoxed.”
Are you suggesting I’m either angry or intellectually flummoxed in this case? On what basis? Presumably on the basis that I made passing reference to your routine dishonesty. Some would say that’s a pretty obtuse way to go about proving I’m wrong, and not terribly presuasive. Why not give it another try, with reference to… I dunno… something I’ve said about the topic?
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 11:55 am
Moncktons article gets reviewed and over 100 errors are compiled – Monckton has yet to properly address those erorrs and instead continues to bluster claiming that a list of typos is “peer review”
rog
4 Feb 10 at 11:58 am
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review…”
Hey, the IPCC might be interested! They’ve been found to have predicted the End Times based on stuff their “scientists” read in magazines – perhaps while taking a crap. I’m surprised random references to some TV Guide didn’t make it in…
If the rate of carbon pollution is not arrested within a range of Dukes of Hazard the oceans will rise and would then pose a Skippy The Bush Kangaroo which would, in turn, constitute a crisis of insurmountable Blue Heelers 1.30 am…
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 12:01 pm
No, I was quite clear that he was not getting a free pass from all media, and you removed that bit and made it seem like your single data point counted against my claim – a claim I never made.
.
aha! you are correct. You made the claim that he was getting a pass from “almost all” mainstream media. In which case, I’m wondering what would be required to counter such a claim, as the word “almost” seems to be a convenient escape hatch. Plus even given “almost”, the 7.30 report interview as described by Bolt is still counter-evidence. The difference, and I concede that this is substantial, is that it is not a smack-down logical refutation of what you said.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:01 pm
Well DD, I’d hope that before even starting to argue against my claim you would already have in mind more than a single data point.
Presumably you don’t, so presumably you’ll retract your counter-argument and concede that indeed he has been given a free pass by almost all mainstream media.
Y’know, given that your single data point lends strength to what I said rather than refuting it.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 12:05 pm
Rog, so you can speak with more authority, could you clear something up for me? What is your source for your claim that “100 percent” of Labor Party members are Nazis?
FDB, you appear angry and rattled – your familiar Birdist Lying Liar routine always indicates that.
I hadn’t even contributed to this thread when you started abusing me. That indicates a profound inferiority complex.
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 12:05 pm
Moncktons article gets reviewed and over 100 errors are compiled – Monckton has yet to properly address those erorrs and instead continues to bluster claiming that a list of typos is “peer review”
.
*yawn*
This is straight from the AGW playbook.
The warmists love to list trivial details, disputable points, and misreadings as lists of errors. Then parade that list around as a refutation of the person’s central arguments.
It’s tired, tedious and old. It only works if you’re a regular on, say digg.com or some other online left-wing tabloid. “ONE HUNDRED ERRORS IN MONCKTON’S WORK!” They’ll love it over there.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:06 pm
…OT I know but they sound like Australian monarchists!
Semi Regular Libertarian
4 Feb 10 at 12:07 pm
“I hadn’t even contributed to this thread when you started abusing me. That indicates a profound inferiority complex.”
Comparing DD’s rhetorical techniques to yours is abusing him, not you champ. About you I only, and dispassionately, stated well-known facts. That you saw it the other way around indicates a profound narcissism.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 12:09 pm
And w/r/t past treatment of climate scientists D_B, and some comparison with Monckton? Hilarious – do you really want the same standards to apply (in other fields than climate science, which seems to deprive you of your rational faculties)?
When Hansen refers to coal-trains as “death-trains” he, himself, invites comparison to other so-called ‘lunatics’. So far as other climate scientists are concerned, it is hilarious that you should think that their being scientists exempts them from being referred to as “lunatics” when they make extraordinary or silly claims. That is giving them a free pass. So far as your second claim is concerned, yes, I do. Our politics, last time I checked, recognised the formal equality of those who engaged in it. When Karoly or McNeil appear on TV they are not engaging in science but in politics, as is Monckton; that you would deny a voice to one of them is rather shocking in the circumstances. The judgement you make is entirely your own, you shouldn’t deny this opportunity to others listening to the conversation.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
FDB,
so presumably you’ll retract your counter-argument and concede that indeed he has been given a free pass by almost all mainstream media.
.
Why the hell would I concede that? At least I’m providing evidence to the contrary, while you’re relying entirely on assertion. Because you used the word “almost” and therefore can’t be easily refuted? Incidentally, there’s also his treatment by the Age. .
ABC, Fairfax. I’m thinking that constitutes enough to knock “almost all” on the head.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
…although I conceded I’m relying entirely on Bolt for source material here.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:12 pm
that’s “concede”, not “condeded”, by the way.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:12 pm
“100 percent” of Labor Party members are Nazis?
I think we all know that Michael Danby is a goose stepping anti-Semite.
Infidel Tiger
4 Feb 10 at 12:15 pm
So your only argument is that we don’t need evidence and therefore we don’t need peer review because its all part of their conspiracy and we don’t need that!
rog
4 Feb 10 at 12:16 pm
So your only argument is that we don’t need evidence and therefore we don’t need peer review because its all part of their conspiracy and we don’t need that!
And people call Monckton a lunatic.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 12:19 pm
“Because you used the word “almost” and therefore can’t be easily refuted?”
DD, I invite you to consider the possibility that I can’t be easily refuted because I am correct. This would also explain why you are unable to come up with the evidence required to refute me – the added advatage being that you needn’t feel bad about your inability to find the evidence necessary to refute me. It’s not that you’re a bad researcher, just that you’re barking up the wrong tree.
You’re okay, I’m okay.
“that you would deny a voice to one of them is rather shocking in the circumstances”
I don’t want that at all. If Monckton had somehow been prevented from speaking here, or even (given his prominence) refused an interview at the ABC, I would have been disappointed. What I would like is for those interviews to ask the questions (and insist on answers to them) which would expose him as a freaking nutter to anyone who might otherwise think otherwise.
Y’know… an interview rather than a soapbox.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 12:19 pm
So your only argument is that we don’t need evidence and therefore we don’t need peer review because its all part of their conspiracy and we don’t need that!
.
No. I am a huge fan of evidence. However, it’s pretty easy to nitpick errors in people’s work; even very work. Sure, this can cast doubt on someone’s credibility but it’s also important to look at the soundness of the person’s case overall.
When Plimer released “Heaven and Earth” there were all these alarmist bloggers gleefully posting lists of errors, many of which were trivial, as if this was a refutation. It ignored the fact that Plimer’s book was a collossal work of scholarship.
So, since they did that to Plimer (and “won” in their own minds), I have zero interest in reading more so-called lists of errors. Fool me once, shame on you, as they say.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:20 pm
“Fool me once, shame on you, as they say”
You weren’t fooled by the “nit-pickers”. You were fooled by Plimer.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 12:23 pm
Y’know… an interview rather than a soapbox.
As soon as this was applied to climate-botherers, I would agree, again, the same standards ought to apply to climate sceptics as to climate-botherers. But I’ll see you’ve changed your original tune, which was that he shouldn’t be provided the same soapbox as climate-botherers.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 12:28 pm
You were fooled by Plimer.
.
I was a sceptic before Heaven and Earth came out.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:28 pm
FDB, do you admit to being fooled by the IPCC?
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 12:29 pm
Still raving on about me, FDB. Why? As I said, you seem to be rattled and angry.
So your only argument is that we don’t need evidence and therefore we don’t need peer review because its all part of their conspiracy and we don’t need that!
Could we have some evidence, Rog, for your claim that 100 percent of Labor Party members are Nazis. Let’s have it. I expect to see Barry Cohen in full SS regalia – that sort of thing.
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 12:30 pm
FDB’s devastating rebuttal of Plimer:
“You were fooled by Plimer.”
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 12:32 pm
DD was claiming to have been “fooled” by the errors pointed out in Plimer.
Now, if he was a “sceptic” before reading it and after, then in what sense was he fooled? In the sense that he uncritically accepted more “evidence” for his pre-existing position, despite many serious errors and contradictions being pointed out.
FDB
4 Feb 10 at 12:35 pm
How does a book full of errors morph into a “collossal work of scholarship.”
Amongst the many errors Barry Brooks thinks that Plimers book contains forgeries.
rog
4 Feb 10 at 12:38 pm
Climate botherers that’s cute Dover
tal
4 Feb 10 at 12:39 pm
46 pages of errors
rog
4 Feb 10 at 12:39 pm
Now, if he was a “sceptic” before reading it and after, then in what sense was he fooled?
.
What I meant was, I got sucked into taking such lists seriously, and invested way too much personal effort in looking into their veracity.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 12:43 pm
Hey Rog:
“You been reading lefty/marxist propaganda again?
PS shouldnt you be out the walking against warming or did the cool change rain on your parade?”
- Rog, November, 2006.
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 12:49 pm
Monckton and Plimer debated Readfearn (ex-Courier Mail — he resigned) and Brook in Brisbane last week. There were cameras recording but I don’t know if anything went out. There is this interview that followed, on 4BC radio:
http://media.mytalk.com.au/4bc/podcasts/prof_barry.mp3
Interesting take on it by the interviewer (who was there) and Brook.
Gul Dukat
4 Feb 10 at 1:33 pm
Gul, from your link:
.
sorry but I think the risk management angle is a rearguard action for a floundering theory. It assumes that you can attach some kind of probability to the likelihood of a theory being correct, and that’s something I don’t buy.
.
Interesting that Readfearn resigned yesterday. In reporting his debate with Monckton, his own newspaper described Lord Monckton as winning “in straight sets.”
He says that’s not why he quit but you know I wouldn’t blame him if it was the reason.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 8:33 pm
“…some kind of probability to the likelihood of a theory being correct…”
Also known as gambling.
C.L.
4 Feb 10 at 8:47 pm
Did anyone notice the free pass given to Oppenheimer by O’Brien this evening? O’Brien just sat there tugging his forelock.
dover_beach
4 Feb 10 at 9:15 pm
Monckton in Australia cartoon: http://www.towerofturtles.com/08_Monckton_Tours_Australia.html
George
4 Feb 10 at 10:38 pm
Crikey has an amusing piece on the Monckton Show;
Old, the white and the angry? sounds like the inmates of Catallaxy
rog
5 Feb 10 at 7:43 am
A bit harsh rog – sneering at old people and the RSL strikes me as being a bit ungrateful for the sacrifies these people made.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Feb 10 at 7:55 am
The Crikey article was written by Jeff Sparrow, author of the unforgettable, ‘Communism: A Love Story’. Say no more.
dover_beach
5 Feb 10 at 8:05 am
For around $5 anyone can be a member of an RSL club Sinclair, hardly a sacrifice
rog
5 Feb 10 at 8:57 am
If you want to join the League then you have to have 6 months service as a regular or reservist.
rog
5 Feb 10 at 8:59 am
Monckton continues to collect brickbats
Quid Est Veritas indeed
rog
5 Feb 10 at 9:43 am
I rang the Nobel Committee that administers the Peace Prize.
.
These people do not understand irony. FFS his claim on the nobel prize is dripping with sarcasm.
daddy dave
5 Feb 10 at 9:45 am
From the hard-hitting journalism of The Punch:
Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri? Not even? I’m shocked, I am; shocked.
dover_beach
5 Feb 10 at 9:52 am
rog – I am under the impression that the RSL operated to provide welfare and community services to war veterans including those old people who may have participated in WWII (and subsequent armed conflict). Silly me.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Feb 10 at 10:07 am
silly you indeed you have obviously never been in a RSL
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 10:10 am
Sinclair you are clearly an out of touch elitist academic:-)
As rog says, anyone can join an RSL and not everyone who is an RSL member is a war veteran
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 10:11 am
I should say ‘anyone can be a member of an RSL club’ perhaps more accurate than ‘join an RSL’.
The point is not everyone at an RSL function is a war veteran
jtfsoon
5 Feb 10 at 10:12 am
LoL – I understand. Many years ago I was a member of a local RSL club. But the primary function of the RSL is welfare for veterans.
Sinclair Davidson
5 Feb 10 at 10:13 am
Old, white and angry yep that’s me
tal
5 Feb 10 at 10:13 am
indeed very few these days.
The primary function yes but look at where the money goes. It is different
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
5 Feb 10 at 10:18 am
Wot you mean DD is that his cv is a joke
rog
5 Feb 10 at 10:32 am
rog fiddles while catastrophic climate change burns:
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
Abstract:
From the body of the paper:
dover_beach
5 Feb 10 at 12:14 pm
1. Rog, I clicked on your link at the start. You just quoted a news paper which has an agenda! How remarkably unintelligent of you!
2. Re. The demographic of attendees as stated in Rog’s ‘The Age’ link: (in Adelaide at least) there were about 800 people of all ages including young people with long hair. Yes, Open minded people all look different from each other.
Re. ‘The Age’: Of course the lunch-time attendees in Melbourne were mostly retired. Everyone else was at work of school! The paper was painting the open minded attendees as being old, out of touch, unethical Liberal Voters. It also implied by it’s ill-worded last line, the 1000 people at the evening event were retiree’s. No, you idiotic news paper. This is concerning to people right across the board.
JL
6 Feb 10 at 1:33 pm