2011-09-25 05:29:58Monckton Gish Gallops a letter over to Remote Sensing (WTF?)


I think my favorite line is this one:

These four sensitivities ~ 1 K derived from the temperature record are of course transient sensitivities: but, since equilibrium will not be reached for 1000-3000 years [29], it is only the transient sensitivity that is policy-relevant. In any event, on the assumption that approaching half of the warming since 1750 may have been natural, equilibrium sensitivities ~1 K are indicated.


2011-09-25 09:42:39
Brian Purdue


As I said before Monckton is dangerous if not kept in check.

When a publicity junky like Monckton manages to fool most of the public most of the time on the science there is a problem. If not challenged continually he will get away with it.

Anyone like to comment on this comment on Monckton’s persuasive ways.

“-----------It annoys me that warmist sites like Real Climate and Sceptical Science use scientific goobledegookese as a tool to hide their arguments ---------------- I know Monckton has the ability to pitch to his audience, and I think he has done a good job here”.  


2011-09-25 10:34:47
Dana Nuccitelli

Honestly, does Watts not realize it undermines his already incredibly low credibility to keep acting as Monckton's mouthpiece?

I love this, from Monckton's letter:

"Of the ten papers [5-14] cited in [1] as attempting to determine climate sensitivity empirically as opposed to numerically...four papers [7, 10-12] argue for low sensitivity: typically ~1 K per CO2 doubling, implying net-negative temperature feedbacks."

Yeah, except he somehow neglects to mention that two are Spencer and Braswell, and two are Lindzen and Choi.

2011-09-25 11:17:41
Rob Honeycutt


I'm sure there are going to be a bunch of people diving into this bit of Monckton Bunkum in short order.  His gobbledygook is beyond me but someone here who is more versed in climate sensitivity might want to jump on this.

Or... perhaps maybe a better position would be to let others lead and then SkS can consolidate and communicate.

2011-09-25 11:41:15
Brian Purdue


Dana – he undermines his scientific credibility amongst those who know the science but not his public perception credibility.

Any motivational consultant will tell you perception is the most important attribute we have – if people think you know what you are talking about they will listen to you, particularly if it reinforces their ideology.  

2011-09-25 11:57:02
Rob Honeycutt


I'm curious if Watts ran this past anyone before posting it on his site.