![]() | ||
2011-01-13 21:36:18 | Monckton strikes again | |
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.154.212 |
Monckton's newest "paper" is "Alarming Warming? Reality Trumps Dire Predictions". In it he makes the following claims:
| |
2011-01-14 03:57:28 | not more Monckton! | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.252 |
Geez, if Monckton keeps this up we may need to do Monckton Myths on a daily basis all year! | |
2011-01-14 10:40:01 | Rethinking daily posts | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.100.112 |
I'm starting to rethink whether we should do this on a daily basis or maybe one new Monckton Myth every other day or so. For two reasons. Firstly, it might get a bit monotonous - all Monckton, all the time. So we should break up the Monckton Mash with other stuff. Secondly, seeing that Monckton has already churned out another load of hogwash, this ties in with another line of thought I've been having of late. Over the last year, I've been coming to the realisation that this is going to be a marathon, not a sprint. The denial disinformation campaign is not going to go away without a huge, bare knuckle brawl. They will fight harder and harder as we get closer to climate legislation. A few years ago, I thought Skeptical Science would be obselete and irrelevant by now. Obviously, that is not the case and now I'm trying to steel myself for a long, drawn out campaign. I'm mindful of burning out and trying to get a balanced, sustainable lifestyle. So long story short, the Monckton Myth series should not be specifically about Monckton vs Steketee or about the Steketee rebuttal. It should be about Monckton and his disinformation. So we can quote from Steketee. We can quote from this latest paper. Take any of the latest Monckton disinformation, pick the worst bits and use it to highlight his techniques of misleading. | |
2011-01-14 11:01:01 | hey John | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
Hey John, remember though, this isn't the marathon you think it will be. Congressional hearings and stuff, it is time to be vigorous. We have to be prepared like you said for rapid deployment. I know it is hard and taxing but we are making headway. Dr. Pederson's email was a great example of that. SKS has grown so much in the last year that it is getting busy but we have to be ready to be there if we are needed because this is one of the best if not the best site out there. The hardcore skeptics will never learn but the ones on the fence can do so. PS I think my post could double as the advanced rebuttal to the 1998 one. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_Part_Two.html Cheers John. | |
2011-01-14 11:39:30 | Monckton and marathons | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.100.112 |
Don't get me wrong, Robert, it's not like I plan to put my feet up this year. The Skeptical Science Plans for 2011 shows just what a potentially crazy year we have planned, and already there are a few other ideas not included in that thread like the Monckton Myths and collaborating with Peter Sinclair/Climate Crock of the Week (a few minutes ago, I had the idea that we could extend this collaboration to other media - Peter's video, SkS blogs and The Climate Show's podcasts perhaps). What I'm saying is we need to think long-term. Specifically in this case, Monckton Myths is not about the Steketee article specifically - it's about Moncton's disinformation in general. So we can cover his disinformation in the Steketee article but then cover this latest paper. If there's some of his older material that he keeps bringing up, hit that too. And everytime he uses it on WUWT, highlight that fact to make Anthony Watts embarrassed that he's allowing rubbish on his blog - similar to him becoming so embarrassed about Steve Goddard's blatant errors that he kicked him off the blog. So can I suggest that instead of your blog post headed Myth #2,3,4 - perhaps it should be just #2. Eg - we're not literally lining up our myths to his Steketee points. | |
2011-01-14 11:43:22 | Skeptical Science Temperature Index | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.100.112 |
While it's a cute title and all, I would suggest not using that title. This is a fantastic graph and I would like to think it get used on other blogs - I will certainly encourage the network of climate bloggers to use it. So having the title "Skeptical Science" could actually be baggage it doesn't need. Instead, I think we should call it literally what it is. Either your "All Series Temperature Index" or something sexier... hmm, I can't think of anything better than "All Series Temperature Index" actually. :-) Do you want me to upload the spreadsheet you sent me? Or will there be an updated version? | |
2011-01-14 11:56:48 | Agreed | |
Robert Way robert_way19@hotmail... 134.153.163.105 |
Hey John. I agree with you regarding the Skeptical Science Temperature Index thing. I just thought I would be a little tongue in cheek:P Originally I had something like All series temperature index but I need a sexier name for sure. I can email you an updated version of the spreadsheet. Another question is how do I make the post look nicer and what do you think of it overall? Umm any way to make it a little more artistic? Also I will change it to myth 2 and anything else you suggest just let me know. Cheers. How about Ten Series Temperature Index (oh sexy ... haha) | |
2011-01-14 12:35:25 | All Series Temperature Index | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.100.112 |
What would be cool is if the words could spell a clever acronym. YETI - Yearly Encompassing Temperature Index Okay, that sucks, I'm just thinking out aloud here :-) | |
2011-01-14 15:02:52 | Moncktons | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 71.140.0.210 |
Seems to me like we could still do a roughly daily Monckton myth debunking while also mixing in other posts to break it up. Like you say John, there's no reason we have to limit SkS to one post per day. | |
2011-01-14 15:10:01 | More than one post per day | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.100.112 |
If we have other posts, then yes, sounds great. So I will post the #1 Monckton myth first thing tomorrow. Then the general rule is we don't post the next Monckton post until at least 1 or 2 other blog posts get posted. So if we manage to get other posts done the same day or early the next day, then sure, we can post Monckton Myths on consecutive days. We don't need to synchronise watches or anything - as long as there is at least an hour or two breathing space between blog post, that's good enough for me. | |
2011-01-14 16:04:40 | Maybe we should use Roman numerals | |
James Wight jameswight@southernphone.com... 112.213.154.212 |
Ie. Monckton Myth I, II, III… That way they could still be numbered but the numbers wouldn’t have to correspond to Monckton’s points. | |
2011-01-14 20:11:36 | ||
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.198.46 |
John, the All Series Temp Index - it would be great if the acronym was HEAT, or something similar. Hmmmm...........
| |
2011-01-14 22:46:10 | ||
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.198.46 |
Homogenized Earth All Temperatures Series - yeah a stretch I know, but I do like the acronym. | |
2011-01-15 00:44:08 | ||
Ari Jokimäki arijmaki@yahoo... 91.154.102.166 |
Monckton HEAT series (HEAT = Huge Errors And Trash) |