![]() | ||
2011-09-28 04:17:56 | Massive Takedown of Monckton at Lucia's | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.162.53 |
||
2011-09-28 04:27:51 | ||
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
Nice to see lucia doing something constructive for a change ;-) | |
2011-09-28 07:10:36 | ||
MarkR Mark Richardson m.t.richardson2@gmail... 134.225.187.197 |
Oh God, another Energy & Environment thing with Kimoto... And a reference to Don Easterbrook's shitrag of a book. Can anyone get E&E papers, I'd be interesting in seeing Kimoto's steps for myself. | |
2011-09-28 09:32:32 | comment | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.162.53 |
Steven Mosher says he wants the credit for naming the creature | |
2011-09-28 09:52:12 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 91.33.125.141 |
Where do you find Mosher's comments? Unless we're participating in the discussion, I don't see why we should do a cartoon. Might be in poor taste anyway, from our point of view. But maybe if we could encourage them to do one ... | |
2011-09-28 10:17:22 | ||
Brian Purdue bnpurdue@bigpond.net... 121.218.161.146 |
Looks like my Monckton comment on SkS was good timing! | |
2011-09-28 10:43:37 | Moncktopus - that's gold! | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 130.102.158.12 |
Would certainly explain his aversion to shrimps. Not a big fan of SkS doing a cartoon mocking Monckton though. | |
2011-09-28 11:10:04 | ||
Brian Purdue bnpurdue@bigpond.net... 121.218.161.146 |
Why not Mocktopussy to give it a James Bond flavour. | |
2011-09-28 12:20:24 | ||
logicman logicman_alf@yahoo.co... 86.180.36.166 |
Now, now! Let's not sink to his level. No matter how cathartic it might be!
On the other hand: not a Monckton cartoon - well not totally
and then there is this: Serfs and other lower orders: "A comet! We are doomed!" Person drawn taller to show that he is very important: "It's only a pretty little dove." Serfs and other lower orders: "A dove! We are saved!" | |
2011-09-28 13:10:32 | ||
Brian Purdue bnpurdue@bigpond.net... 121.218.161.146 |
Should SkS get involved in Lucia - WUWT - Monckton fight seeing Monckton is at it again on WUWT? | |
2011-09-28 13:17:04 | ||
Brian Purdue bnpurdue@bigpond.net... 121.218.161.146 |
Sorry, should have sent this also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat/ | |
2011-09-28 16:43:10 | Reply to Monckton on Neoproterozoic | |
John Mason johntherock@btopenworld... 81.157.175.238 |
Watts may not pass my post in response to Monckton's arm-waving over Cryogenic dolomites, but another reader questioned it too. It's not half as simple as Monckton suggests. Here's my comment, in case Watts bins it, bristling with mainstream climate science applied to geology, for posterity! It's a fascinating area of geology and deserves more than the potty peer allows.... Cheers - John *********************************** “In the Neoproterozoic, 750 Ma BP, CO2 concentration (today <0.04%) was ~30%: otherwise the ocean’s magnesium ions could not have united with the abundance of calcium ions and with CO2 itself to precipitate the dolomitic rocks laid down in that era" | |
2011-09-28 17:54:27 | PS | |
John Mason johntherock@btopenworld... 81.157.175.238 |
PS - a bit more reading on that over the coming months and it could be worked into a rebuttal of that part of the Lord's ramblings. It is one he brings up frequently, and I think I've seen Plimer using it too.
I've done a piece on the late Ordovician ice-age already: http://www.geologywales.co.uk/storms/hirnantian.htm
Cheers - John | |
2011-09-29 00:55:38 | PS #2 | |
John Mason johntherock@btopenworld... 81.157.175.238 |
As if by magic, a denialist commentator on a Guardian thread has quoted Monckton on this verbatim, without attribution! It's sure been busy over there of late.... Cheers - John | |
2011-09-29 13:50:37 | ||
Glenn Tamblyn glenn@thefoodgallery.com... 124.176.249.163 |
I wouldn't touch this one. Lucia has done a good job on it but the topic is quite technical for the non mathematically inclined. And as part of a general policy of not commenting generally on things on other blogs unless there is a strong enough reason, this one doesn't have enough gravitas to merit it. Interesting thought with things like the approach from Al Gore's people, Al Jazeera etc. They could provide a lens through which to look at what we post on and why. Do we want posts relating to the closed world of the AGW blogosphere being sent out to wider audiences. Do we cloud what could otherwise be a clean message by letting a broader audience become exposed, perhaps for the first time, to the trench warfare? | |
2011-09-29 18:07:14 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 84.151.44.222 |
I agree with Glenn: the topic quite complicated even if you are mathematically inclined: you should have much more subject-specific knowledge to deal with it. In fact, I doubt that Lucia knows enough. But it's more than plausible that Monckton is making it all up, since he is very UNknowledgeable. Nonetheless, there's no need to put our oar in. wrt exposing the innocent to the world of AGW denial: I think we have to. We should always keep in mind the broader audience. | |
2011-09-29 23:10:23 | ||
John Mason johntherock@btopenworld... 81.157.175.238 |
The bit I'm more interested in is this Cryogenian stuff. Monckton has since elaborated he got it from Plimer in a new post (where he answers "Doug" but not me.... surprise surprise! "In the Neoproterozoic, 750 Ma BP, CO2 concentration (today <0.04%) was ~30%: otherwise the ocean’s magnesium ions could not have united with the abundance of calcium ions and with CO2 itself to precipitate the dolomitic rocks laid down in that era. Yet mile-high glaciers came and went twice at sea level at the equator." In the new thread, I have asked him how atmospheric pCO2 can have any effect at all on underwater chemical processes, given that they were separated by a mile of ice? It's just another example of a Monckton Sweeping Statement that does not bear up to scrutiny. Cheers - John | |
2011-09-30 01:47:04 | ||
Rob Honeycutt robhon@mac... 98.207.62.223 |
Actually I disagree with Neal and Glenn on this one. I think this is a perfect opportunity to take a very complex math issue and repackage it in a way that is decipherable for a more general audience. The problem here is that one of Monckton's gishgallop techniques is to wow the crowd with inpenetrable pedantic flourishes. Often he's not saying anything at all, he's just blustering through his vocabulary. Same with the latin and the math. He knows this technique works. People believe him even when they have absolutely no idea what he is saying. I even find Lucia's decostruction of Monckton pretty impenetrable. I don't know what they're talking about. It would be great if someone who did have some math background could further deconstruct the deconstruction and make common sense out of it. | |
2011-09-30 01:58:58 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 84.151.44.222 |
Rob H, The problem is finding someone in a good position to understand the original paper (not M's word-salad, but the paper he's relying on). From the excerpts Lucia has put out, my impression is that it would take considerable background in the subject matter to make sense of it. I do not think Lucia is well-grounded enough to really do it justice. She might be clever enough to detect POSSIBLE weak points, but I wouldn't trust her understanding of the physics. The danger, when you set out to refute something you barely understand, is that you may run into somebody who understands more about it than you do. Then, even if you're right and he's wrong, he can dance circles around you, so you have a very hard time to prove it. The threat wouldn't be from Monckton, who is blanketly incompetent: But if some champion emerges who understands just 50% of the paper and takes his side, it would be potentially very embarassing. This is a situation where we are better off waiting until someone who really is authoritative has spoken on the matter; and then providing an interpretation. Otherwise, it is just too risky. | |
2011-09-30 02:28:15 | ||
Rob Honeycutt robhon@mac... 98.207.62.223 |
I agree with that, Neal. Once we are comfortable that someone has unwrapped this mess accurately then it would be a great piece to communicate for a broader audience. | |
2011-09-30 03:34:56 | ||
John Mason johntherock@btopenworld... 81.157.175.238 |
John Abraham might be worth an approach - if he isn't already looking at this! Cheers - John |