2011-07-20 08:55:04Monckton-Dennis debate
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I found a copy of the debate on Youtube. [Here]

Dennis did quite well.  But boy does Monckton gish gollop it to the max.  

Denniss did well to not attempt to attack Monckton on facts.  What a pointless endeavor because he spouts off so much inaccurate BS. Instead Denniss stuck to being very polite and instead focussed on the general scientific consensus and how we approach making decisions in the face of uncertainty.

Great quotes from Denniss:

"In Australia we have just voted to spend $50 billion (billion with a "B") to build 12 new submarines to replace the 6 older ones that we haven't used yet. And no one is quite certain who we need these to protect us from, and no one is sure what day we will need them, and no one is quite certain where we should park them on that day, and if you listen to the Navy we aren't certain if we'll have enough crew to staff them. But whenever it comes to making decisions about national defense, whenever the decision comes up about our health, whenever the consequences are catastrophic, what sensible people do is take the conservative path."

"We have to decide whether we bet the house on the hope that Chris Monckton is correct, or we choose to insure the house on the chance that the scientists are right."

2011-07-20 09:05:15I tweeted that last quote which I thought was golden
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Except I didn't quite get the wording right :-(

Richard's strategy was very clever. He didn't try to defeat Monckton. He tried to persuade the audience. An effective strategy.

Although a more effective strategy would've been not to have given Monckton a podium in the first place. Denniss subtly made this point, asking if the media should be giving equal attention to skeptics of vaccines or the moon landing. Lousy National Press Club!

2011-07-20 09:26:33
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I really think that's a powerful message that Denniss put together.  It doesn't rely on people needing to understand the complexities of the science, which 99.9% of the population will never comprehend.  It doesn't even rely on deciding who is right.  When we are not sure, "...sensible people take the conservative path."

Maybe it's the economists who can bridge the idealogical gulf.

2011-07-20 09:36:24
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Here was the Monckton statement that made me scream out loud when he said it....

Paraphrased:  "If you look at the temperature record going back to 1750 until now the global temperature has risen approximates 0.9C.  If you look at the rise in CO2 during that same period there has roughly been a doubling of CO2, therefore this is consistent with the low end estimation for climate sensitivity of 1.0C for a doubling of CO2."

Why a 35% increase is a "doubling" I will never know.

2011-07-20 10:26:19
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

You and I started a very similar thread! oops!

I think it's worth replying yet again to all his lies.

What truly annoyed me was his plea for the reporters to support the scared Aussies... 4FS! It's people like him and Tony Abbott that have got them scared and angry in the first place on a whole bunch of ridiculous claims!

Stephan Lewandowsky said it best here.

The other point that bugged me is that both fixated on Consensus. Monckton again employed the "orthodoxy" angle.

It's nothing like the, "heavier than air flight is impossible" of yesteryear as that was untested. The ACC theory is the result of over a century of investigation, many thousands of research hours and countless data. Every question has been asked [ie. 'is it the sun?', 'is it other gases?', 'is it cosmic rays?' etc] and been rejected - leaving us with a treasure trove of independent sources of evidence all pointing to the high likelihood of ACC. Monckton even brings up that it only takes one study to undo this theory, yet he completely ignores the fact that the chances of this occurring today is exceedingly slim as so many avenues have been explored. It’s unreasonable doubt in light of the wealth of evidence that supports the theory. As Dr Nurse puts it,

"Consensus can be used like a dirty word. Consensus is actually the position of the experts at the time and if it’s working well – it doesn’t always work well – but if it’s working well, they evaluate the evidence. You make your reputation in science by actually overturning that, so there’s a lot of pressure to do it. But if over the years the consensus doesn’t move you have to wonder is the argument, is the evidence against the consensus good enough."

How this bloke continues in this manner, I'll never understand. For someone whom is fixated on applying Godwin's law at all social gatherings, it's amazing just how much his own speeches are designed to inspire hate, anger and fear in the audience. Listening to this podcast, where being an ABC reporter at one of his gathering could lead you to being attacked, it's clear what he's about and how disgusting his morality clearly is.

 

 

2011-07-20 11:23:57
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I think you're right Moth, it's worth going through and identifying all the lies he tells in this debate.  It's great that Denniss took the high road.  But there's also no reason to let Monckton skirt the truth.

2011-07-20 11:58:22
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

If you give me an email address, I've drafted something up for New Anthro and I can invite you to comment on it.

2011-07-20 12:08:09
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Done.  robhon@mac.com

2011-07-20 12:19:21
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

Cheers mate - will be thru in a few minutes!

2011-07-20 13:16:33
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

Cheers for the feedback Rob.

I only put Rob H - but am happy to exand it for your full name (some people are worried about the trolls knowing their name).

I'll include Potholers clip (referenced it a number of times - he's a crack up on both climate and creationism). I'm not sure how I could use that about the media and climate scientists other than how I have (in the podcast, when she's attacked by the crowd, you can hear Monckton calling ABC fascists - which fits in with the reporter being attacked).

Everything around this bloke is vile.

2011-07-20 13:23:39
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I'd say keep it as Rob H. 

I've been a big potholer fan for a while.  He really is a top notch reporter.  Too bad he couldn't have been there at the National Press Club debate.

Monckton really is just awful.  

2011-07-20 14:00:45
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.238

I wouldn't mind doing a post refuting Monckton's myths in the debate.  An hour long though - not sure when I'd have time to sit down and transcribe all the relevant quotes.  Maybe this weekend.

2011-07-20 14:04:19
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

Gone live

https://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/moncktons-gish-gallop-over-richard-dennis/

Thanks again Rob!

2011-07-20 14:06:03
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

Dana1981,

I've done the first half - I didn't do the questions. Happy, if you'd like to cover them, to post it on New Anthro.

Richard's looked into also http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/?page_id=312#comment-2167

2011-07-20 14:37:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.238

Oh dude, a Tim Minchin quote.  You rock, moth! Or I guess I should say, you are so f-ing rock :-)

If I do a post on this (hopefully I'll have time this weekend), you're more than welcome to re-post on New Anthro.

2011-07-20 16:09:57
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

Good stuff mate!

Yeah - you can't go past Minchin for putting the boot-on for reason! That whole "Storm" poem is pure gold.

Always glad to post anything relevant - we need to keep the fight up against this misinformers!

2011-07-20 17:36:02
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

"We have to decide whether we bet the house on the hope that Chris Monckton is correct, or we choose to insure the house on the chance that the scientists are right."

Some people wouldn't pay insurance unless they were made to by the mortgage company or in the case of cars the government (in the UK at least, I don't know if the same applies elsewhere). eg. some form of regulatory system insists that those that might be tempted to avoid insurance, fork out the cash to pay for it.

If we listened to those that didn't want to pay, then the system might collapse.

2011-07-20 20:20:17Monckton vs Monckton
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229
If you blog about this debate, would love to quote his "back to the equations" with his equating a 35% increase to a doubling of CO2. Perhaps we could do an equations class for Monckton. Eg - point out that CO2 has gone from 275 ppm to 385 ppm - CO2 has increased by 40%. So show this equation

40% != 100%

But that's a bit snarky - Dana would be well within his rights to say I'm letting my emotions get the better of me by being annoyed by Monckton's smug equations line. :-)

2011-07-21 01:03:56
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Hey Dana...  Even though it's an hour long Monckton really doesn't make a lot of points.  He's most jabbing back at the press who are taking, and have taken, him to task for his prior comments and his continued statements that he's a "non-voting" member of the house of lords.

I'll watch it again today and see if I can write up each of the actual scientific points he tries to make.

The doubling of CO2 is the big one, though.  It's like he went to take his free throw (basketball) and lined up on the free throw line facing the wrong direction and confidently tried to hit the net on the other side of the court. 

2011-07-21 01:12:33
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

It's like he went to take his free throw (basketball) and lined up on the free throw line facing the wrong direction and confidently tried to hit the net on the other side of the court.

I think I've seen a video of someone doing that :-)
Unless it was faked??

2011-07-21 01:19:05
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Actually I think the video I saw was of a teenager doing a somersault with a basket ball and getting a basket with a throw from the other side of the court.

2011-07-21 01:34:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I think that we have dealt with this "doubling issue" before, IIRC was he not claiming that CO2-equivalent levels had doubled, or something like that?

2011-07-21 01:39:50
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Alby...  Not sure I know what you mean.  Monckton states that "there has been a near doubling of CO2 concentrations."  Does he have a spin on that?

2011-07-21 01:43:03
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Paul D - Sigourney Weaver does something similar in Alien Resurrection (IMDB claims she actually made the shot on the first take... yeah, right! ;o)

 

Monckton making a factually correct scientific statement is even less likely though!

2011-07-21 01:56:47
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Rob,

Like I said, I could be remembering wrong, but in the past I recall Monckton having conflated the two.  But if he specifically said "near doubling of CO2 concentrations", then there is absolutely no wiggle room.  Perhaps he is just very, very confused ;)

2011-07-21 01:58:15
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Let's say it this way.  Monckton lines himself sideways to the free throw line and stands there angrily asking who moved the basket.

I googled around a bit and I can't find this claim that CO2 has already doubled from Monckton.  Peter Hadfield points out in his videos that Monckton uses various figures for climate sensitivity. He says, 1.6C, he says 1/5C (0.2C), his "paper" says 0.58C and in this debate he's saying yet another figure of 1C.

Again, Monckton doesn't even seem to agree with Monckton.

2011-07-21 02:02:44
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Alby...  Here is the video again.  Go to minute 41:00 and have a listen.  I'll retype it word for word in a moment....

2011-07-21 02:11:04
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Monckton at minute 41:00...

"If we go back to 1750, how much warming has there been since then?  Well using the central England temperature record as a proxy for global temperature - it's not bad for that purpose, it's the right latitude - we've had 0.9C of warming in response to an addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by us which is almost equivalent to a doubling of CO2 concentrations.  That's going to give you around 1C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration."

That is word for word exactly what he said.

2011-07-21 02:36:30
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Albie is right - the fudge word here is "equivalent".  This is the Lindzen argument that CO2-equivalent has almost doubled (around an 85% increase last I checked), which completely ignores the fact that aerosols have also increased, and have probably at least offset the non-CO2 GHG increase.

Monckton deftly switches from "almost equivalent to a doubling of CO2" to "per doubling of CO2".  Clever, but physically wrong.  It's essentially the same as Lindzen's "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected" which I've tackled several times previously.  That argument pisses me off because it's so damn blatantly deceptive - only looking at warming effects and ignoring all cooling effects.

Rob - for this sort of rebuttal I like to have the exact quotes I'm responding to, so people can see exactly what Monckton said.  I did get the impression from moth's post that there's not much content there.  The time consuming part will be sitting down and transcribing the relevant Monckton quotes (the ones that need debunking) over the hour of the debate (just like you've got at the 41 minute mark there).

If you or someone else has time to do it, I'd greatly appreciate it, and give you a tip of the hat in the post :-)  Otherwise I think I'll have time on Saturday.

2011-07-21 02:50:11
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  I'm working on it right now.  The real gish gallop is in the first 10 mins in his opening remarks.  I'm getting the basic gist of each argument right now.  If you want to tackle any of them I can go into that part and get it word for word.

2011-07-21 02:57:22
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Rob,

Many thanks for chasing that down Rob....not a fun job, so much appreciated.

Oh FFS.  Monckton is a slippery as all heck.  Dana is right, this is the same BS that Lindzen has tried to pull in the past, and it also neglects the lag IIRC.

Would be good to include his self ontradiction as noted by you @21 Jul 2011, 1:58 AM.

2011-07-21 03:05:02Monckton's opening gish gallop
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This is a rough version.  For exact quotes I would have to go back in an transcribe more carefully...

13:18 -  Climate is not predictable in the long term.  The IPCC says that the climate is a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system and therefore climate can not be predicted in the long term.

 13:38 -  The Royal Society has now rewritten its statement on climate change to say that we do not know how much the planet will warm as a result of our activities.

 14:00…  - Statements about scientifically historic figures confirming that you can't use a scientific consensus 

 16:00 -  Why would we listen to those who say there was no MWP when those same scientists are now under criminal investigation?

 16:14  -  The 1995 UN report was written by just one man, stated exactly opposite from the scientists' final draft, stated 5 times that no human contribution to temperature change was discernible or foreseeable.

 16:30  -  Why does the 2007 UN report employ a completely fraudulent statistical technique to show that the world is warming ever faster…?

 16:40  -  And why do we suddenly think that we are going to get 3.3C of warming for 2XCO2, or the Australian gov estimation of 5.1C, when all the measurements that have been taken using actual evidence, rather than modeling, show just 1C.

 17:25 - In the London insurance market we say that if the cost of the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don't insure.

 17:40 -  That brings me to the carbon tax and the mineral resources rent tax.  Now both of these are going to cost more than letting global warming happen in the first place.  How much global warming will a 5% reduction in emissions, which will result in 1.2% global emissions.  0.06% of global carbon emissions emitted over the next 10 years….

 19:05 - If you were to apply Gillard's plan it would cost $60,000 per person around the world just in the next 10 years, or 60% of global GDP just to forstall the 0.23C that the IPCC predicts will occur over the next 10 years.  This is the consensus, if you do science by consensus, in the economic literature.  And it's in the peer reviewed literature that find the true science.  There is near unanimity among economists that it most costly to intervene than to adapt.

2011-07-21 03:15:05
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.199

Three questions I would ask Monckton in a live debate:

 

1 - can you provide any independent evidence to prove that you were once an adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher ?

 

2 - do you still stand by your assertion published in 2006 that "There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none." ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html

http://www.1421exposed.com/

 

3 - are you prepared to apologize to all the people you have misled by falsely claiming to be a mamber of the House of Lords ?

2011-07-21 03:35:42
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

logicman - I don't have a real problem believing Monckton was at some point an advisor to Mrs T, but I very much doubt that he was ever a scientific advisor, given that she has much better scientific qualifications than he ever will.

2011-07-21 03:48:28
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

logicman...  That House of Lords issue came up in this debate.  Monckton flatly rejects the House of Lords statement saying there is no such thing as a "non-voting member" of the House of Lords.  He just says, "Get used to it."

It would be interesting if the House of Lords had some legal recourse but I doubt they do.

2011-07-21 08:04:46if the House of Lords had some legal recourse
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.199

Rob:  You can be sure that they do.  It is a contempt of Parliament to disobey, without reasonable excuse, a lawful order of the House or a committee.  The House of Lords has power to imprison indefinitely.

Monckton has been ordered officially to stop representing himself as a member of the House of Lords.  He refuses to do so.

 

It is as clear as it can be that Monckton has indeed presented himself as an active member of the House of Lords.

 

“As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - ..."

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22430/Dishonest_Political_Tampering_with_the_Science_on_Global_Warming.html

 

Dikran: Monckton, like his father and grandfather before him was engaged in propaganda on behalf of various British governments.  His brother-in law worked for MI6.  At the time of Margaret Thatcher's government Monckton was an alleged newspaper reporter.  That is, at risk of being accused of being a conspiracy nut, I think he may have been working as a newspaper reporter at the behest of MI6.  It has always been a favorite with MI6 to employ media people.  Newspaper reporters do not generally arouse suspicion if they ask lots of questions.  The ploy certainly worked with "H. P. Smolka" who travelled communist Siberia as a "Times correspondent".

 

There is no evidence other than his own affirmation that he ever worked - in any capacity whatsoever - as an adviser to Mrs. Thatcher or to any member of her government.  He once took the minutes of a non-governmental tory think tank and was later invited to join that group - but that does not count as being an adviser to Mrs. Thatcher.

 

Quite apart from his seeming inability to tell fact from fiction, his smug and superior attitude just p****s me off.

2011-07-21 08:10:45
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Maybe they'll throw him in the clink as a bunkmate with Murdoch.

One can always dream... :-)

2011-07-21 10:01:29
mothincarnate

wow.the.moth@gmail...
192.43.227.18

I've included about the doubling in my post, but in only minor detail, because what I saw of the video (only the two presentations - up to around 20mins in), he mentioned it, but doesn't explain it in detail.

I agree with Rob - that direct quote from 41mins in is wrong and should loudly be said as such. As Potholer54 points out with Mad Monckton's confusion over sensitivity and forcing, he'll probably try to slyly wash over it.

But there is a post there.

We should clarify this misinformation. Both stating that CO2 increases have only been around 35%, while CO2e has been greater and that also aerosols have also increased, dampening the GH effect - much like China's doing now.

I'm with logicman - Monckton really gets under my skin the same way door knockers used to when they smugly smiled when I informed them I was a biology student.

However, Monckton's lies are dangerous to future generations and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and not speak up again his stupidity and demonisation of hard working scientists.

2011-07-22 13:18:01Global warming sceptic Monckton defends title
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Global warming sceptic Monckton defends title

(AFP) – 1 day ago 

SYDNEY — High-profile climate change sceptic Lord Monckton has reacted defiantly to a request from London to stop claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, telling the chamber to "get used to it".

The outspoken Monckton inherited his title after the passing of the House of Lords Act in 1999 which stripped hereditary peers from their automatic right to sit and vote in the chamber.

But Monckton claims the Act is flawed and unconstitutional and still refers to himself as a member of the upper house, though admittedly one "without the right to sit or vote".

Questioned on his membership in Australia on Tuesday, Monckton defended his credentials by brandishing his British passport which refers to the holder as "the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley".

"The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am -- get used to it," Monckton told journalists in Canberra where he was taking part in a debate on climate change.

Clerk of the Parliaments David Beamish wrote to Monckton on July 15 asking him to cease claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication.

"You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords," the open letter published on the parliamentary website said.

"Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms."

While no one would deny Monckton was a hereditary peer, this was an entirely separate issue to membership of the House, the letter continued.

But Monckton, in Canberra to campaign against Australia's carbon tax, brushed off questions on the matter as "futile and drivelling", and called on the British parliament to publish his response on its website.

"They have not so far found the courage so far to answer," he said.

2011-07-22 14:00:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

".....[Monckton] called on the British parliament to publish his response on its website."

Why would they give him the satisfaction and attention?  Why wrestle with a pig? Them not publishing his response is clearly driving him nuts, so their approach is working very nicely :)

2011-07-22 16:12:56
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.153.224

'... by brandishing his British passport which refers to the holder as "the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley"'

 

How about that.  The man is so dishonest that even his passport lies. (Refering of course, to 'right honourable'.)

2011-07-23 11:38:18
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.176.146.78

I wonder - does Monckton's passport show his occupation as 'lexicological prestidigitator' ?

2011-07-24 02:46:30
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

This over at Climate Shifts:

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6794

'During the program, Lord Monckton was recorded telling an audience: “So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you. We are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up.”'

2011-07-24 04:39:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.238

Does anyone know WTF Monckton is talking about in these points?

16:14  -  The 1995 UN report was written by just one man, stated exactly opposite from the scientists' final draft, stated 5 times that no human contribution to temperature change was discernible or foreseeable.

 16:30  -  Why does the 2007 UN report employ a completely fraudulent statistical technique to show that the world is warming ever faster…?

2011-07-24 04:49:37
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Dana...  On the first one there's an SPPI blog post that says the same thing but there are no sources that I see on first glance.

http://sppiblog.org/news/a-non-problem-spun-up-into-a-global-crisis

2011-07-24 04:51:50
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

The second one I think comes from his buddy McIntyre...

http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

2011-07-24 12:38:17
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.156.7

Dana, I beleive this denier page summarizes the 2nd Assessment report claim:

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm

 

IN essence the claim is that Ben Santer rewrote chapter 8 of the 2nd assessment report, WG1 to assert a detectable anthropogenic signal when the draft chapter in fact claimed the opposite. 

2011-07-24 15:34:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.238
Thanks Tom. Whatever, I'm not really interested in arguing about what did or didn't happen in the IPCC report drafting process 16 years ago. Deniers need to get the hell over it.
2011-07-24 16:58:13
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.183.178.176

For better background check out this talk by Ben Santer

=========

YouTube Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on May 13, 2010
PhD. Ben Santer and the climate debate -
“The General Public: Why Such Resistance?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTsc3jV1Otw

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've got some notes of the talk, with time signatures over at my blog

 

(February 25, 2010) Ben Santer, a research scientist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, discusses the recent problems with the use of the freedom of information act for non-US citizens to demand complete records, including emails, on scientific research projects. Santer posits that this is a dangerous dilemma that will ultimately inhibit scientific research.

This course was originally presented in Stanford's Continuing Studies program.

Stanford University:
http://www.stanford.edu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTsc3jV1Otw


{ Schneider - Gives a little background to “the IPCC’s first ugly scene”
Ben Santer’s Report on the “Finger Prints” of human activity on climate.}

1:30 "Basically those finger prints pointed to a discernible impact of human activities on climate. This triggered a massively ugly scene, at the, it was the first ugly scene at the IPCC history at a plenary session. Which is where the hundreds of politicians get together and have to agree to the IPCC Summary For Policy Makers word for word. And the guy being attacked was him (Santer). So it was because of this chapter saying there was a “discernible impact”, though that word came out later ...

"The chief Saudi negotiator basically said this was bad science, tried to drive a wedge between north and south countries, was very effectively doing it. And there was what is called a Contact Group, which is where when you can not agree on the plenary, you go off and negotiate. We negotiated like all day to get this language right."

2:30 "Now the Saudis who made all the fuss and the Kuwaities never sent anybody. And they add many, many delegates. And this one guy from Kenya came, and he had actually proposed dropping the entire chapter because he believed the Saudi.... this was the southern solidarity. Now this guy, he was meteorologist, not a famous science star, came and he watch the entire day and changed his mind and decided the process was fair and open.

"So we go back and the normal practice in IPCC after a Contact Groups where the group agrees, is that the text is put up there on a screen. And it is pro-forma accepted because if you started fighting over it again you’d never get out.

"Well of course the Saudi’s immediately raise their hands and Al-Saban starts in: this is unacceptable to us."

3:15 "So Ben had the temerity, this mere scientist to say: “But, Sir your delegation made the most noise and you did not even have anyone at the group.
And El-Saban slams his fist on the table and (exclaims): I’m a representative of a sovereign country, you’re just a scientist, you can not talk to me like that and we’re a small delegation, we didn’t have time!"

3:35 "The Kenyan guy raises his flag, my stomach is in knots, and he get and says, I’m a small delegation, I’m it. But I was convinced by the Saudi’s that this was really important, so I went. I’m now satisfied the lead authors are correct and I withdraw my objection and urge everyone to vote for it. And it passed."

3:55 "Then the Wall Street Journal started. . . scientific cleansing
4:00 "Because in an IPCC report, every single meeting is about revising language. So at the direction of the plenary he (Dr. Santer) corrected the language, to which these guys at the Wall Street Journal redacted the components... that were caveats, therefore this was a distortion of that."

===============

 

Oh, for what it's worth, here's a copy of:

Seitz’s Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996, Op-Ed

Ben Santer’s censored reply ~ Wall Street Journal letter to Ed, June 25, 1996

IPCC’s censored reply ~ Wall Street Journal letter to Ed, June 25, 1996

 

{#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination

 

2011-07-24 17:23:52A quick personal note,
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
166.183.178.176

{Friends, my "sabbatical" of personal time for myself and my own concerns is over and I'm back to wage slaving full time.  Really cuts down on my wannabe reading/writing time.  I'm a carpenter, slash handy man, slash plumber, slash painter... among other tradesmen skills.

I mention this because i don't want anyone thinking my passion and concern for this issue is fading... it's just that life takes its own path.  Besides, I appreciate I don't have much to offer, but at times I still hope to strive to be a valuable cheerleader, so to speak  ;-)  }

 

Peter M

2011-07-25 04:22:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.238

Oh yeah thanks CC, I remember reading about that in Schneider's book.  Just didn't connect the dots there.  I'll add a discussion about that as well.