43 thoughts on “Monckton meets his match

  1. Paul Walter

    I have to agree with you. Finding a politician you could trust would be an enigma. The scenario you describe is a recurring event for those outside the pseudo-democratic Matrix.

    Terje

    I suspect thats why the ETS has struggled and the whole climate change mitigation deal is in disarray, the people realised they may have to pay, even if it only costs them ten cents a day.

  2. A computer scientist (geek) touting demented computer modelling as science, now he is “potty”; as well as a fraud.

    Considering the computer geek is a fraudster and Mockton isn’t, this post should be called “Monckton meets his” geek.

  3. @Tony G

    A computer scientist (geek) touting demented computer modelling as science, now he is “potty”; as well as a fraud.

    Actually Monckton started off by touting a scientist (geek) who was supposedly touting computer modelling of satellite measurements that showed (according to Monckton) a low climate sensitivity. By Tony G’s own logic that makes Monckton potty and a fraud.

    BTW, if Tim Lambert posts a comment here, does that mean all comments calling Tim potty are no longer acceptable and will be deleted?

    BTW2, I doubt that I’d ever have a dinner party with the likes of Tony G. Just my opinion but I don’t think dinner parties are comparable to posting on a blog.

  4. Peter Evans :@TerjeP (say tay-a) But it is consumers who are the polluters, in effect. They want the energy, but not the externalities of producing it. It’s actually right that the people that consume the energy, or the product of the energy (eg, aluminium), should ultimately pay. If they don’t pay now in cash, they or their children and grandchildren will be paying with much diminished lives.

    Don’t tell the voters. The ALP spin doctors are working on the notion that that polluters are some far off evil corporation.

  5. I was going to put this on Clive’s final paper but it looks like he has done a John Quggin and done a runner
    The debate should not degenerate into smears but when Clive Hamilton writes stuff like this it is difficult not to.
    Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming… So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.
    And in a letter to one of the sceptics children
    Hi there,
    There’s something you need to know about your father.
    Your dad’s job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world’s climate in very harmful ways.

    Whichever way you cut it the alarmists have several bridges to cross
    1) there is significant warming
    2) it is harmful
    3) human activity has a significant role
    4) if 3 is correct there is the technology to reverse this without going back to pre Amish life styles
    5) there is the political will to do this .

    IN fact non of these have been crossed. Even Phil Jones has admitted that any measured temperature increase is not significantly valid and a previous Chairman of the IPCC has called for its reform because all its “errors” are in one direction only. “We are scientists, trust us!” no longer cuts it after climategate where Jones and others did everything to prevent proper checking of their data and processing. The oft heard mantra of peer assessment is meaningless if the data is not accessible and the Lancet has only just admitted guilt over a peer reviewed article claiming a link between MMR vaccine and autism. No one knows who the reviewers were to this day but the article caused child deaths when there was a drop in vaccination. Even if bridges 1-3 are crossed I have seen no evidence of the Hamiltons and Quggins of this world cutting back their lifestyle anymore than Al Gore will give up his private jet and China only today stated emphatically that it will not cap CO2 emissions so it is really all a lot of hot air! Lord Monckton has claimed that, even if the IPCC/UN is right it would take 41 years of zero human activity to reduce the world temperature by 1C. Now it does not matter if he was a member of the Hitler Youth and eats live kittens for breakfast, can anyone refute this calculation, show how they did it and if so what the “real” figure is? If not then sit down and shut up.

  6. John Coochey :
    Even Phil Jones has admitted that any measured temperature increase is not significantly valid. . . . . . Lord Monckton has claimed that, even if the IPCC/UN is right it would take 41 years of zero human activity to reduce the world temperature by 1C. Now it does not matter if he was a member of the Hitler Youth and eats live kittens for breakfast, can anyone refute this calculation, show how they did it and if so what the “real” figure is? If not then sit down and shut up.

    Here, again, is the lying side of denialism. Phil Jones has admitted no such thing. Skeptical Science has demolished this typically pernicious mis-reporting at:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html

    Here is the transcript of the interview:

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    As for Monckton’s ‘calculation’, I have no knowledge at all of how he arrived at his ‘claim’, and, I’ll bet, nor have you. Yet you want to see the details of any refutation? Of course, this is just grandstanding, isn’t it, and a fine example of begging the salient question: What degree of warming will occur if human activity continues/increases at its present rate for ANOTHER 41 years? Or even 14. You can easily find out how scientists answer that question for yourself. Their peer-reviewed research findings have been broadcast rather widely for quite a long time now.

    John Coochey, you’ve given a perfect example of what JQ is talking about in another thread: the Dunning-Kruger effect. The vapid and ignorant triumphalism of someone who hasn’t got a clue but doesn’t know it.

  7. John Coochey, as Macondo observes, there’s a whole post above pointing out that anyone making the claim you’ve just cited is either
    (a) consciously dishonest; or
    (b) ignorant of the basic concept of statistical significance, and therefore unqualified to comment on any issue depending on statistics, of which climate change is an example

    Having had some experience of you, I’d say both (a) and (b) apply. Having violated my comments policy calling for civil discussion, I’m not going to include you under its protection. You’re not welcome here, and, if you keep commenting you can expect to be called out as the ignorant, lying fool you are.

    BTW, if any other “sceptics” are reading, I’m still waiting for someone on that side of the debate to either defend the ludicrous of misinterpretation of “statistical significance” that is currently the proliferating meme on their side of the debate, or, better, to point out to their co-thinkers how wrong they are on this one.

  8. Regardless,

    Jones’ statistical ‘problem’ is prima facie evidence of an error (JQ reckons it is not a Type 1) therefore it must be a type 2.n.b. Jones’ test is useless and the value of the “proof of warming” of H0 is also null.

  9. It has become very blatantly obvious that the ETS is just a vehicle which world governments are using to justify taxing us more. The world has heated and cooled innumerable times over the thousands of years of it’s existance. The Green movement started off as a genuine group of people who were genuinely concerned about the state of our world, but they were highjacked by a bunch of oportunistic money grabbing thieves who are using the Green movement to extract money from the little bloke to feather their own nest. The ETS will never pass the Senate. The lie was exposed at Copenhagen, and the whole idea now is dead. If Kevin Rudd wants to ‘flog a dead horse’, then it will be to his own detriment at the next election.

  10. I found it very amusing that throughout 2009, Rudd tried to ram the ETS down our throat, but never attempted to give us one piece of evidence to support his claim that the ETS was necessary. No graphs, no tables, no information, no facts, no details, no references, no mention of which scientists gave him the information or what instruments were used. What I appreciated about Monckton, is that he gave us all the information that he had on an overhead. He explained it all to us, and then said NOT to believe him, but to sift through all the information and to make up our own minds about climate change based on SCIENTIFIC FACT NOT ON SOMEONES OPINION.

  11. Climate change is all about science, NOT about politics. Rudd trying to legislate for science is like him trying to legislate for churches. It does not work. How can anyone be arrogant enough to suggest that they can change the climate of the whole world just by playing with carbon emissions? He is a control freak who thinks that he alone can control this whole country and everyone in it as well as the atmosphere and everything else. At best he is completely delusional, at worst, just an arrogant blatant liar. I would like to suggest a bit of both are true.

  12. Brendan, here’s a challenge for you. Write one short para about what you really think about climate change that is free of whimpering done-to-death clichés and and anti-leftist group think.

    GO!

  13. So who can rebutt the 41 years without fire figure? OK do it here. Who is prepared to forego all industrial activity for that period to reduc temperatures for 1C?

  14. Rebuttal is simple: Monckton is a loony, who asserts a plot to establish a Communist world government, among many similarly absurd claims. Anyone who repeats his claims is a fool, who does not deserve to be engaged in serious discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s