Support John Abraham

Potty peer Christopher Monckton has stepped up his campaign to shut down John Abraham’s debunking of one of his talks last year, by asking supporters to flood Abraham’s university with emails demanding it start a disciplinary inquiry.

I can only endorse this comment on Monckton and the lunacy of a world in which someone like this is taken seriously.

Update I thought Posterous would include the link automagically but apparently not. Here’s Garth Renowden’s site where you can support Abraham and/or bag Monckton.

68 thoughts on “Support John Abraham

  1. “In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling.”

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are falling for bogus claims like this, you really need to accept that your knowledge of this topic is effectively zero (or maybe less). For this particular error, see

    Then, as you say, apply Popper to your apparent hypothesis “stuff I read on rightwing climate sites is probably reliable”

  2. “Potty peer Christopher Monckton has stepped up his campaign to shut down John Abraham’s debunking of one of his talks last year, by asking supporters to flood Abraham’s university with emails demanding it start a disciplinary inquiry.
    I can only endorse this comment on Monckton and the lunacy of a world in which someone like this is taken seriously.

    “Update I thought Posterous would include the link automagically but apparently not. Here’s Garth Renowden’s site where you can support Abraham and/or bag Monckton.”

    The above is the topic of this thread.

    I can offer the following update: This morning, 25 July, the count of names in support of Professor Abraham on Garth Renowden’s site was 1007.

  3. @Jim Rose

    In the past, the science of climate change was robust enough to admit it got the sign wrong.
    • In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling.
    • The prediction is now global warming.

    I have never seen a story on how this change of mind actually happened.

    In a nut shell, the predictions of global cooling weren’t particularly strong or widespread (some “skepics” have delibrately misquoted scientific papers which have predicted cooling due to orbital changes by omitting both the mechanism and time scale [thousands of years in the future]). They came about because of two competing factors; some aerosols cool the planet whereas greenhouse gases warm the planet. So the overall anthropogenic effect will depend on the ratio of anthropogenic warming vs. anthropogenic cooling. Perhaps the most famous paper (titled Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate by Rasool and Schneider) from this era looked at this and suggested that humans could trigger an ice age. Within a year, the authors had revised their views because they had massively overstated the likely aerosol production while underestimating the warming from CO2.

  4. @Ken Miles

    Before someone else tries to draw big conclusions from an error message, I’ll just let you know that your link @4,p2 didn’t work.

  5. @Jim Rose

    Global temperatures can change rapidly by up to 6 or 7 degree in a few decades such half a dozen times as the last ice age ended from about 15,000 BC. These last of these was in 9800 BC or so.

    This is the kind of nonsense one gets when one endures delusionals. There is simply no evidentiary basis for such claims, and in so far as there was a warming coming out of the period 13000BP it was obviously off a much lower base than now and driven by entirely different things, so it is hardly germane. The warming that took place was about the same as the last century’s warming, could well have been localised and in any even took about 1000 years, not 100.

    Such tumultuous events are far greater global threats than gradual warming or cooling. A new ice age is too.

    Or it would be, if such were upon us, but of course, it isn’t, not that that matters to one of our resident delusionals. Of course, “cooling” “a new ice age” a “little ice age” what does it matter. It is, as Humpty Dumpty said, much of a muchness isn’t it? So on goes Mr Rose …

    In the past, the science of climate change was robust enough to admit it got the sign wrong. In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling

    No it wasn’t, for the umpteenth time, and I am not going to debunk this canard one more painful time to amuse Jim, but that doesn’t stop him doing his own version of Groundhog Day.

    Scientific truth is always provisional in the sciences paradoxically labelled the hard sciences, and grows through explaining new or novel facts.

    Which of course the delusionals never offer. They are like Mr HorseNo Sir, I don’t like it

    A willingness to challenge what your believe demarks science from non-science.

    Which of course, the delusionals never do. They don’t challenge their fellow delusionals but instead play happy families because for them any idea that assists their tendentious case for doing nothing suffices.

    what evidence will make you give up your position?

    For the delusionals, there is no such evidence. They shut their eyes, cover their ears and declare it’s all a fraud. For them, observable reality is the biggest fraud and their inability to have serious journals entertain their nonsense simply affirms a dark conspiracy amongst grant-grubbing scientists.

    I have always wonder whether the estimated welfare effects of global warming change if there no human signature – human activity is not the leading cause, but the world is still warming just as before. (sic)

    Not that Jim Rose would look at any of the published material on this matter, largely I suspect because this would force him to refute it — something he is ill-equipped to do. Far better for him to pretend that he an hius fellow delusionals are unique in considering this question, so the whole conspriacy against common sense and in favour of take you pick between nihilism, Gaia, grant grubbing taxing, socialism or all of the above can run and run .

    Really, why need we entertain such hectoring, ignorant, reckless, misanthropic and derivative maundering as Mr Rose offers above? No reason I can think of …

  6. Good. Jim Rose has found his match in Fran Barlow in the space of communications strategies.

    JQ, how many pages of your blog-site are you going to allocate for the communications strategy play?

  7. @jquiggin
    My note is, in part, based on my own memories of the 1970s and news sources that I read at the time such as Time magazine and Newsweek.

    Thanks for the link. excellent evidence in favour of your viewpoint. More is at

    As your link notes, “between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

    There was a debate on the sign – this is always a healthy phenomenon in a science and there were plenty of fence-sitters waiting for the results of further research.

    It is even better that the scientists of that day chose the scientific method over producing more of the results that in the 1970s got a lot more publicity. That is science at its best.

  8. Ernestine Gross, some people are gullible and it seems he took the bait hook, line, and sinker. Next he will say that penguins really do fly remember when ‘The BBC announced that camera crews filming near the Antarctic for its natural history series Miracles of Evolution had captured footage of Adélie penguins taking to the air. Terry Jones explained that, instead of huddling together to endure the Antarctic winter, these penguins took to the air and flew thousands of miles to the rainforests of South America where they “spend the winter basking in the tropical sun’.

  9. The short version of Jim Rose’s post @ 9, p2 reads:

    I, Jim Rose, have been spreading misleading information and I do not have the minimum intellectual honesty, defined as error correction, or the courage to say it as it is.

  10. @Fran Barlow
    We seem to agree that knowledge grows by offering facts, reasoned arguments and anticipated consequences while always keeping an open mind.

    I also think that the division of labour applies. Economic studies of the effects of global warming either accept the IPCC predictions or model a global warming of this or that amount.

    On looking at published material on this matter, on the related thread on global warming, I have previously drawn the attention of readers of this blog to:
    • the writings of Thomas Schelling in general – he has worked on the issue since chairing a presidential commission of some sort in 1980; and
    • Richard Tol’s 2009 Journal of Economic Perspectives survey of the welfare costs of global warming.

    The Tol paper and most of Schelling’s writings on global warming are open-access.

    You do not seem to agree that labels like denier and alarmist are not conducive for scientists to change their mind or decide they were right in the first place, and that such unpleasantness encourages many to choose other careers or fields of study. Name calling make the impartial spectator suspicious that you are covering up gaps in you arguments or a growing bitterness may be clouding your objectivity.

    Agreement is less likely if you attack people’s pride and bring their integrity into question. This tactic is also straight out of stage four of how to discredit a government report without ever having read it. See and go to Government Procedure for Deciding Not To Publish a Report.

    It is better to ask your interlocutor to think more deeply about this or that point that is in debate. Look for common ground that already exists and for a growing number of important anomalies and puzzles their current way of thinking cannot explain.

  11. @Ernestine Gross
    Economists are no more qualified to assess the merits of the science of global warming than they are qualified to explore the medical science and clinical psychology of alcohol, tobacco or gambling.

    Economists, nonetheless, write productively about alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

    When I was a teenager, cigarettes were nicknamed cancer sticks. There was no knowledge gap about the risks back then or now.

    Alcohol and gambling are problems because of issues of excess and many cases of addiction.

    Economists have no special expertise in deciding the line that demarks crossing over into excess. Extremes and addictions are obvious to all.

    What economists can point out is that if you want to see less alcohol or tobacco consumption or less gambling, make it more expensive. Maybe not so expensive that people exit big-time to the black-market and police and political corruption flourishes.

    Putting higher taxes on sin are not without pain. They fall disproportionately on lower income groups and problem gamblers and heavy drinkers often can be low-income earners.

    Prohibition has worked poorly for alcohol and for tobacco and also for gambling except where there is significant infrastructure and large customer bases are required that cannot be built by word-of-mouth advertising such as for casinos.

    A lot can be said in contentious areas without giving-up the gains from the division of labour to comment on questions where most economists lack professional expertise.

  12. @Jim Rose

    You are debating yourself. I’ve told you before you can write whatever you want as long as you comply with Professor Quiggin’s rules but without pretending to talk to me.

    As I have shown on this thread, you haven’t got the intellectual honesty to admit error. I am not interested in what you have to say to me.

    You are an intellectual, I grant you that. But, like many other words one needs a bit more information to make sense of the word in context. It seems to me v. Hayek’s description of an intellectual – a second-hand dealer in ideas – is appropriate for you.

  13. @Ernestine Gross

    Correction. I allowed myself to be side-tracked by this Jim Rose. If there is anybody who wants to check that I did show Jim Rose to offer contradictory opinions and to refuse to acknowledge error, I refer to the predecessor thread, Economists and Climate Change.

  14. @Ernestine Gross

    A few days ago, you made great play about the absence of negative prices as a reason for the inefficiency of markets.

    I pointed to the existence of negative prices in spot markets in the energy sector.

    What was your response, again?

    Point to a climate change related specific error and I will respond.

  15. @Jim Rose

    You are off topic on this thread. If you wish to have a reply to your question, go to the right thread first. Beware of what you are asking for.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s