Prawngate: Monckton tries to censor critics
[UPDATE: I recommend everyone sign the petition supporting John Abraham, and join the Facebook group]
Monckton may have tried to delete his original response to John Abraham’s presentation in which he completely dismantles Monckton’s claims, but thanks to the power of the internet it has been preserved:
So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.
Which of course begs the question, on what planet must one live in order accuse someone of ad hominem while lunching into ad hominem in the same sentence!
But that was only the start.
The Crocks of Monckton
Peter Sinclair has done a great job debunking Lord Monckton’s many false claims, in his great Climate Crock of the Week series.
And Part 2
Deniers are not making scientific arguments
Deniers are not making scientific arguments. Scientific arguments require consistency, something which deniers make no pretence of striving for.
Monckton’s silly graph: Part 4
Here we go again! Via RealClimate we have another silly graph from Monckton:
This is in response to Andy Revkin’s article in the New York Times on how industry scientists in 1995 concluded that ‘impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied’
As RealClimate point out this is amusing because Monckton apparently thinks that;
- trends from January 2002 are relevant to a complaint about a story discussing a 1995 report,
- someone might be fooled by the cherry-picked January 2002 start date,
- no-one would notice that he has just made up the IPCC projection curves
It is the last point that is most amusing since I have chronicled a few of Monckon’s dishonest silly graphs, and more so because he was called out on a similar error just a couple of months ago.
Gavin Schmidt explains why Monckton’s Graph is absolute rubbish:
Global warming deniers getting stupider
Yes stupider is a word. Don’t believe me? Look it up.
Lately global warming deniers have been really scraping the bottom of the barrel with their arguments. Sadly none of this is an April fools joke.
It’s OK, if you are a climate change denier
Remember the outcry when Micheal Tobis merely asked the question ‘is unfairly criticizing those pushing for action on climate change and thus delaying action morally equivalent to killing people’? And then answered only by saying “It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.”
Deniers like Marc Morano instantly claimed that: “Scientists claim that criticizing Al Gore is equal to killing 1000 people!” Of course anyone looking at the issue honestly would realize that saying ‘it’s not obvious that it isn’t” isn’t remotely close to answering in the affirmative. But we know Morano and his ilk aren’t looking at this issue honestly.
But just in case you weren’t convinced, take a look at the response (or rather lack thereof) when one of their own unequivocally sates that those pushing for action on climate change are already killing millions, and will kill tens of millions if we are not stopped.
Now the very same soi-disant “Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves. -Monckton
One of Monckton’s lesser known colleagues Art Robinson, even gave a talk called Nobel Prize for Death. And anyone familiar with the denialsphere knows that there are countless more examples.
So what is the response from Morano? Not a peep. What about the others in the denialsphere? Nothing. But I guess It’s OK if you are a climate change denier.
Monckton’s silly graph: Part 3
Monckton just can’t help himself.
Monckton has updated his silly graph, and now the Cuffey and Clow graph (correctly cited this time around!), has been adapted from the original which represented temperatures in Greenland, to represent Antarctic temperatures. How exactly did he accomplish this impressive feat? The same way he took the original and made it representative of global temperatures. He just changed the labels of the axis. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how SCIENCE is done!
Though I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t just another manifestation of Antarctic warming derangement syndrome.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of all of these silly graphs form Monckton is that he is able to say with a straight face:
I will be showing some quite startling examples of the deliberate bending, falsification, and in some cases fabrication of scientific data, every single time to create a crisis out of nothing.
I imagine a mirror will be somehow involved.
Monckton’s silly graph: Part 2
It seems one silly graph isn’t enough for the great Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Behold his latest folly:
At first brush this may appear to be an entirely sensible graph, but take a closer look. What do the vertical numbers in the middle of the graph represent? Are they just a misplaced y-axis? Perhaps, but 30-40°C seems wrong. The numbers can’t be positive because that would mean the earth was warmer during the last ice age and the younger dryas cooling event than at present. So they must be negative, but that would mean that the current temperature is roughly -33°C. That is way too cold. Something isn’t right here; we need more information.
Monckton’s silly graph
This is the crux of Monckton’s latest anti-science, climate change denier rant. Bellow the graph was this text:
Figure 3 shows two things very clearly. First, carbon dioxide concentration is rising, and will continue to rise, in a more or less straight line; secondly, there is no correlation, and hence necessarily no causative connection, between carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature.
Not correlated? How do we know? All I see are two increasing trends, that may or may not be correlated. Of course since temperature and CO2 are in different units isn’t it possible to scale the y-axis of the CO2 graph differently to make both trends match up visually? Or to make the increase in temperature seem more rapid than the increase in CO2? Yes both are completely possible. In fact Monckton’s entire statistical analysis consists of nothing more than a scaling the y-axis to ensure that the temperature and CO2 trends are visually distinct. It is nothing more than a cheap visual trick to attempt to fool the naive. It doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
(h/t Intl. J. Inact., 2:14–16)
Put you money where your mouth is: The “Sue Us” Petition
Because of the regularity that deniers threaten legal action against those that accept the science on climate change, yet consistently fail to follow up their threats and subject their claims to the rigorous scrutiny of the courts, the International Journal of Inactivism has come up with the “Sue Us” Petition which states: Read the rest of this entry »
