2011-07-17 17:19:07URGENT: need best examples of Monckton contradicting the scientists he cites
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

UPDATE - have created a google spreadsheet that anyone who has the URL can edit:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apd6Dt_7N4k-dGFYOG84VzdxTHh4VWJKZ3VjQ2ctVmc&hl=en_US


Richard Denniss is debating Monckton on Tuesday and asked for the best examples of Monckton contradicting the very scientists he cites. I have till the end of Monday to get him some examples (he said just 3 examples would be plenty, he doesn't want a comprehensive list, just the cream of the crop). John Abraham touches on this in a recent blog post:

Monckton From the 1000 Scientists
“Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present.”

Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance."

Dr. Raymond Bradley responded, “No, I do not think there is evidence that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times.”

Dr. Andrew Lorrey told me that his paper “certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”

Dr. Rosanne D’Arrigo stated, “We do not believe that our work disproves” human-induced global warming.

Can anyone provide other examples of direct Monckton quotes (sources please) and a scientist disagreeing with Monckton's interpretation of his own work?

2011-07-17 17:33:19
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.61.193

Well, I remember him misrepresenting Dr Pinker a year or two back. Tim Lambert over at Deltoid dealt with a bit of that in his "debate". Here's the PDF linked to from Deltoid.

2011-07-17 18:04:27
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Yeah Pinker was a classic and probably started the whole Monckton misrepresents scientists thing off.

Tim also posted a video of the debate where Pinker was used.

2011-07-17 18:10:24
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Here are the videos of the Lambert debate where Pinker is used:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB5N8EtNCzA&list=PLECB5DBAEB957FD5C

2011-07-17 21:31:02
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Solanki et al 2004, Nature:

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3."

Monckton quotes:

"...the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode....." <--- Leaves out critical part.

The paper and Potholer54's video on it.

I would actually recommend going through Potholer54's videos on Monckton, several good examples there.  He gives all of the sources in the video description below.

2011-07-18 01:43:38
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Peter Sinclair's videos (example) also contains some good examples, IIRC he has done a few debunking Monckton.

I hope that Richard Denniss knows he is unlikely to win a debate with a liar and a cheat.

2011-07-18 02:29:16
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

That's what Abraham's presentation is chock full of.  http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

2011-07-18 02:50:32
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Oh, and don't forget Potholer's 5 part series... http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/14/fbW-aHvjOgM

In fact, part 5 specifically goes through a list of things Monckton gets wrong... http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/4/TRCyctTvuCo

2011-07-18 03:09:32
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I would also suggest to Richard to take some time to look at what information is available about himself out there.  Monckton is going to be doing his own research on him and looking for ways to exploit his weaknesses.  Monckton is very good at this.  Be prepared with responses.  Be prepared to deflect and redirect Monckton's talking points.  Be prepared for Monckton to try to talk over him, even if it's a debate format.  Monckton will sense the strength of the moderator and take advantages of any weaknesses there.

Monckton is a very skilled debater.  He's good at controlling the audience.  Be ready with a few jokes of your own.  Bring a tinfoil hat and present it to Monckton.

2011-07-18 06:09:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

"Bring a tinfoil hat and present it to Monckton."

Good ide Rob :)

2011-07-18 08:17:03
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You know, I actually think that would work really well... the tinfoil hat.  If you did it at the very first of the debate it would set him back on his heals.  Monckton has a tendency to get overly worked up.  And when he's worked up like this he's only credible to the very extreme elements of the crowd.  He'll also say almost anything at that point.  From there he pretty much digs his own grave, the way he did with the swastika episode.

The more we can all tag him with the extreme rhetoric the more he loses broader support.  That recent Wendy Carlisle piece from the ABC did a good job of highlighting his "fascism" rhetoric. (And it sounds like she had a bit of a scare in the process.)

2011-07-18 08:22:49
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.32.82

But her scare was from the fact that Monckton's worshippers were acting, well, a little bit like Brown Shirts.

2011-07-18 08:34:45
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Exactly, Neal.  I think Monckton is not mentally stable (I honestly think he is clinically a sick man).  He may sound in control but there are a lot of synapse misfiring inside that brain of his.  While it's important to point out his inaccuracies related to how he presents climate science it's equally as important to highlight his blatant extremism.  His extremism does just as much to undermine his credibility as anything.

2011-07-18 08:49:35Created google spreadsheet
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Note - have created a google spreadsheet that anyone who has the URL can edit:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apd6Dt_7N4k-dGFYOG84VzdxTHh4VWJKZ3VjQ2ctVmc&hl=en_US

So if anyone has time to add some examples, would be fantastic. I'll do some later today but I have to go out for a few hours so I only had time to quickly create the spreadsheet this morning.

2011-07-18 17:35:37Updated spreadsheet
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Okay, just went through John Abraham's entire talk, transcribed all the examples he cites and entered them into the spreadsheet. I've emailed this off to Richard Denniss to cite for his debate with Monckton tomorrow.

If anyone else wants to add to the spreadsheet or improve it, please do - the more the merrier and I'm thinking of working this into an SkS feature afterwards - perhaps a special page like http://sks.to/plimervsplimer

2011-07-18 21:40:56
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
81.145.248.22

Might as well post it here:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

 

That's him told!!!

 

Cheers - John

2011-07-18 22:55:28
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

@Rob, the definition of a delision is essentially a strong belief in something that is objectively false.  Monckton's claim to be a member of the house of lords "without a right to sit or vote" is objectively false - it isn't a matter of opinion; this has been pointed out to Monckton more than once (as John Mason mentioned), the fact that he still makes the claim is consistent with having a mild delusional disorder.  However it is also consistent with being a (failed) politician.