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.
John Quiggin 
I still can’t understand how people can support this man when you notice the tactics he uses are nothing to do with refuting John Abrahams arguments, but instead harassing him in the hope that he backs down. Way to prove your point Monckton.
JQ said
“the lunacy of a world in which someone like this is taken seriously.”
That comment would fit Mann & Jones and their hiding the decline; and hiding the spliced and diced data etc…
Jones, Mann and the other co-conspirators in the warming fraud have been found out, they have admitted themselves that they can not and will not release ALL their temperature reconstruction workings and data for a proper peer review; so get over it and move on. The warming is a fraud, so lets call it climate change.[sic]
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm
@52
” Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?
Professor Jones: That is NOT the case.
Graham Stringer: Why is it not?
Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that.
Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?
Professor Jones: Maybe IT SHOULD be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject. ”
AGW temperature reconstructs after all their splicing and dicing hide the ‘real decline.
AGW is a fraud.
@ 47
“we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups.”
Bullshi#!
Are you still saying collusion between the 3 proxy temperature reconstructors did not happen?
“the lunacy of a world in which people” like Jones and Mann are taken seriously is incomprehensible.
…
The Republicans called Monckton as an expert witness before a Congressional committee. The English-speaking world is truly experiencing an epistemological crisis.
@Tony G
Sigh…
The lunacy of the world where someone can’t ascertain the facts and the truth of a matter, though the whole in context story has been freely available for some time is incomprehensible, but here in this thread we have proof of it.
Repeating cbp, sigh…
@Mobius Ecko
It’s not that they can’t ascertain the facts. It is that they either won’t, or can’t bring themselves to utter them. There is a difference.
What we are seeing above in TonyG’s all too familiar exceusion into cognitive dissonance is the manifestation of a particular cultural paradigm (socio-spatial angst, misanthropy) rather than a flawed attempt at summarising observable reality. This is written plainly for his own comfort rather than the enlightenment of others.
In many respects, Tony’s action is similar to someone with OCD. People afflicted by this frequently repeat actions they know to be superfluous, merely because it makes them feel safe — and in control. Tony knows he is wrong and doing what he does makes him appear foolish, but the thought that he is wrong so disturbs him that he must repeatedly utter his mantra to feel calm.
As a human being, I do feel genuinely sorry for him. Nobody should have to live like that.
In recollection of how this has gone on in the USA as well, the most notable victims recently have been Finkelstein and Mearsheimer and Waltz, for challenging the Leon Uris/airport fiction account of middle eastern politics
“As a human being, I do feel genuinely sorry for him. Nobody should have to live like that.”
classic insult Fran right up there with “Now, I do not ask you to understand these tests. I’m not a cruel man.” from Twin Peaks
@gregh
It wasn’t intended as an insult. It was an attempt at compassion. Angst and misanthropy present as ugly, but one should retain compassion for those suffering from it and recall that as offensive as they may seem, they have to live like that every waking moment. To be so perpetually unhappy in one’s own skin is surely something nobody should endure.
I am not being the least bit snide. I really do feel sorry for him. I wish I could ease his pain or refer him to someone who might.
Lets stick to the facts, we know people around here are left with no other debating tactic, except to attack me, only because the grant seekers, Manns’ and Jones’ temperature reconstructions are indefensible and fraudulent.
Only a microscopic percentage of the globe has a weather station on it and only a few of those stations have a reasonable time line of unadulterated data; so when Mann and Jones manipulate that data to manufacture a product of gridded temperatures, they should release it for the world to see so it can be independently peer reviewed.
Mann and Jones have admitted in their own words above that they don’t and won’t release all their data on the temperature reconstructions, so their theory that the temperature is rising, is not peered review science, anybody making that claim is a fraudster.
@Tony G
No one’s attacking you.
Most of the commenters here have already been around-the-block hundreds of times over the past years with misunderstandings of those such as yours. We’ve heard this stuff all before and it doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny.
Take your ideas back to 2004 and maybe someone will care.
Fran , you know its always “groundhog day”with them- no”memory”.
Therefore I applaud your sincere expressions of sympathy. For those of us with half a brain or better, burdened with the temptation to take for granted something as simple as being able to think, its good to see an examplar of what the lack of “wherewithal” can mean.
“Monckton’s response to John Abraham is magnificently bonkers.”
Headline in The Guardian, cited in http://www.minnpost.com/nextdegree/2010/07/19/19810/st_thomas_prof_john_abraham_in_royal_smackdown_with_global-warming_denier_christopher_monckton
According to the above article, Professor Abraham’s university has sent Monckton a message via their lawyers – back off or else.
Good.
In case anyone isn’t already aware of this, Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic is collecting expressions of support for John Abraham here.
Mann and Jones have admitted in their own words above that they don’t and won’t release all their data on the temperature reconstructions, so their theory that the temperature is rising, is not peered review science, anybody making that claim is a fraudster.
i have no idea if the charge that mann and jones won’t release all their data is true, and if it is true, that it is abnormal in any way, but granting your premises, wouldn’t it obviously be the case that their failure to do so is because of lunatics like monckton?
i for one am very pleased that monckton is de facto head of opposition to action on global warming. he’s so comically unhinged that everything he says and does makes people who agree with him look bad. if, like tony g, i believed that global warming was a big conspiracy theory, then i would also have to believe that monckton is in on the conspiracy, such is his effectiveness in discrediting those who agree with him.
Tony G: “Manns’ and Jones’ temperature reconstructions are indefensible and fraudulent…”
….but through some remarkable coincidence, they just happen to tell the same story as all those others that aren”t.
How about that!
Everyone must be in on the conspiracy except you.
Don’t forget to turn the lights on before you go to bed.
The “Man-made Climate Change” religion had it’s cover blown on the day of the Hadley CRU revelations. The tide went out and the AGW faith was seen to be swimming with no trunks on.
Some people have invested so much of their intellectual energy into this faith that they cannot stand the loss of face that comes with recognising their error.
In simpler language, they are now in a state of mind known as “denial”.
It is one of the stages of grief.
Sad to see so many people, most of whom are able to pass uni exams & get themselves a degree, unable to cope with having the rug jerked from under something that was, after all, only ever of an abstract interest.
John, I’m not sure how to describe someone who falsely claims to have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. But it seems Christopher Monckton has lost it.
i have no idea if the charge that mann and jones won’t release all their data is true, and if it is true, that it is abnormal in any way, but granting your premises, wouldn’t it obviously be the case that their failure to do so is because of lunatics like monckton?
It isn’t true.
The “skeptics” constantly demand that they release other peoples data (without even bothering to ask the actual owners for it). It is just a stupid con job to prop up dumb conspiracy theories.
Ken it is true ” mann and jones won’t release all their data”, it is not what the skeptics say, it is the conclusion of the UK parliaments enquiry.
“It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process.[78] In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification.”
Ken read it for yourself @ 54 here;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm
Considering only a few other co conspirators ‘reconstruct’ temperatures and only under the same covert and flawed modus operandi, it is understandable their fiction tallies;
Anyway, when they show us the temperature manipulations they made to the few thousand existing weather station’s data, and the further temperature manipulations they made to the 10 million odd fictitious weather stations they made up in their grid, then, maybe then, people will start to ‘believe’ it is getting warmer.
Last line should be
maybe then, people will not need to ‘believe’ it is getting warmer.
It’s a good thing that Prof Quiggin thoughtfully provided his own link for all of this, perhaps more reliable ultimately, than certain alternatives about.
I feel sorry for some of the naive dupes for big business holding up reform, wanting to continue things on their terms as exemplified by the tobacco cartel last century.
Tony G, You are off topic. To assist in getting back on topic, taking your posts into account:
Would you please provide the name of the institution(s) to whom one can write to ask for disciplinary actions to be taken against Christopher Monckton?
Would you please provide Christopher Monckton’s original data.
Would you please provide copies of Christopher Monckton’s employment contracts.
Would you please provide data on the financing of Christopher Monckton’s public speeches.
Ernestine,
Jones, Mann and the other co-conspirators of the warming fraud have admitted themselves that they can not and will not release ALL the temperature reconstruction workings and data for a proper peer review of their work.
Putting forward a reconstructed temperature rise as peered reviewed science when it is not, is a fraud. Abraham is promoting this warming fraud, so my assertions are ‘on topic’.
EG and others, you can attack me or any other conveyor of this message all you like, obviously you can’t attack the message, so I will repeat it ad nauseam until the warming fraudsters come up with some verifiable science to back up your your warming theory…..
the warming isn’t scientific verified….
the warming isn’t scientific verified….
the warming isn’t scientific verified…etc. etc
Ernestine Gross, if you go to the following site you will find useful information on Mockton http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
@Tony G
Your reply is not helpful, if I may say. All I have been asking for is information that allows a symmetrical treatment of Monckton.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Thanks for the link. I’ve seen more than enough of Monckton. I watched the debate between ‘the lord’ and Dr Lambert. Monckton’s jumps to conclusions and twisting and turning and changes of subjects are still very clear in my head. I am still giggling about Prof. Quiggin’s elegant debunking of ‘the lord’s conspiracy theory: ‘The lord’s’ former boss, Margaret Thatcher, being the ultra left wing (can’t remember whether communist was mentioned) head of the conspiracy. It priceless and beautiful in its brevity. As such the crux of the argument is easy to remember.
The potty professor – Abraham – has been exposed as sloppy and duplicitous. All the original documents are available. I can put all the links here but I think, from the blog rules that would probably evoke the spam filter. Here is part of Lord Monckton’s response to the potty professor –
do you believe, sincerely, after reading Christopher’s response, there is any justification for the potty professor’s point of view?
http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/
i
“The Prince of Wales has launched a stinging attack on “climate sceptics”, deriding them for peddling “pseudo science”.
In a speech to world business leaders at a climate change seminar Charles criticised the group for apparently intimidating people from “adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse”.”
End of quote from Geoff Brown’s web-site.
Well, the good lord Monckton should pay due respect to his superior on the hierarchy relevant to him.
@Ernestine Gross
G’day Ernestine, thanks for visiting my site. Did you also note the quote from the Prince who wanted to be a tampon swirling down a toilet – “.I have endlessly been accused of peddling pseudo science, in one way or another, for most of my life…” and he is an advocate for the failed hypothesis of anthropogenic Global Warming …. oh, sorry, now that the warming has stalled, you lot call it Climate change, don’t you. Why don’t you mention now that you think it is man-made climate change?
@Geoff Brown
You are off topic.
@Ernestine Gross
G’day Ernestine,
The topic was support the potty professor Abraham. Abraham wrote an attack on Christopher Monckton. Abraham’s diatribe was found to be less than accurate. John Quiggin’s post was anti the good Lord. Your post was possibly off topic but since you introduced my site (off topic) my remarks must become “on topic.”
@Geoff Brown
I say the potty peer, Christopher Monckton, should take note of the advice given by his superior in the aristrocratic hierarchy, the Prince of Wales, (as stated on your blog and quoted @29). Christopher Monckton has no standing at all in the hierarchy where Professor John Abraham took the trouble of debunking Monckton’s verbal output. This is on topic of the thread owned by Professor Quiggin and not by you or me.
Correct
@Ernestine Gross
Have you at least had the grace to read – monckton-abraham-monckton? Or are you so blind as to not look at opposing views? The potty professor – Abraham – as you say – “took the trouble of debunking Monckton’s verbal output..” but, regrettably, used misquotes and graphs not used by the brilliant Lord Monckton. That is why I gave a link to Lord Monckton’s correction to the potty professor Abraham’s diatribe. If you have any balance of opinion, read Lord Monckton’s reply, go back to Prof Abraham’s flawed diatribe, go back to Lord Monckton’s original address, and, if you have any ability to reason, you will see why;
a) potty prof was way off beam;
b) Lord Monckton destroyed the potty prof’s argument.
Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten you.
@Geoff Brown
‘Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten you.’
My God, how condescending does that remark sounds?
Are you serious, Geoff Brown?
Sorry, John, Ernestine et al – I should correct that last remark – “Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten you” – to ,”Thanks for allowing me to let you see the full story.”
Sorry, gang!!
@Geoff Brown
Well, it didn’t work out as you had apparently planned – I got a quote from your blog instead of clicking on your link. I agree with your line 1 @34.
Good bye.
@Ernestine Gross
“Good bye.” Well, Ern. does that means that you are now convinced? Excellent.
For the others, here’s the link that Ms Gross must have clicked on:
http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-a…
You wish, Geoff Brown.
You are a student of Christopher Monckton, I can see that. However, you have a long way to go. Christopher Monckton openened his talk, which is the subject of Professor Abraham’s rebuttal, with a line to the effect: ‘After this (flattering) introduction I look forward hearig what I have to say’. He is brilliant – as an entertainer.
Prof has a major problem since this blog re-opened…it has attracted a whole lot of new trolls with new names and same tired mindless lines…its as if the Prof is on Catllyxs most wanted list…only its like shooting tin ducks here.
One down and another pops up with a new name.
They come. They go. They sound the same. Rehearsed emptiness.
Could anyone be seriously defending Monkton here?
Tony G, unsurprising you are wrong. Neither Jones nor Mann generate significant quantities of primary data, rather they use other peoples. If you want the primary data – go to the source.
Anyway, when they show us the temperature manipulations they made to the few thousand existing weather station’s data, and the further temperature manipulations they made to the 10 million odd fictitious weather stations they made up in their grid, then, maybe then, people will start to ‘believe’ it is getting warmer.
Luckily, The Goddard Institute of Space Studies gives you everything you want (not that you’ll bother to read it). Here are links to the station data, the source code of the programs used to analysise it and here are the scientific papers describing the analysis. What else do you need?
Abraham’s diatribe was found to be less than accurate.
yeah oddly enough i’m not going to take your word for this, especially given the weaselish way your word is put. found by whom? in what respect? was he being straightforward dishonesty or did he merely make an inadvertant slip? and so forth.
Tony G, Geoff Brown, SATP – the Mann thing was covered by Roy Spencer at the Heartland Institute – his satellite data and Mann’s data coincide thus there’s no fudging/error unless Spencer’s doing it too.
But that’s not what I want to post – this post never escapes moderation at ‘skeptic’ sites, and I’m trying to get a volunteer to disprove AGW at it’s very source.. post as follows:
…
I’ve read a few posts about CO2 not being able to interact with infra-red energy in this thread and some others on this site.
I have been asking for volunteers, but no luck so far, to disprove that assertion that CO2 can absorb/emit energy, or is any way active in the infra-red. If we can disprove CO2 is IR active then we’ve killed the AGW thing dead. If a skeptic is willing to put a finger on the line for science, we can do this.
I’m sure I could organise a local to you university or industry that has a CO2 laser, a local TV crew or 2, and with a televised personal injury waiver, televise the attempt to cut off your finger with the CO2 laser. When the invisible beam of nothing fails, AGW will be shown to be a hoax .. on camera.
I lack the guts to do it myself. I’ve seen and have used CO2 lasers to do some serious burning and if it’s a trick by those scientists as part of their global domination plan, I can’t work out how it’s pulled off.
More info at http://galahs.blogspot.com/2010/04/carbon-dioxide-laser.html
Very funny Ken @ 40, the data is used to construct temperature anomalies, not ‘a global average surface temperature’. Maybe when they can work out how to calculate a global average surface temperature correctly, then they might be able to work out anomalies from it.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
So Ken point me to a peered reviewed ‘global average surface temperature’.
@Tony G
Why don’t you start a campaign against the accounting professtion with the aim of having all financial accounts declared invalid on the grounds that from the perspective of a trader in financial securities the relevant time interval for monetary transactions is, say 5 minutes and it is not legitimate to do what accountants do, namely aggregating (adding up) monetary values of transactions that occur at unknown specific time intervals during an entire year and, moreover, aggregating monetary values that overlap even one year and, furthermore, aggretating values that are not even based on a transaction at all.
Such a campaign should keep you busy for the rest of your life.
It’s obviously pointless to argue with Tony G, but after #43, it would be interesting to know if there is any absurdity produced by delusionism (or for that matter any talking point produced by the political right) that is too absurd for him to swallow and regurgitate. Over to you, Tony.
“Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. ”
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html
Tony G, in a recent National Research Council (US) report found’…stabilizing atmospheric concentrations does not mean that temperatures will stabilize immediately. Warming that occurs in response to a given increase in the CO2 concentration is only about half the total warming that will ultimately occur. For example, if the CO2 concentration stabilizes at 550 ppmv, the Earth would warm about 1.6 C on the way to that level; but even after the CO2 level stabilizes, the warming would continue to grow in the following decades and centuries, reaching a best-estimate global “equilibrium” warming of about 3 C (5.4 F)’. Hopefully this will help you understand what is fact and what is fiction.
Perhaps PrQ given that:
You ought to make a ruling in similar terms for advocacy of climate delusionism as you have for that other technology. For the next five years, in the absence of new and plausible evidence that impugns the integrity of either the IPCC-consensus position on the anthropogenetic etiology of the post industrial climate anomaly, or the professional integrity of the scientists and researchers associated with it, that this site will not entertain posts that rely for their force on claims to that effect.
@Tony G
What on earth do you think I am going to do with your quote? I am not going to conclude anything.
But I want to reach a conclusion on what you conclude. For this purpose I have a few questions arising from the paper your referenced.
Tell me, which situation could be discribed as a ‘disjoint temperature systems’:
i) the temperature within two fully functioning aircraft on route from Sydney to any location you want?
ii) the temperature in each of several rooms within a house that has one gas heater operating and a semi open floor plan?
iii) the temperature measured 50 cm from each side of a fence separating two properties (A and B) each consisting of a 2 storey wooden house with a footprint of 200m2 built on approximately 1000 m2 land, where the house in property A is on fire.
Did the authors of the paper from which you quote consider ‘locally disjoint temperature systems’ ?
@jquiggin
Anyone who doubts that it has got warmer than in the past should be asked to view paintings and other evidence of the River Thames frozen sold in the winters before the end of the little ice age in the 1850s.
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. Such tumultuous events are far greater global threats than gradual warming or cooling. A new ice age is too.
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.
Scientific revolutions are common as Thomas Kuhn has shown, and the physical sciences are based on experiments – on conjecture and refutation with data.
Scientific truth is always provisional in the sciences paradoxically labelled the hard sciences, and grows through explaining new or novel facts.
Karl Popper’s three maxims of good science always apply, which are test, test, test! A willingness to challenge what your believe demarks science from non-science.
The test of your status as a genuine participant in a scientific discourse is to be able to answer the question posed by Karl Popper: what evidence will make you give up your position?
An environment where people throw around labels like denier and alarmist is not conducive for scientists to either change their mind or decide they were still right in the first place.
Such unpleasantness encourages many to choose other careers or different sub-fields of study. John Abraham may have these doubts in the the back of his mind by now.
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.