2012-02-08 23:34:56A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.215.212.33

http://www.skepticalscience.com/mishmash-Monckton-misrepresentation.html

Suggested opener to Dana's series of blog posts. Not sure whether we need this or not, and whether to foreshadow Dana's points. But I do like republicising the quotes from scientists so thought republishing it as a downloadable PDF might be a nice way to promote that resource again. Thoughts, comments?

2012-02-09 00:40:29
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Can you get more specific quotes and references to Monckton's statements?

2012-02-09 02:53:05
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

JC:

With all due respect to MarkR, your draft response is spot on. Yes, it is needed. People want to see what the Big Kahuna has to say.

 

2012-02-09 03:00:48
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

JC:

The fourth sentnce of the third paragraph now reads:

Over the next week, Skeptical Science will be examining in close detail the many instances of misrepresentation by Monckton in his response to our critique.

Suggested rewrite:

Over the course of the next few days, Skeptical Science will post detailed examinations of the many instances of misrepresentation by Monckton in his response to our critique.

 

2012-02-09 03:14:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Is Monckton's face supposed to appear on the left side of the PDF?  I only see a black box.

If you want to add some more, I've got a bunch of links at the bottom of Part 3 of our response.  There's also potholer's response on WUWT.

2012-02-09 04:45:30
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Given how hard it is to find on WUWT, perhps's pothoer's response should be cross-post on SkS?

I personally like JC's draft response because it is short and sweet. It doesn't need any bells and whistles.

2012-02-09 06:39:22Potholer's response
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.215.212.33

MarkR, the idea is non-specificity - saving up all the quotes for Dana's posts and setting the frame of "Monckton misrepresents..." in this one.

Actually, I would love to highlight Potholer somewhere in our series - would embedding a youtube in my post spoil the short & sweet aspect?

Dana, yes, will add Monckton's face. I created the flyer on the train home when a car drove into the boom gate so the train was stuck at the station for quite a while so I figured, might as well get some work done. But no internet access so no Monckton pic.

2012-02-09 07:23:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

What do you think about putting Peter's Monckton videos and his WUWT reponse into a Part 4 of this series, John?

2012-02-09 10:33:23Sure
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Bring it on - whichever SkSer is in contact with Peter should run the idea by him as well.

2012-02-09 11:01:29
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

JC:

Suggest that you insert a photo of Rodney Dangerfield and see if anyone notices that it's not Monckton.

2012-02-09 12:11:04
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
138.130.140.206

When does the curtain go up and the show begin? Needs to be soon so we use the energy from the wave Peter Hadfield has generated.

2012-02-09 12:23:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.109.172

Maybe post this one tomorrow?  Did you send that email off to Monckton, John?

2012-02-09 12:37:59
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
138.130.140.206

Should there be an oblique reference made to others who jumped on the Monckton bandwagon and knocked SkS and John Cook like Jo Nova (without mentioning them by name)?

2012-02-09 13:20:30Reference to bandwagoners
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Meh, the key strategy here is to drive home the message of Monckton misrepresentation - I'm happy to keep the focus on that.

After seeing Monckton's strategising in the board room, it seems to me cynical money making is more of a calculation than just pure ideology. He envisages himself as the spider in a centre of a worldwide network of deniers, making lots of money travelling the world and being part of the denier media circus. Very cynical and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I had more respect for him when I thought he was just an ideological loon (yes, I didn't think it was possible for my regard for Monckton to fall lower but it has this week).

What's the worst thing we can do to him? Tarnish his credibility by rending him an unreliable source of information. The best thing we could do is engage in a debate that raises his credibility. So how we frame this is crucial and sticking to a consistent, repeatable, simple message is key. 

Dana, will email Monckton tonight (having terrible problems with sending emails from campus today) and will BCC you.

2012-02-09 14:45:06
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.151.80.57

Nice!

suggestion - add missing words and revise punctuation:

But not resting on his laurels, there are a few new misrepresentations also.

But he is not resting on his laurels: there are a few new misrepresentations also.

2012-02-09 16:23:29
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

logic, just made your correction, thanks

BTW, St Thomas University just published a great piece on John Abraham which I've linked to from my blog post:

http://www.stthomas.edu/magazine/2012/Winter/abraham.html

Abraham. Scientist. Professor. Bad-ass climate action hero:

2012-02-09 20:39:31Word of caution
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.149.122

I think the post is good to go as is, but I think it needs to follow your post on the the Shub Niggurath/misquote issue.  Preferably it should follow it by about a week to give the issue time to settle again.  It will undoubtedly flair again when we accuse Monckton of out of context quotation, and if we have not conspicuously corrected out past errors, we will be flayed on that issue.

I will be trying to complete a review of the lead quotes from myth rebutals by Sunday evening at the latest, but would certainly appreciate a few others jumping in to lend a hand.

2012-02-14 16:46:21Shub issue
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

Hmm, now the dust has settled on that, I'm wondering whether it's worth elevating the whole issue. If someone brings it up, we can say "hey, we realised we'd made a mistake, we admitted to it, we corrected it, would love to see Monckton do the same with all his misrepresentations". Well, when I say "we", I mean "I" as it was my mistake.

Also, have updated the PDF for the Monckton vs the Scientists he cites document:

Feedback welcome and two questions - should I create a button to this document to go in the margin or alternatively if the margin is getting too crowded, Dana, what do you think of having a button at the top of your 3 posts linking to the PDF to highlight it some more. Your call, your posts.

Also, Dana, I never heard back from Monckton so we can go ahead and publish this on Thursday.

2012-02-14 16:58:22
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.231

You know, I should put the Monckton Myths button on the 3 posts.  But sure, we can also add a button to your PDF.

2012-02-18 12:43:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.108.231

This one's up tomorrow, by the way.

2012-02-20 14:35:31Shub Issue
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.173.31

John, I think you still need to publicly acknowledge the error, and publicly state what we are doing to correct it, and to ensure that it does not happen again.  This is not just a matter of appearance but of intellectual integrity, IMO.  As I have said before, everybody makes mistakes, but honest people correct them.  If we do not publicly correct the mistake, we thereby forgo our claim to be acting honestly in this debate.  (I am sorry to be pressuring you on this, but for me it is a very big issue.)

Viewed strictly in terms of perception, yes raising the issue again will let the deniers have another bash, but they will do so when we are visibly doing the right thing.  That will work against the deniers who raise the issue for anybody with half a brain and a willingness to use it (which unfortunately is not the majority of the population).  What is more, having pulled the tooth, if anybody raises it again we can just link and say old news.  In contrast, if we do not publicly acknowledge and correct the error, if somebody raises it and we say old news, they can and will point out that we have never publicly acknowledged or corrected the problem, and make play on that.  Shub already is.