Beware of Green Tyranny
That’s the theme of this bizarre confab soon to roll into Los Angeles. Featured speakers include numerous climate skeptics, such as Lord Monckton, Benny Peiser, and Richard Lindzen. The organization sponsoring the conference, the American Freedom Alliance, has a few other other notable obsessions. Leo Hickman at the Guardian reports that the group
has promoted intelligent design and seems to tread a very fine line indeed between fighting “Islamic fascism” and outright Islamophobia.
I guess they want to start guarding against the green jihad while keeping Darwinism at bay. Here’s more from Hickman:
The American Freedom Alliance is, perhaps, best known for its on-going legal action with the California Science Center over the cancellation of an AFA event to be held at the centre in 2009 at which it intended to screen a “teach the controversy” film called Darwin’s Dilemma, which explores the “Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion in Fossil Records”. At the time, Avi Davis, executive director and senior fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, said: “New scientific evidence makes it vital that we take a close look at the numerous inherent scientific problems of the Darwinian theory of evolution.” The AFA has subsequently fought the case on the grounds of freedom of expression.
Climate skeptics lending their names to an anti-evolution organization. The headlines write themselves.
“..I guess they want to start guarding against the green jihad while keeping Darwinism at bay..”
“…Climate skeptics lending their names to an anti-evolution organization….”
How does being anti-Darwin automaticaly relate to anti-evolution?
Darwin was wrong…get over it.
Have species changed over time? sure…but not the way Darwin posted it.
Off-topic, but too ironic to pass up…
Sarah Palin on the propagation of stolen “ClimateGate” emails:
The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal.
Sarah Palin on the public release of her email correspondence:
They’ll never truly know what the context of each one of the emails was, or each one of the issues were that I was working on that day, or in that time period
Heh, heh. Always sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, I suppose.
Ed,
I wish I could divine what you’re going on about. Are you trying to have it both ways (leaving open the possibility for “intelligent design”), or just make a case for evolution that isn’t connected to Darwin?
I mean, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a tortured characterization of evolution.
It is very strange indeed. Personally, I wouldn’t squat on the same acre with AFA, based on what you describe. I suppose Monckton have any but why wouldn’t Lindzen care about his reputation?
Never heard of AFA before (pethaps because I’m a Brit), and so I went to their site and found a wonderful and very even-handed debate between Neo-Darwinists and non-Neo-Darwinists (one of whom was an ID proponent, and one who wasn’t):
http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/press3.htm
I must say, it seems somewhat cavalier to characterise this organisation as being ID-promoting if it can host such splendid and genuinely enjoyable debates as this. Now – if only we could be treated to debates on climate of this calibre, we would be getting somewhere.
It’s an understatement to say I don’t think very highly of Lindzen, but I’m still surprised he accepted an invitation from this group. Very strange decision.
“..”teach the controversy” film called Darwin’s Dilemma, which explores the “Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion in Fossil Records”..”
“..I guess they want to start guarding against the green jihad while keeping Darwinism at bay..”
[Darwin]”.. natural selection [evolution] acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps”¦”
[Jay] “”¦New species arise in explosive phases, spread over wide areas, and then go static with little or no change over very long periods of time..”
Keith…you truly do not see the point? Do you truly not see that Darwin and Jay are NOT saying the same thing. If you can not get the details right, why are you arguing science?
And the fossil record does support Jay over Darwin. The
Cambrian Explosion is just one of many holes that Darwin can not explain and runs counter to his entire theory.
The moment someone says they are anti-Darwin they are accused of being anti-science. As you have just implied in your post. Your entire post infers that people who do not support Darwin are ignorant fools.
Much like many do here with those who support Lamb and the MWP vs Mann and his “hockey Stick”
The only reason that Darwin has not been tossed into a footnote of history is that to support punctuated equilibrium is seen by those in the “war” vs “religion” as giving comfort to the “enemy” who support ID. Facts matter less that “winning” the argument with the fanatics in the evolution fight much the same as the fanatics in the climate fight.
Ed,
As someone who has read my share of Stephen Jay Gould, including for many years his monthly columns in Natural History (until they became unreadable, because he wasn’t edited), and who followed, with interest, Gould’s caustic exchanges with his various critics in the New York Review of Books, I am a pretty up on Punctuated Equilibrium.
I think it’s perfectly fine to have these intra-field debates, and they played out for many years of Gould’s extraordinary life.
I guess I’m having a hard time discerning what your point is, with respect to the legitimacy of evolutionary biology. Have I suggested anywhere that fealty to Darwin is necessary for an evolutionist?
@ Dana
Lindzen must be devastated.
Has anybody taken a read of the Leo Hickman’s articles comments section, I actually found them quite depressing. (think Climate Progress/Deltoid on a really bad day) So full of casual hate, and abuse and intolerance, not exactly helping their ’cause’ either.
FYI..
This should be interesting..and turn into some big news at the usual places.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/10/jones-post-1995-warming-significant.html?lastPage=true#comment13242130
Doug Keenan already says Phil Jones has got his statistics wrong, Paul Dennis is critical as well.
@Dana,
Why is it strange that Lindzen accepted an invitation to speak at any group except that Lindzen is a life long democrat.
If I agree with someone on an issue I feel important and disagree with them on an issue I don’t care about why would I ‘shun’ them?
Lindzen is a geophysicist…why would he care what people believe about anthropology?
Good question Harry.
I don’t think this one of Keith’s best posts. We all have to live in the one world – shunning amounts to disgust, abuse, misrepresentation and even hatred.
“..Have I suggested anywhere that fealty to Darwin is necessary for an evolutionist?..”
yep….that is how I have read it in a post deriding a group for wanting to explore the “Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion in Fossil Records”.
Darwin falls down pretty hard here.
Or are you wanting to “hide the incline” 🙂
Ed,
I might be tempted to think you knew what you were talking about had you gotten Stephen Jay Gould’s name right throughout this exchange.
How about we cut through the BS and you just tell us what you think of Intelligent Design?
I also fail to see what the Cambrian “Explosion” has anything to do with any of this. It’s not has if there isn’t an abundant fossil record before, during, or after.
Keith,
I might be tempted to think you knew what you were talking about had you understood that the fossil record is anything but abundant. A pretty unique set of circumstances are required to form fossils, let alone place them in locations where they can be found. The rarity of fossils was Darwin’s primary argument to explain the lack of transitional organisms prior to the sudden appearance of complex critters of the Cambrian.
How about we cut through the BS and you just tell us what you think of evangelical Christians? 😉
Howard,
Are we really going to get into a debate over evidence for evolution? Is that where this is going? Are you saying there’s not abundant fossil evidence for evolution?
As for evangelicals, I have a lot of respect for this guy.
Although I happen to be an atheist, I’m not hostile to religion. Additionally, this guy has shown it’s possible to be both an evangelical Christian and a scientist who believes in evolution.
I’m surprised Roy Spencer isn’t there. He’s a notable skeptic of both evolution and global warming.
Lindzen isn’t that out of place. He’s got former tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy, who agrees with his views on tobacco health effects, and uses very similar pubilc rhetoric.
the roman catholic church accept evolution…
darwin was right about the idea ofevolution, but wrong about HOW it works.
Keith:
You were the one in a “nurf” debate with Ed. I was just pointing out that your statements were just as idiotic. I don’t have the certainty about Darwinian theory of natural selection and evolution like you apparently do.
There are so many holes in the record, no one will ever know with certainty how the process works unless some sort of evolutionary tape recorder is discovered in genetic materials. What I am certain of is that creationism and intelligent design are security blankets for nutballs.
WRT the AFA Denial-Fest, I agree that the headlines write themselves. While I am glad Lindzen is working on his negative feedback theory, it is very disappointing for me to see him participate in these types of “conferences” that fall somewhere between AGU and MUFON. When Monkton is a headliner, the cringe-factor goes up an order of magnitude.
At least Glenn Beck won’t be there….
Way too many people are way too certain about way too many things. I’m certain of it.
Monkton is hilarious. I don’t care you’re postion on the dabate, the man just cracks me up (love those eyes). Lindzen is pretty cool too. Glenn’s a bit out there.
So, for all you out there who think you’ve got a scientific handle on the mystery of life. A litle humility, please.
To bad for some, I suppose, that Darwin happened to be right and Arrhenius and the lineage that extended his errors in the consideration of the global climate happened to be wrong.
Not everybody who comes up with an idea is correct. It is an attribute of human reasoning, unfortunately, that fallacy is possible.
“..How about we cut through the BS and you just tell us what you think of evangelical Christians?..”
Shifting away to something not relevant I see. But I know a few and the ones I know look at the bible the way the Greens look at the team; and both creep me out a bit with their dogmatic blinders to real data.
But you still have not explained why Darwin linked with “Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion in Fossil Records” is a cause for derision.
Unless of course the answer to your statement “..Have I suggested anywhere that fealty to Darwin is necessary for an evolutionist?..” is yes
kdk:
You are so right. The obvious physical and mental defects of the inbred nobility are a crack up.
kdk: Monkton is hilarious. I don’t care you’re postion on the dabate, the man just cracks me up (love those eyes).
The eyes are the least funny aspect of Monckton. The bulging eyes from what I understand are a result of his long bout with Graves’ disease, which is a serious thyroid condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exophthalmos
Monckton’s views on global warming, AIDS, etc. are quite hilarious (if not disturbing), though. The guy is an ideological hack and attention-craver, like most of the participants at this “conference”.
My apologies then to Monkton.
Rejection is a lifestyle. They got their own TV network, radio stations, blogs and even journals
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/before-there-was-e-there-was-jpands.html
Could someone explain to me just what is so crazy about Monckton’s views on global warming (or point me to a good explanation)? I ask because I’ve tried to find out for myself, but I haven’t had much luck. I keep finding pieces like this one, and they make me seriously doubt his critics. I won’t deny the possibility of Monckton being a loon, but so far, I haven’t seen much of a reason to think so.
I certainly wouldn’t go to Monckton for information about global warming, but he doesn’t seem so much worse than plenty of other sources (and I’d probably trust him over Skeptical Science).
Monckton’s views on AGW are about the same as Lindzen’s, although I don’t know if Monckton believes negative feedback influences are the magnitude Lindzen claims they are. Monckton believes that the net anthropogenic RF is about the value that S Schwartz of BNL has estimated from the first-order time constant obtained from the atmospheric heat capacity. Monckton’s friends calculated that from the Stefan-Boltzmann relation.
Regrettably, quantities like RF and GWP of atmospheric constituents are senseless quantities because the atmosphere is in “equilibrium” with nothing at all.
You won’t believe this, but there are people whose lives have no meaning unless these quantities have meaning!
Bring G Valentine, if Monckton’s views are about the same as Lindzen’s, I can’t begin to understand the difference in how they are treated. Obviously I think Monckton receives unfair criticisms, but it seems hard to believe that’s the entire explanation.
#27-29
I suspect the real reason for the difference is that Monckton – whatever you might think of his climate science – is widely acknowledged as an immensely talented public speaker. He’s engaging, entertaining, and persuasive. His enemies describe him as a “showman”, and as a result he is an extremely effective debater and speaker.
On the science, so far as I can see, he’s competent but not brilliant. He makes a few mistakes, as does everyone, but not so many as to generate the derision he’s been subjected to. He also selects his material for persuasive effect, again, as many do. But you know immediately from his style that he’s a polemicist.
You could think of him as a sceptic counterpart to Al Gore, only with more science. Sceptics don’t criticise Al so much because he offers a serious contribution to the scientific debate, but because he’s very effective and influential with the public. Likewise with Monckton.
Nullis in Verba, thanks for your comment. I never understood why he gets so much criticism, but it seems every time I hear his name, a bunch of people snicker and say he’s a loon, idiot, liar, or whatever. It’s confusing to have a bunch of people point and laugh at something that doesn’t seem to be bad, and it’s nice to see I’m not just missing something horribly obvious. I’m still baffled at the reactions and shocked at some of the inane criticisms (especially from Skeptical Science), but there’s nothing to be done about that.
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm
Monckton’s record on the science is horrific. But you can go with whatever you want I suppose.
forgot:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/category/lord-monckton/
grypo,
Don’t forget to include a link to Monckton’s replies. Or at least mention that they exist.
sure:
Initial, I believe
hundreds of questions
bunch of videos
he also threatened to sue Mandia
grypo, I specifically mentioned Skeptical Science several times, so clearly I’m aware of what it says about Monckton. As my comments have indicated, I find it to be a completely absurd source (regarding Monckton). I challenge anyone to read the article I linked to and tell me (with a straight face) it’s anything other than idiotic and absurd.
As for your third link, I clicked on the first three links on it, and I didn’t see anything useful (one just redirected me to Skeptical Science). If you have a specific post in mind, I’ll be happy to read it, but otherwise, I don’t see much value in it.
I haven’t checked the remaining link as I can’t use sound right now, and it seems pointless without it. I’ll try checking it out later. Ironically, I was able to look at Monckton’s response, and it seems to be compelling on a number of issues. If Monckton’s representation of Abraham’s presentation are true, his presentation is about as ridiculous as Skeptical Science’s articles on Monckton.
If there is a discussion of Monckton that rises above this sort of stuff, I’d be interested in reading it. Otherwise, it’s just more of the same.
Before we get into this Brandon, what background do you have in science? The answer would help in responding.
Your background certainly does not qualify you to utter two words about evolution, Eli Rabett
Think of life as a Yellow Brick Road. St Darwin was not “Wrong”. St Darwin was actually quite “Right. He was also very “Bright”. St Darwin was “Darwin”, a great man of his day. Based upon his observations, he offered his thoughts, and proffered a theory or four. His thoughts were quite inspired. Really! If the old boy were among us today, I bet he’d be the Leader of the Pack; ripping into everything and coming up with great finds and real discoveries. Let’s get off this rack and let the poor fellow’s twisted, dead body be, he’s dead. Time to move on. After a nice lunch and a few beers down at The Pub, let’s go back to the lab and see what we can find. OK?
Certain people seem to have a wierd preoccupation with titles before and after names and how much those names have in a bank account or to their credit in “published” articles in Pro-Jo’s or where someone went to university. There’s is something very childish and ignorant in that. It is not what the fool or wise among us say, it is what we hear them say in our mind’s ear, and what we imagine and think about it after it is said that matters. The more intelligent among us get flashes of brillance from bell towers and apple trees, and they do not have doctorates from Cambridge.
Think! Do not vent!
Eli is harmless and mildly amusing and illustrative; so let him be.
As I said before, people can believe whatever is they want. The information is all out there, so find it and be a judge. Arguing Monckton’s nonsense is tiring. He has a fanbase, people can join, I just don’t care anymore because if you believe what Monckton’s selling, after looking into it, then you are already among the lost and irretrievable. This is unfortunate, but serves as a pretty good barometer of what people want to believe. But just in case there are still people wiling to do the work, here is a list of questions one should ask themselves, and this is just a very small sampling:
Do you believe that a missing hot spot means man is not causing global warming?
Do you believe that a chart that shows proxies for Central England up to 1920 is a good indication that the IPCC made the MWP disappear?
Do you believe that “Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the air at less than half the rate the UN had imagined.”?
Do you believe that “by 2100 we can expect not 2 C° of further “global warming” as a result of our emissions so far, but 0.4 C° at most.”?
Do you believe that Arctic sea ice is “just fine”?
Do you believe that past warm temperatures mean that current warming isn’t serious?
Is ocean acidification a concern?
Does you agree with Monckton’s thoughts on Himalayan glaciers?
Is the current warming due to solar changes?
How does you think an ice free summer will effect polar bears?
I also forgot to add this link which describes more Gish galloping of the galloper of all gallopers. It’s the sheer amount of it that makes this guy so special.
For the lost and confused…
Google monckton+pinker
Google radiative+forcing
Count how many forcings there are
See how Monckton calculated climate sensitivity
Apply basic algebra/logic
The results speak for themselves as to Monckton’s ability
The second best thing about Monckton (first best is that he’s just hilarious) is how he gets hold of some peoples goat.
grypo, I’m not going to answer questions without any apparent connection to anything. If you are asking me about things Monckton has said, I need some sort of link to what he said. Moreover, I don’t doubt Monckton has made mistakes, so him saying something wrong doesn’t mean much to me.
Put bluntly, the discussion is about Monckton’s views as a whole on the subject of global warming, and that is a subject you haven’t discussed at all. Some information about his views can be found in links you provided, but I haven’t been able to find anything resembling a summary of his views. This issue is made all the worse as I’ve seen his comments misrepresented time and time again, including in your sources (Monckton’s response to Abraham’s presentation seems correct).
Abraham’s presentation has him making up things Monckton supposedly said so that Abraham could criticize him, and many of these things directly contradict what Monckon actually said. Despite this, he’s offered as a good source.
Skeptical Science offers quotes from Monckton and claims he contradicts himself, but there is nothing contradictory in them. In actuality, the site repeatedly misrepresents Monckton, going so far as to use quotation marks around words which don’t represent what he said, much less actually quote him. Despite this, it is offered as a good source.
Maybe Monckton is a hack. I don’t know. All I know is this. The criticisms I see offered of him are often more idiotic than the supposed faults of his. If I shouldn’t listen to anything Monckton says, I apparently shouldn’t listen to anything his critics say either.
Eli Rabett, my background in science hasn’t been an issue so far. In most of what I’ve seen about Monckton, all that mattered was my ability to read and comprehend simple sentences. That is apparently beyond the ability of some, as demonstrated by the post at by John Cook I linked to above, but it’s something I learned to do many years ago.
If my background ever becomes relevant, we can discuss it then.
On the topic of ‘Green Tyranny,’ I think this is a taste of what they are looking at:
“One key element of such a social contract is the “˜proactive state’, a state that actively sets priorities for the transformation, at the same time increasing the number of ways in which its citizens can participate, and offering the economy choices when it comes to acting with sustainability in mind. The social contract also encompasses new forms of global political will formation and cooperation. The establishment of a “˜UN Council for Sustainable Development’, on par with the UN Security Council, and the forming of international alliances of climate pioneers between states, international organisations, cities, corporations, science and civic organisations, would be examples of this.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/3/that-german-report.html
Heil Hansen.
Brandon Shollenberger Says:
June 12th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
“Skeptical Science offers quotes from Monckton and claims he contradicts himself, but there is nothing contradictory in them. In actuality, the site repeatedly misrepresents Monckton, going so far as to use quotation marks around words which don’t represent what he said, much less actually quote him. Despite this, it is offered as a good source.”
Cook, a cartoonist, is only a reliable sources of smears.
http://wiki.sev.com.au/About-Us
Brandon:
Seeing a visibly embarrassed Ambassador John Bolton watch Monckton stand up on the table to make his presentation on the Glenn Beck show was about as idiotic as it gets. He then proceeded to present the first flawed Lindzen/Choi result as the negative feedback answer as fact.
He is a P.T. Barnum type of huckster and is a lightening-rod for general criticism of views skeptical of CAGW. If you are not a practicing scientist, then I could see the appeal of a glib showman preaching to the choir. Just read the comments below his posts at WUWT. The nodders and yes-men bring all of their best cockney reverence for their lord and master. It is quite revolting to me, but your mileage may vary.
EdG, I had forgotten John Cook ran that site. That makes it even more disturbing for me. A resource for educating people about what the science says shouldn’t have garbage articles like that in the first place, but the fact it was written by the host just makes it worse. That means you can’t even excuse it as garbage slipping through the cracks. It makes me think of a quote that is partially relevant:
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Howard, I don’t have much of an opinion on Monckton. I certainly don’t get the impression accuracy is his primary concern, and he does seem to make a fool of himself. However, this exchange started because NewYorkJ said Monckton’s views on global warming were funny. This means Monckton’s behavior and mistakes aren’t particularly relevant. He could be wrong about many individual points and yet have sensible views on global warming.
That said, Monckton’s behavior is an interesting topic. There is no denying he says untrue things. He deserves criticism for some of his behavior. However, the reactions to his behavior often don’t (seem to) fit his actual behavior. People flat-out make things up about what he says, and they get praised by people on their “side.” People post idiotic criticisms of him based upon their inability to read simple sentences, and they get praised as a great source of information. Monckton makes things up and misrepresents other things, and he gets mocked endlessly.
Hypocrisy is always interesting.
For those of you who participated in (and followed) the evolution thread, I would be remiss if I didn’t link to at least one passage from Richard Dawkins:
Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of “gaps”: “Show me your ‘intermediates!’ ” They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these “gaps” are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history””large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful “intermediates.” We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively.
“Eli Rabett, my background in science hasn’t been an issue so far. In most of what I’ve seen about Monckton, all that mattered was my ability to read and comprehend simple sentences. ”
Mr Schollenberger eludes Eli’s question, so I’ll step in and advertise my background in science.
I have a Master’s in Hamburgerology from McDonald’s U, a Doctor of Scientology from the L Ron Hubbard Academy, and I’m working on a Certificate in Scientific Creationism.
(I don’t think Eli believes my credentials are that impressive!!!)
ha ha sorry – not real funny – it’s been a long day
Brandon, your background is relevant to the answer Eli will provide in the next day or so. For example, for someone with a fairly strong physical sciences background Science of Doom does a very thorough job (see here for example for a deconstruction of another piece of mathturbation:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/12/paradigm-shifts-in-convection-and-water-vapor/
For someone without that level of science education another level might be needed, but a lack of training in physical science makes it difficult because it raises the question of how well equipped the person asking is able to judge the answer and what the answer has to contain to be convincing.
‘Maybe Monckton is a hack. I don’t know.’
‘EdG, I had forgotten John Cook ran that site. That makes it even more disturbing for me. ‘
Oh, I get it. Brandon’s bizarre and disconnected responses in regards to Monckton isn’t actually about Monckton, it’s a rhetorical trick to hit John Cook. Notice how every question is responded to by a John Cook reference and vague notions about one article, and, of course, no specifics. And here I thought he was just being obtuse about Monckton. Thank him for the transparent display. I’m sure people will be on the lookout for it now.
So I’ll just ask another scientific question that Brandon will refuse to answer (and mention Cook), but may help others understand the difference between what Monckton does and what his critics do:
Do you understand the predictions and observations of the trend in record high/lows since the 1960’s?
Because the entire point is related to this quote from the initial Steketees article:
“With climate change you expect many more of these really hot events and that is what we are getting. At the same time there are still records being set for cold temperatures. But for the last couple of decades we have certainly been getting more hot records being set than cold records.”
Now compare that with how Monckton portrayed Steketees. Monckton in a nutshell.
And considering that Monckton’s critics include all of mainstream climate science, Brandon not listening “to anything his critics say either” is a win for Monckton. Assist Sholleberger .
“˜Hypocrisy is always interesting.’
Not really.
Brandon Shollenberger,
I see several posts of yours saying all sorts of bad and dismissive things about SkepticalScience and its critiques of Monckton, yet not a single thing to back it up. I’ve just wasted 3 minutes. Since you seem to have an obvious irrational bias against SkepticalScience, you might look for Monckton critiques over at Blackboard – you know, a site that bashes Al Gore regularly, has a notable contrarian bent against various aspects of climate science, and sells “Hide the Decline” mugs. Yet Monckton notably seems to be Lucia’s token skeptic to smack down, and from what I’ve seen, does a pretty good job of it.
What I like about SkepticalScience is that the contributors rely mainly on the existing peer-reviewed science when examining various arguments, providing layperson articles that communicate the science effectively and accurately. They don’t pull factoids out of certain orifices like denier blogs, nor do they routinely misrepresent anyone’s work.
NewYorkJ, I pointed out a specific article and said the problems were obvious. Nobody ever responded to my comment so I assumed people accepted (or at least didn’t dispute) it. You and grypo have both now accused me of a bias against John Cook/Skeptical Science, yet still, neither of you have disputed what I said. You claim not to have seen anything to back up my comments, but I think I made the issue with that particular article quite clear when I said:
Skeptical Science offers quotes from Monckton and claims he contradicts himself, but there is nothing contradictory in them. In actuality, the site repeatedly misrepresents Monckton, going so far as to use quotation marks around words which don’t represent what he said, much less actually quote him.
Here’s a simple question for you, and anyone else who thinks I am just biased. Do you think the representation of Monckton’s words in this article is accurate? I say it isn’t. In fact, I say the representation is so obviously inaccurate it shouldn’t merit explanation. This position is supported by the fact nobody in this topic has actually defended the article in question.
If anyone here is willing to say they think that article accurately reflected Monckton’s words, I’ll discuss why they are wrong. However, I don’t see a point in explaining the obvious if nobody disputes it. I challenged anyone to examine the article in question and tell me I’m wrong. Nobody took me up on the offer. Given that, I see no reason to explain anything. Everybody posting has (tacitly) acknowledged I am right about it through their actions.
There is no justification for the things you guys are saying.
Brandon,
You shouldn’t read into any lack of response. Lots of people just can’t be bothered to comment about anything, period–for various reasons.
As for Monckton, I don’t need to read anything at Skeptical Science about him to know he’s a court jester of the highest order. One thing I think you have been hearing from some on this thread: he’s an embarrassment to science-minded climate skeptics.
So I can’t figure out what your argument is.
NewYorkJ, I pointed out a specific article and said the problems were obvious.
If they were obvious, then you’d have no problems detailing them. I thought the article did a nice job of showing how Monckton contradicted himself in the same article, something deniers do routinely.
You claim not to have seen anything to back up my comments, but I think I made the issue with that particular article quite clear when I said:
Skeptical Science offers quotes from Monckton and claims he contradicts himself, but there is nothing contradictory in them. In actuality, the site repeatedly misrepresents Monckton,
How so?
going so far as to use quotation marks around words which don’t represent what he said, much less actually quote him.
How so?
While you’re at it, examine some other “Monckton Myths” related to the same article.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm
Keith Kloor, there is a difference between people not making a response and people not responding to a specific point. If a person responds to me, but avoids something I discussed, that is different than if they simply posted no response. If I was unclear about that distinction, I apologize.
As for my “argument,” I don’t really have one. NewYorkJ said Monckton’s views on global warming are “quite hilarious.” I am curious why this would be true. Monckton being a “court jester” doesn’t answer my question. Monckton making mistakes doesn’t answer my question. Monckton being wrong on points he uses to support his views doesn’t even answer my question.
The way I’d expect someone to answer my question is for them to tell me what Monckton’s views on global warming are. Supposing his views were outlandish enough, an explanation of what makes them “hilarious” would follow. This isn’t what has been done here. Nobody (here) has even given an overview of Monckton’s views.
People seem to be conflating Monckton’s views on global warming with how he supports his views. That’s wrong. One can be right while offering bad arguments. Aside from that, my only real argument is as bad as Monckton may be, many of his critics are bad as well, and yet they aren’t being criticized.
Brandon,
“Aside from that, my only real argument is as bad as Monckton may be, many of his critics are bad as well, and yet they aren’t being criticized.”
You do realize how absurd that sounds? And why engaging you in good faith is a waste of time?
NewYorkJ, since you (apparently) think the article accurately represents Monckton’s words, I’ll explain what should be obvious. All of the supposed contradictions stem entirely from the article misrepresenting what Monckton said. First, the article claims one quote from Monckton rebuts another. I’ll reproduce the two quotes below:
“…some very spectacular cold-weather records were also broken both in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow for the first time since satellite monitoring began 30 years ago, and in December, which was the coldest final month of the year in central England since records began 352 years ago.”
“Cherry-picking individual extreme-weather events that point in one direction only, when there are thousands of such events that also point in another direction, is neither sound science nor sound journalism.”
Now then, I made one word in the first quote bold to emphasize a point which is lost due to the lack of context. Monckton was responding to a comment about hot-weather extremes. He acknowledged hot-weather extremes and pointed out there were also cold-weather extremes. In other words, he acknowledged extremes in both directions.
The quote used to “rebut” this says you shouldn’t pick extremes which point in one direction while ignoring a multitude of extremes which point in the other. Obviously this can’t apply when a person is acknowledging extremes which point in both directions, and that’s exactly what Monckton did. The entire conflict between these two quotes exists purely through the misrepresentation of Monckton’s words.
The situation is no better with the next two quotes. The first is introduced by saying “Monckton argues that global warming has very little to do with hot-weather.” In actuality, he is referring to hot-weather extremes, not just hot weather (a point made obvious by the context which isn’t found in the article). The next quote is introduced by saying, “But then, a little later on, Monckton argues that the long-term warming trend does have an effect on the increasing number of heat waves.” However, his quote is actually talking about hot-weather temperature records. This is something far different from heat waves (though there obviously could be some overlap). Those are the less obvious misrepresentations. I’ll now provide the two quotes as before, then discuss how they were (further) misrepresented:
“…neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs” ““ comparatively rare areas of stable high pressure that dislodge the jet-streams from their usual path and lock weather systems in place for days or sometimes even months at a time.”
“Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set. Not exactly surprising, and not exactly alarming either: for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming.”
The article then refers to those quotes as:
So the goal posts shift from “global warming doesn’t affect weather” to “global warming affects weather but humans aren’t causing global warming”.
Monckton said global warming didn’t have “much to do” with two specific weather extremes. The article changes this to “global warming doesn’t affect weather,” complete with quotation marks. Obviously, he didn’t say anything like that, much less those actual words. The text has him saying global warming didn’t have much of an effect on two specific types of weather events. The article misrepresents that as saying “global warming doesn’t affect weather,” a ridiculous extrapolation.
The second quote is “paraphrased” as “global warming affects weather but humans aren’t causing global warming.” Monckton’s quote said nothing of the sort. He said “the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming.” This is obviously true, and it makes no claims about whether or not humans are responsible. The article misrepresents a simple and indisputable remark, and uses it to attack Monckton.
There is no way to justify the interpretations in that article. For example, the representation of the last quote requires one completely ignore what the quote says, and instead come up with an interpretation pertaining to a topic not even discussed in the quote.
Keith Kloor, no I don’t. I have two guesses at what you might have meant, and I’ll address each. If there is some other meaning, you’ll have to let me know.
My first guess is you take issue with me saying these people aren’t be criticized. The response to this is I assumed anyone reading my comment would understand I was limiting my remarks to the people criticizing Monckton. As far as I can tell, none of Monckton’s critics are condemning any of the garbage leveled against him. The fact Monckton and his supporters may raise criticisms is irrelevant to anything I have discussed here, so the implication seemed clear enough to me.
The second guess I have is you take issue with me setting up an equivalency between Monckton and others. In this case I say, “tough luck.” This is not a defense of Monckton. It’s an accusation of hypocrisy. If behavior which would never be tolerated from Mockton is tolerated from Skeptical Science or anyone on that “side,” it’s a demonstration of a problem, and an argument can be made about it.
If I may make a suggestion Keith Kloor, before deciding engaging a person in good faith is a waste of time, you should make sure you understand what they are saying. In your comment at 58, you told me not to do something I hadn’t done. That happened because you misunderstood me. You now dismiss me out-of-hand, and yet I wonder, did you understand me this time?
I accept miscommunications happen. People misunderstand each other all the time. Are you really so confident you understood what I said to dismiss me without even checking first? I find it hard to imagine how you could be when even I can see places in my comments where things should be clearer.
BS: Now then, I made one word in the first quote bold to emphasize a point which is lost due to the lack of context. Monckton was responding to a comment about hot-weather extremes. He acknowledged hot-weather extremes and pointed out there were also cold-weather extremes. In other words, he acknowledged extremes in both directions.
That’s interesting, because just preceding the comment he was responding to was this from Steketee:
MS: Australia always has been a land of drought and flooding rains, and weather records are broken as regularly as cricket records.But not in the way they have been recently.
The MS article also quotes Nicholls:
“At the same time there are still records being set for cold temperatures.”
So it appears MS was acknowledging extremes in both directions, yet this quote is entirely absent from what Watts labels as Monckton’s “skewering” of MS’s article. So Monckton constructs a strawman and attacks it – entirely dishonest.
However, simply acknowledging extremes in both directions misses the broader point that JC made: the heat-related extremes are out-pacing the cold extremes by a large margin.
BS: The quote used to “rebut” this says you shouldn’t pick extremes which point in one direction while ignoring a multitude of extremes which point in the other.
Not only do Monckton and Watts regularly ignore extremes in the other direction, they emphasize the cold extremes, spin heavy snow events as “cold” events, and ignore the fact that heat-related extremes are vastly outpacing cold extremes. To be fair, it’s mainly Watts that does this regularly.
BS: Monckton said global warming didn’t have “much to do” with two specific weather extremes.
You’re misrepresenting Monckton. Here is what Monckton said:
LM: However, neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”;
Keeping in mind that heavy winter snow events are far from “cold-weather extremes” (more releated to precipitation), there was much more than 2 specific weather extremes in 2010. Monckton is making a rather sweeping statement that he cannot support.
BS: The article changes this to “global warming doesn’t affect weather,” complete with quotation marks.
Fair enough. They could have included “extreme” to be precise, although that context had already been established
The second quote is “paraphrased” as “global warming affects weather but humans aren’t causing global warming.” Monckton’s quote said nothing of the sort. He said “the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming.” This is obviously true, and it makes no claims about whether or not humans are responsible. The article misrepresents a simple and indisputable remark, and uses it to attack Monckton.
So Monckton is conflating 2 ideas. He even throws double quotes around “global warming” as to imply it isn’t really happening…but if it is, he’s sure to say it’s not manmade, something that is already well-established as he certainly knows.
Lastly, I’ve already shown one key sentence left out of Monckton’s “rebuttal”. Note some others from the MS article:
“But honestly we don’t know,” says Nicholls.
Nor does he attribute the Victorian bushfires per se to global warming. “The particular weather situation we had is the kind of weather situation we have had in the past: it was hot, it was dry and it was windy.”
Monckton clearly is trying to portray what is a solid article that emphasizes uncertainties into something it’s not, and it’s clear from the fanatical WUWT comments that few actually read the original.
Monckton argues like a politician, not a scientist. That’s why I find him hilarious.
NewYorkJ, the first half of your comment is rubbish. It doesn’t matter whether or not Monckton was wrong about things. It doesn’t matter if he said stupid or dishonest things. Heck, it doesn’t matter if tomorrow we find out he is the illegitimate child of Satan. As far as this exchange is concerned, all that matters is whether or not Monckton was represented accurately. This issue doesn’t even come up in your response to me until you say:
You’re misrepresenting Monckton. Here is what Monckton said:
The claimed misrepresentation is nothing of the sort. Prior to addressing that, it’s important to understand while heavy winter snow events are generally more related to precipitation, snow events in areas which rarely receive snow due to being too warm (as is the case for some states in the US) are primarily related to temperature. It’s also important to understand Monckton did not just refer to snow events. He specifically highlighted temperature on its own when he said:
December, which was the coldest final month of the year in central England since records began 352 years ago
However, those are minor issues. Far more important is:
Keeping in mind that heavy winter snow events are far from “cold-weather extremes” (more releated to precipitation), there was much more than 2 specific weather extremes in 2010. Monckton is making a rather sweeping statement that he cannot support.
This comes from what I assume is a simple misunderstanding. By saying “two specific weather extremes,” I was referring to hot-temperature extremes and cold-temperature extremes. It was not referring to events, but rather categories. Unfortunately, I cannot be so charitable with your next misrepresentation:
Fair enough. They could have included “extreme” to be precise, although that context had already been established
You repeat the misrepresentation the Skeptical Science article made, and in doing so, you misrepresent me. I pointed out Monckton only referred to “two specific types of weather events.” This means he could not be referring to all weather, or as in your misrepresentation, all extreme weather. You claim to be accepting my point, but instead, you are accepting a minor part of it while acting as though that is the only part that exists. You then continue this ridiculousness by saying:
So Monckton is conflating 2 ideas. He even throws double quotes around “global warming” as to imply it isn’t really happening”¦but if it is, he’s sure to say it’s not manmade, something that is already well-established as he certainly knows.
This is absurd in two regards. First, nowhere in the text being discussed does he he put quotes around global warming as you say. Second, the claimed conflation doesn’t exist. The text being discussed never says anything about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, other than to state the obvious: the existence of warming doesn’t tell the cause of warming. This means your attempt to respond to my accusation of misrepresentation (of this particular quote) consists entirely of you making things up about the quote given by the Skeptical Science article.
Finally, you again segue into non-relevant issues by saying:
Lastly, I’ve already shown one key sentence left out of Monckton’s “rebuttal”. Note some others from the MS article…
Again, this is not relevant to whether or not Skeptical Science accurately represented Monckton’s words. This means we’re left with you not even attempting to address one of my accusations of misrepresentation (John Cook claiming Monckton cherry-picked in the first quote), you misrepresenting one of my accusations (neither I, nor Monckton were referring to all weather or all extreme weather), and you just making things up in order to respond to another accusation.
Put bluntly, nothing you said in any way gives reason to believe the Skeptical Science article being discussed accurately represented the quotes it provided from Monckton. The article’s are indeed as obvious as I said.
My life for an edit/preview feature. That final sentence should have been, “The articles misrepresentations are indeed as obvious as I said.”
Now then, there is one final thing I wanted to respond to. It wasn’t relevant to the Skeptical Science article so I decided I should put it in a second comment. NewYorkJ said, “Monckton argues like a politician, not a scientist. That’s why I find him hilarious.” This may come as a surprise to some, but I agree.
I think Monckton’s behavior is disturbingly funny. However, the comparison to a politician is apt. If one of my representatives in government thought reducing bureaucratic waste in the government was a good idea, I’d say I agree with his view on the issue. Now then, he might repeat horror stories he had heard to give examples about why he thinks that waste was bad. If someone told me those stories weren’t true, I would still agree with his views on bureaucratic waste.
In the same way, I have been told by many people (not just on this thread) Monckton’s views on global warming are hilarious, silly, or whatever. However, every time I ask why his views are wrong, people discuss what he uses to support those views. This conflation is the source of my problem and my “argument.”
The validity of Monckton’s view’s is not contingent upon anything anyone here has discussed. Indeed, his view’s are not contingent upon him as a person. I don’t disagree about him being a “court jester” or an “embarrassment.” I just don’t see how that is an argument against his views on global warming.
BS: It doesn’t matter whether or not Monckton was wrong about things. It doesn’t matter if he said stupid or dishonest things. Heck, it doesn’t matter if tomorrow we find out he is the illegitimate child of Satan.
All of those things certainly matter. Claiming that Monckton is being misrepresented when in fact the basis of his argument is the gross misrepresentation of someone else makes little sense. In fact, the above helps to answer your original question:
BS: Could someone explain to me just what is so crazy about Monckton’s views on global warming (or point me to a good explanation)?
Certainly, Monckton has a habit of misrepresenting data, the IPCC, and the work of various scientists (to which the sole SS article on touches the tip of the iceberg on).
BS: The claimed misrepresentation is nothing of the sort. Prior to addressing that, it’s important to understand while heavy winter snow events are generally more related to precipitation, snow events in areas which rarely receive snow due to being too warm (as is the case for some states in the US) are primarily related to temperature. It’s also important to understand Monckton did not just refer to snow events.
It’s irrelevant whether or not Monckton used arguments in addition to a faulty argument. The argument that heavy snow events are necessarily cold weather events is fallacious, by itself or not.
BS: This comes from what I assume is a simple misunderstanding. By saying “two specific weather extremes,” I was referring to hot-temperature extremes and cold-temperature extremes. It was not referring to events, but rather categories.
BS: I pointed out Monckton only referred to “two specific types of weather events.” This means he could not be referring to all weather, or as in your misrepresentation, all extreme weather.
That would stilll be grossly insufficent. Monckton in fact included in his list of things not affected by “global warming” more than just those 2 categories. He also included snow events, flooding, typhoons, hurricanes, rainfall, and wildfires, none of which fall specifically into those 2 categories. If you feel that presuming that Monckton believes “global warming” doesn’t have anything to do with extreme weather is a misrepresentation of his argument, then kindly cite which type of weather event he makes an exception for. Tornadoes perhaps? Contact Monckton if needed. If you’re unable to come up with anything, then you have no basis for claims of misrepresentation.
BS: First, nowhere in the text being discussed does he he put quotes around global warming as you say.
Are you kidding? His article, puts quotes around “global warming” 21 times by my count. In fact, I just noticed that in a few cases, he adds double quotes to text quoted by Steketee. Did you even read his article?
BS: Second, the claimed conflation doesn’t exist. The text being discussed never says anything about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, other than to state the obvious: the existence of warming doesn’t tell the cause of warming. This means your attempt to respond to my accusation of misrepresentation (of this particular quote) consists entirely of you making things up about the quote given by the Skeptical Science article.
Monckton spends most of the article claiming weather extremes have nothing to do with a warming planet, but are simply natural weather events. Then he throws in “manmade” as a caveat. Thus, the conflation. The science clearly indicates the planet is warming and that humans are (at least) mostly causing it.
BS: The validity of Monckton’s view’s is not contingent upon anything anyone here has discussed. Indeed, his view’s are not contingent upon him as a person. I don’t disagree about him being a “court jester” or an “embarrassment.” I just don’t see how that is an argument against his views on global warming.
Monckton’s views on global warming are clearly wrong. References to “jester” or “embarrassment” are in relation to the validity of his arguments, not as some might argue, his alleged goofy personality, or as kdk stated in #21, his facial expression. In fact, I find it odd that you deliberately dismiss all criticism of his arguments here.
NewYorkJ, this is my final response to you. I don’t think anything could come from trying further, and I think things have gone far enough for any onlookers to make their own judgment. You seriously just offered this as a response:
All of those things certainly matter. Claiming that Monckton is being misrepresented when in fact the basis of his argument is the gross misrepresentation of someone else makes little sense.
This is completely nonsensical. Your response here is Monckton misrepresented someone therefore I shouldn’t say Monckton was misrepresented…
You even close out your comment by making the exact conflation I have argued against time and time again. I even devoted four paragraphs to it in my comment at 66! Despite the conflation being obviously wrong, and despite my efforts to stop it, you repeat it. Indeed, you don’t even address anything I said about it.
I think this amply demonstrates the futility of continuing an exchange with you.
Brandon,
What’s futile is continuing an exchange with someone who did not even read the Monckton article, as is evident by
First, nowhere in the text being discussed does he he put quotes around global warming as you say.
when in fact this is done more than 20 times in what isn’t even a very long article. This leads one to conclude you are fibbing, or have not read the Monckton article in question. What’s most ironic about this exchange is that by any objective measure, in your rush to defend him, you have misrepresented Monckton more than anyone.
In case anyone is interested, this the text which was being discussed at that point:
“Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set. Not exactly surprising, and not exactly alarming either: for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming.”
Nice try. If we’re going to narrow ourselves to specific text, and not the whole article, it’s plainly clear from #63 and #64 what was being discussed.
BS: Monckton said global warming didn’t have “much to do” with two specific weather extremes.
LM: However, neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”;
BS: First, nowhere in the text being discussed does he he put quotes around global warming as you say.
But his is pointless. You haven’t spent time reading the Monckton article or the one he’s responding to. Do that and get back to me.