Dead Monky - 11 June 2010 05:46 PM

I would have played with it just to get the stupid red lines from my spell checker to go away.  But I’m surprisingly not lazy about certain fairly random things.

Did you read it?

Maybe.

Looking good - but I’d also use one or two examples from Abraham’s presentation to give the reader a real understanding of Monckton’s dishonesty. Say:

- the IAU example
- examples where scientists email replies clearly contradict Monckton’s statements.

Mike from Oz - 14 June 2010 10:12 PM

Looking good - but I’d also use one or two examples from Abraham’s presentation to give the reader a real understanding of Monckton’s dishonesty. Say:

- the IAU example
- examples where scientists email replies clearly contradict Monckton’s statements.

Great point Mike!

Dead Monky - 11 June 2010 05:46 PM

I would have played with it just to get the stupid red lines from my spell checker to go away.  But I’m surprisingly not lazy about certain fairly random things.

Did you read it?

Dead Monky - 14 June 2010 02:41 PM

Maybe.

So this begs the question: Are you an interesting character or just a tease?
do you have anything to add or are you just sniping?

I’m not trying to be mean, you are on my fun people list, just honest

asanta - 14 June 2010 11:31 PM

Mike from Oz - 14 June 2010 10:12 PM

Looking good - but I’d also use one or two examples from Abraham’s presentation to give the reader a real understanding of Monckton’s dishonesty. Say:

- the IAU example
- examples where scientists email replies clearly contradict Monckton’s statements.

Great point Mike!

I hadn’t realized this thread got reactivated recently and actually read that essay for the first time in a week this morning,
so it’s a great time to bring it up.
ok then.  I thought I was going to be moving on, but I guess a couple more rereads are in order.

thanks

Good idea but it adds nearing 200 words - I’m at just under 1100 now.
The questions is how to find someone to publish it

The other problem I could have added another 500 words describing the facts of the smack down.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

coming in at paragraph 7. . .
. . .

... With that introduction PhD. Abraham proceeds down the list of Monckton’s claims. While examining these claims and graphs two trends become obvious, one is that Monckton disagrees with all major scientific organizations who have official positions on climate change - portraying himself as the lone valiant warrior of truth battling against everyone else’s conspiracy of lies. The other being that Monckton consistently misrepresents the scientific work (along with graphs) of other scientists.

For example (slide #22-24 ), regarding the “medieval warming period”. Monckton condemns the 1990 & 2001 IPCC reports for hiding the data, but he’s basing that on studies that were not published until between 2002 and 2006. (#25 ) Monckton then claims 700 scientist say MWP was hotter than today. Among them showing graphs by Huang 1998, Noon 2003, Keigwin 1996, Esper/Schweingruber 2004. (#26-32 ) Abraham contacted these scientists and shares a pile of quotes making clear that everyone of these scientists is concerned about global warming and that it is real and of concern and that MWP was cooler than today’s trend. At slide #33 Monckton’s claims that IPCC’s published climate sensitivity estimate rests on just 4 scientific papers - when in fact the number of references in a single chapter of a single part of the report is 275 (C1-wg1), there are 43 chapters in total. It goes on and on. But, perhaps what sums it up best is slide #36: NASA-GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index - 1880 2009. I won’t be a spoiler, check it out for yourself.

This exposer of Lord Monckton’s base dishonesty continues for another eighty slides. Yet, Monckton shamelessly continues broadcasting proven lies, somehow feeling justified in using graphs that are falsifications and misrepresenting the real science others have worked hard to gather. What’s most troubling is how typical he is of the operating style of the multi-million dollar Global Warming Denial propaganda campaign in general.

Given Professor Abraham’s thorough smack down of myths presented as scientific truth, I’m reminded of my virtual AGW conversation mates, with their obstinate refusal to acknowledge a single error of judgment, or take into consideration any of the ominous data being gathered these days. What’s going on? Have “global warming skeptics” become so blinded by immediate self interest, or perhaps frozen by fear at this self-created brave new world we are entering, that they believe hiding is a better strategy?

Ultimately the question is: Are “global warming skeptics” even capable of responding to data and factual arguments or is it a hopeless “faith-based” position they cling to… rather than an exercise in genuine skepticism about the data?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mike, thanks for the suggestion

So this begs the question: Are you an interesting character or just a tease?
do you have anything to add or are you just sniping?

I’m not trying to be mean, you are on my fun people list, just honest

You know, I’m not even entirely sure what we’re talking about anymore.  (I’m not even sure I knew to begin with.  I know my early comment about playing with the spellchecker to get rid of the red lines was just being honest.  I hate those things and want them to go away.  I wasn’t trying to take a shot or anything.  And then I said “maybe” because I wasn’t entirely sure what we were talking about anymore.

CC - send me the essay in full, and I’d love to post on my site.

Cheers mate

Mike

Dead Monky - 18 June 2010 02:47 PM

You know, I’m not even entirely sure what we’re talking about anymore.

Guess I was just curious if you had any original thoughts to add or if you’re just into sniping

citizenschallenge - 19 June 2010 02:46 PM

Dead Monky - 18 June 2010 02:47 PM

You know, I’m not even entirely sure what we’re talking about anymore.

Guess I was just curious if you had any original thoughts to add or if you’re just into sniping

I thought it was

“A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton”

...but then again, I might be wrong!!

Guess I was just curious if you had any original thoughts to add or if you’re just into sniping  

I can be a little inconsistent.  Sometimes you’ll get a full on rambling lecture about something (or at least a barely coherent collection of questions and observations) and other times you’ll get a snide jab and a hand shake.  A lot of it depends on the topic.  I.e. how well I understand the topic, how much I care about the topic, etc.  Though a fair bit also depends on my mood and well I can articulate my thoughts on it.  Some days I have real trouble staying focused and organizing my thoughts.  I frequently start writing posts that explain my ideas only to delete them when I can’t get what I want to say out in a way that makes sense.

I also skip things if I don’t think I have anything to add or if someone else already covered what I was going to say.  And I like to throw in some jabs and sarcasm if I think a discussion has gone stagnant or circular.

But I’ll go back and look this over again and see what I can see.

It was an interesting enough overview of an actual scientist’s rebuttal of a soap-boxing demagogue.  I’m not entirely sure what else to say about it though.

Dead Monky - 21 June 2010 11:04 AM

Sometimes you’ll get a full on rambling lecture about something (or at least a barely coherent collection of questions and observations) and other times you’ll get a snide jab and a hand shake.

That’s cool, and hey I did get you to look at it again, it’s all in good fun bro, besides having someone interested in your thoughts ain’t so bad - is it ey.           
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mike from Oz thank you for posting my essay at
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/
(9-22-10)
PS I heard a rumor that Greenman3610 is encouraging Prof. Abraham to do a review of Carter next.  Now that would be really interesting considering that Carter is actually a scientist, though with some really wacked ideas.  And then I would encourage him to get to Lindzen.  What the hell he could give up his research and teaching and make a full time career out of dissecting these charlatans…. just kidding. 

What we really need is more first class scientists getting into some critical review projects of their own.

Recently, in the course of some research {I’m into LM’s “science” slides now}, I came on this letter again and thought it was worth adding to the above post.  It’s Professor Abraham replying to Monckton’s missive - yes, the one where the Lord demanded $110,000 in damages.  It speaks for itself:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html

Sunday, 6 June, 2010
Abraham reply to Monckton
Guest post by John Abraham

Dear Mr. Monckton, 

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my presentation. I encourage people to view both of our arguments and make their own conclusions. I stand by my work and welcome judgment by the public and the scientific community. My intention as a professional scientist is to help provide a public disclosure of your scientific methods. I continue to believe that your work seriously misrepresents the science upon which you rely.

I would like to briefly address some matters which you raised. First, I will address your comments about my credentials. To begin, let me identify some of the subjects which are critical to understanding our world’s climate. Climate processes involve radiation, convection, and conduction heat transfer. In addition, fluid mechanics governs the flow of the atmosphere and the oceans. Chemistry is critical to understanding chemical reactions which take place in both the oceans and the atmosphere. Quantum mechanics deals with the interaction of airborne molecules and photons (radiation). Geology and its related subjects are important for many reasons, including the study of past climate (paleoclimatology). Skills in numerical simulation are essential for the creation and operation of models which allow scientists to predict climate change. There are other subspecialties which are also important; this is only a partial list.

I am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas, a private, Catholic university in Minnesota. I have taught courses in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, numerical simulation, and thermodynamics. Topics in my courses include radiation, convection, and conduction, the same physical processes which govern energy flows in the climate. My PhD thesis dealt with combined convection and radiation heat transfer. My thesis is held in the library at the University of Minnesota, it is available to the public.

My published works span many topics including convective heat transfer, radiative heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and numerical simulation. My work on numerical simulation is at the very forefront of computational fluid dynamic (cfd) modeling. I am an expert in non-linear fluid simulations. My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics.

In addition to academic research, I am an active consultant in industry. I have designed wind turbines, built and tested geothermal cooling systems, studied the potential of biofuels to replace petroleum, and designed and created solar-radiation shields for buildings in desert climates. Taken together, I believe that I have the background required to discuss the issues of energy and the environment.

Next, your written reply to my work focused on a small number of my original points; I will discuss just a few of them here. Throughout this discussion, it must be recognized that you have not addressed the many serious scientific lapses which were present in your presentation.
  1.  You correctly pointed out that in your presentation, you stated that you were “boring” whereas I stated you were “bored”. I apologize for misquoting you. In this regard, the point you were trying to make is that there is no consensus on global warming. You cited three search words and a range of years (2004-2007). Since the purpose of my presentation was to show that audience members have the capacity to investigate claims for themselves, I used a publically available academic search engine (GOOGLE SCHOLAR). I showed that there are many papers that can be found dealing with the dangers of climate change, using your search parameters. I invite readers to reproduce my search results and read the abstracts of those papers and come to their own conclusion. Your assertion that these papers existed, but that they did not provide “evidence for catastrophe” was, in my mind, unconvincing.
  2.  You suggested that your temperature graphs referencing your own organization were properly cited. I disagree. It is the obligation of a scientist to show the original source of data, your work did not meet this standard.Citing your own organization is, in my view, improper, particularly since your organization was not involved in obtaining the data.
  3.  I showed a number of slides which had no attribution. I note that among the totality of unattributed slides, you agree with me on all but one. You correctly point out that one had the letters “UAH” listed. I can assure you that I understand UAH refers to University of Alabama Huntsville. I continue to believe that a proper citation would include a journal in which this data was published with a volume number and pages.