2011-01-27 16:43:59PRIORITY: need help populating Monckton Myths page by Feb 1!!
John Cook


Okay, there is a BBC documentary coming out on Monday January 31 which debunks skeptics and Monckton in particular. Then on Wednesday Feb 2, I'm recording another interview with The Climate Show. So my plan is to launch Monckton Myths either on Jan 31 or Feb 1. So for the next few days, the priority is to get http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm ready for public consumption. My hope is to possibly even publish a Guardian article about it.

So this is a call to action. Can I ask that all Skeptical Science authors help make this page be all that it can be? The more kick-arse and comprehensive the resource is, I think the more positive the reaction and hopefully the more widely used it will be. This will be a key for future series too. I've programmed the webpage in such a way that the template can very easily be used for other skeptics - I merely have to add their name to the database and bingo, we have Lindzen Illusions, Carter Crocks, etc. Easy as that, the database is all there, we have the perfect infrastructure (and the manpower) to create a comprehensive rebuttal to every significant skeptic kicking around. But the key is to make enough of a splash with Monckton Myths in the first place - that will give us the momentum to make the other series anticipated and more successful.

So these are the ways you can help build up the Monckton Myths page (note - I am constantly building admin systems over the next few days to make this all easier for you to achieve this - will update this post as new features are added):

1. Add Monckton Articles

I've added a new feature Monckton's Articles which lists any articles that Monckton himself has published. We need to add more of Monckton's articles and list all the arguments he uses. So if you know of other Monckton articles, email the URL to me at john@skepticalscience.com please follow this process:

  1. Add the article via the Firefox Add-on
  2. Read through the whole article and using the Firefox Add-on, add every skeptic argument used. This is important - the key is not just adding lots of articles but including every argument used in each article (quality and quantity)
  3. Then go to Skeptic Admin: http://www.skepticalscience.com/admin_skeptic.php
  4. To find your article, type the article title (or at least some of the keywords) in the Search form
  5. A list of articles matching your search will appear. Click your article
  6. A drop down appears letting you choose a skeptic. Choose Monckton (note, I've already started a database of other skeptics for future reference)
  7. Bingo, that article is now added to Monckton's Articles.

NOTE: please follow the same process with proAGW articles about Monckton - add via Firefox add-on then assign the article to Monckton. It won't appear in the Monckton Articles list - that page only lists skeptic articles. I'll soon program the External Links page to show any Monckton related articles with a proAGW bias.

2. Add arguments to Monckton Articles

This I think is the most important feature of Monckton Myths, which will be of most use to people. For each Monckton article, it displays all the skeptic arguments Monckton uses as well as the one-liner rebuttal. As Monckton is always rehashing his old material, when new articles get published, we can just add the article to the database using the Firefox Add-on and select all those arguments already listed - they'll pop straight up and bingo, Monckton's new work debunked. If this resource gets popular enough, it will force skeptics to not reuse their old material - at least, that is my hope. Keep them accountable!

For now, I've added some of Monckton's latest articles but I haven't had time to go through them and add all the arguments yet. Some of them are not in the database yet even though they've been rebutted in recent blog posts. So for now, those latest Monckton articles 'Global Warming' did not cause the Brisbane floods, Monckton skewers Steketee and Earth's climate crisis ain't necessarily so need to have arguments added to the list. This is done via the Firefox Add-on - you just go to that article then select which argument you wish to add in the Add-on popup window. There are several options here:

  1. If the skeptic argument is already in our database, you can add it immediately (whether it has a rebuttal published or not)
  2. If not, you'll need to first add the skeptic argument to the database. This is done via the Add New Skeptic Argument form. Note - once you have successfully added a skeptic argument, unfortunately you have to close Firefox then reopen it before that argument will appear in the Firefox Add-on (which only reloads the argument list when the browser starts). Then you can use the Firefox Add-on to add the new argument to the Monckton article.

3. Publish rebuttals to skeptic arguments

Now when you look at an existing Monckton article (for example, here is his old article on Climategate), you'll see all the arguments we've already rebutted in the green table. But there may be arguments listed that have yet to be rebutted. They are listed below the green box with the heading 'NOTE TO SkS AUTHORS'.

There are a few skeptic arguments that we haven't put into our database of rebuttals but they have been rebutted in the recent Monckton Myth blog posts. So to get these rebuttals published so the skeptic arguments and one-liner rebuttals get displayed, we need to do the following:

  1. If the skeptic argument isn't yet added to the database, do that via the Add New Skeptic Argument form.
  2. Then to start your rebuttal, go to the Add New Rebuttal form. This will add the argument to the Rebuttal List and you will have claimed the rebuttal.
  3. Now edit the rebuttal via the Rebuttal List , add your text (perhaps from a blog post).
  4. Then email me at john@skepticalscience.com to let me know its ready and I'll publish it (note - I'll set it up so any of the Admin Authors will be able to do this soon).

NOTE TO ANYONE WHO PUBLISHED A MONCKTON MYTH: If your blog post could be adapted into a rebuttal, please do so.

Sorry this is all so complicated and difficult - it's a complex and difficult system! But I hope to work on admin systems to make it easier and will let everyone know of updates in this thread as I add them. In the meantime, anything you can all do to help fill the Monckton Myths, would be much appreciated! My hope is a few days of working hard on this now could have a lot of pay-off in the long run.

2011-01-27 17:00:21
Julian Brimelow

Hi John,

I'll snoop around when (and if) I can find some time-- depends on what needs to be done with my Phd.

Maybe we should split up, with one or two people looking at SPPI, another group the media in Oz, others the media in Europe or N. America et cetera? That way we are not duplicating each others' efforts.  How far back should we go?  Of course, Jim Abraham debunked a whole bunch of the potty Lord's myths, and there is Monckton's Pinker-moment courtesy of Tim was priceless. 


2011-01-27 17:37:49Going far back with Monckton articles
John Cook


I think the key here is quality, not quantity. Eg - I reckon for starters, we should aim to have around a dozen articles by Monckton but make sure all of them are well stuffed with arguments and rebuttals. It's no use having 50 Monckton articles but each article only has one or two rebuttals. Instead, we want people to look at especially the latest articles, those 3 I mention above, and see them stuffed to the gills with rebuttals.

If we get a dozen of his most recent articles well and truly smashed in time, we could then go further back. But it's the latest articles that feature the memes he's rehashing in every new article - global sea ice is fine, snow hit its max level, extreme weather is not affected by climate change, etc.

A good reference might be that "Climate Scientists Respond" document, both for a good list of Monckton's greatest hits in his congress testimony and for handy bitesized rebuttals that we could adapt into our own rebuttals.

2011-01-27 18:53:48New arguments added
John Cook


I've been filling up the Steketee article with arguments:

  • It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
  • An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature
  • Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009

Just have to grab rebuttals from the recent blog posts to make these live (authors of these blog posts are welcome to create these rebuttals themselves).

And added these argument which we don't have rebuttals for yet:

  • Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise 
  • Better to adapt than mitigate
  • Drought is not caused by global warming
2011-01-27 22:35:43
Rob Painting
John, working on the "coral atoll" rebuttal now. How many of those Monckton arguments contradict each other?
2011-01-27 23:20:04
Ari Jokimäki


I looked at the "Earth's climate crisis ain't necessarily so". It is filled with flase claims. I'm not using firefox, but here's an apparent false claim that might not be so easy to catch:

"The upper air in the tropics that the models predict should warm at thrice the surface rate is warming only at the same rate;"

Here is of course the standard tropical troposphere "hot spot" argument, but there's also the claim that upper air should warm 3 times faster than surface. This can be seen to be false in Santer et al. (2008) figure 6, where the model spread is shown as a grey area. The nominal factor (following the thick black line from surface to about 250 hPa) seems to be around 1.5. Much larger factor (>10) can be interpreted if one uses uncertainty range creatively but with that method one could also claim that models predict temperature to warm less in "upper air" (warming is about 0.3K at the edge of the uncertainty area at the surface and about 0.05K at 250hPa). At any case, claiming that it is precisely three times is false.

By the way, rarely discussed point about tropical troposphere hot spot: it is currently expected that upper air warms more than surface and due to that heat distribution the upper air radiates more heat out than might be expected. This is negative lapse-rate feedback. However, if there's no tropical troposphere hot spot as deniers claim, then the lapse rate feedback turns positive (or at least less negative than we currently think) and climate sensitivity is higher than currently expected. So, against denier claims, the only consequence to AGW of the missing hot spot would be increased climate sensitivity. I wonder how they would think when they are told that they are actually advocating higher climate sensitivity with this claim.

2011-01-28 03:06:51
Dana Nuccitelli

John, I added a rebuttal for 'exponential CO2 means linear temperature rise', but the URL didn't work.  Same for 'Record High Snow 2008/2009'.

Ari - Spencer has made the exact opposite argument.

"One of the most robust feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot” would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback signature in the satellite temperature trends could be an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in nature."
2011-01-28 03:35:37added Monckton's "rebuttal" to Gore
Dana Nuccitelli

I added Monckton's "35 errors in An Inconvenient Truth" via Firefox.  It had a freaking buttload of myths!

Also for the external links, RealClimate has some good ones.  Also here, here, here, and of course the RC Wiki, which has even more external links.

2011-01-28 08:09:38Oh dear
Julian Brimelow

Just skimmed "35 errors in AIT"....I think pretty for every alleged error Mockton pointed out he in fact made one or more false, distorted or misguided claims himself.

That SPPI site (Monckton has a dedicated page, "Monckton Collection") is likely a treasure trove of Monckton myths.

2011-01-28 11:22:40External links
Andy S


I'm sure you have seen most of these before, John

Three by Barry Bickmore: 

Lord Monckton's Rap Sheet

The Church of Monckton 

Monckton makes it up  (RealClimate)


Some humour:

The Electric Monckton

Eli Rabett's Chris Monckton Limerick Contest

(in which a certain, ahem, AndyS won silver) 

Monckton in Australia: Picnic at Hanging Sock 

(this was the fourth in a series of Monckton articles in Hot Topic, the others are linked at the bottom) 

2011-01-28 12:24:59Thanks for the feedback
John Cook


Rob, interesting question re Monckton's arguments contradicting one another - I'll data mine that later, possibly a topic for a future blog post if it yields interesting results. Thanks re the coral atoll rebuttal.

Dana, thanks for organising your rebuttals - I've created the following URLs which are now live:

Julian, have added 35 Inconvenient Truths to the list of articles:

I just added a new argument "Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer" which Rob is touching on in his Greenland core rebuttal. So we will have a rebuttal to this sooner or later.


i've just added a new admin system that all SkS Authors can access (if you can read this, you can access the admin). It's Skeptic Admin. It's bare bones but for now it allows you to do the most important thing right now - assign articles to Monckton. So scratch my previous call to email me URLs, would be great if you could instead do this if you encounter any article either by Monckton or about Monckton:

  1. Add the article via the Firefox Add-on
  2. Read through the whole article and using the Firefox Add-on, add every skeptic argument used. This is important - the key is not just adding lots of articles but including every argument used in each article (quality and quantity)
  3. Then go to Skeptic Admin: http://www.skepticalscience.com/admin_skeptic.php
  4. To find your article, type the article title (or at least some of the keywords) in the Search form
  5. A list of articles matching your search will appear. Click your article
  6. A drop down appears letting you choose a skeptic. Choose Monckton (note, I've already started a database of other skeptics for future reference)
  7. Bingo, that article is now added to Monckton's Articles.

NOTE: please follow the same process with proAGW articles about Monckton - add via Firefox add-on then assign the article to Monckton. It won't appear in the Monckton Articles list - that page only lists skeptic articles. I'll soon program the External Links page to show any Monckton related articles with a proAGW bias.

It's important that we do add many articles and comprehensively list all the arguments in each article. In just the short sampling I've looked at, I've been taken aback by just how much Monckton rehashes his old material. So this will be the major theme in my blog post launching Monckton Myths, which I also hope to get into the Guardian. I'm also approaching Treehugger and Huff Post about writing for them - if so, I will also try to get articles in those websites.

One thing I thought I'd do is a database query to see which arguments appear the most in Monckton articles. Eg - a top ten list but sampling only Monckton's articles. I would probably reference the top couple in the article and debunk them then and there briefly, while linking to the more complete rebuttal. But the more articles we have in the database, the more high quality the data will be, so to speak (eg - comparing a partial dataset like HadCRUT to a global dataset like GISS).

2011-01-28 13:58:37List of Monckton articles
John Cook


Albatross sent me a list of Monckton articles. I've started to go through them but over the next few days, I'll be doing a lot of programming so would be great if others could help add this list to the database also - this will free me up to spend more time on programming and fine tuning how the webpage looks and functions:


If you click on any of the links and the Firefox Add-on shows it's not yet added, please do add it and then add any arguments within the article. Then add it to the list of Monckton articles via the Skeptic Admin (instructions above). Note: it's important to make sure any articles by Monckton have their bias set to 'Skeptic' for it to appear in Monckton's list of articles.

Thanks, any help is much appreciated!

2011-01-28 16:28:58pdfs
Dana Nuccitelli
I can't do PDFs - when I open a PDF page in Firefox, it kicks it out to Acrobat Viewer.  But anyway, I did a bunch of other ones.  Now I've got Monckton saturation.
2011-01-28 16:51:20External links now programmed
John Cook


I've programmed Monckton Myths so now it displays external links:


I notice someone has already started submitting links - many thanks! I'm going to email the google group of climate bloggers, asking them for links (as well as ask for their help in promoting MM when it goes live). So for now, the main priority is adding articles written by Monckton - if you can view PDFs in Mozilla without it kicking out to Acrobat Viewer, would be great if you could add a few articles.


2011-01-28 16:57:53that was me
Dana Nuccitelli

Since a lot of blogs have done Monckton rebuttals (non-PDFs), those were easier for me to do.  I added a couple of Monckton articles from the media, like the Telegraph too.  And that stupid APS newsletter.  But a lot of his stuff is in PDFs, unfortunately.

By the way John, when you get a chance can you add Lindzen to the list of skeptics we can attribute links to?

2011-01-28 17:34:31Miscellaneous thoughts
James Wight


It seems that SPPI’s Monckton archive doesn’t contain all the pieces Monckton has written for SPPI. Some of his most recent ones are not in there. Should we go through all these different archives?

Rehashing old content is not a bad thing in itself. The problem is that Monckton keeps rehashing content that has been conclusively shown to be false.

In “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!”, Monckton makes another argument that is not on your list: that NASA are continually rewriting temperature history to exaggerate warming. I think these accusations that GISS are continually rewriting temperature data need to be dealt with, but I don’t know where to find information about it. Any thoughts, anyone?

2011-01-28 17:57:22Lindzen Illusions
John Cook


Dana, I've added Lindzen to the database of skeptics. You can now view the Lindzen Illusions page:


A few things to note. Of course, don't publicly link to this URL yet - I want to gradually build up the Lindzen page and take it slowly, carefully. But the good thing is you can start building on this page now, accumulating Lindzen articles and all the arguments he's made.

Secondly, you should now be able to see how powerful this Skeptic page is - it's programmed to work for any skeptic. All I have to do is add the skeptic's name to our database, then when you add an article via the Firefox Add-on, you  assign that article to the skeptic via Skeptic Admin and it all gets added automatically. So as noted before, deniers constantly rehash their own material. So when they publish a new article, it only takes a few quick clicks with the Firefox Add-on to build a rebuttal page, complete with one-liner rebuttals and links to full rebuttals. The perfect resource for all the other climate bloggers, debaters, activists, policy makers, journalists, etc.

And that's my vision for the Skeptics page. That it be viewed by everyone as a resource. Whenever they encounter disinformation from a famous skeptic, they go straight to our Skeptics page, find the article they just read and bingo, all the answers in handy one-liner rebuttals. My most ambitious goal would be that this resource become so ubiquitious, that it stops deniers from rehashing their old material. By exposing Monckton constantly regurgitating his "arctic ice loss = Antarctic ice gain" argument, maybe he'll stop saying it.

But for the resource to get to that point, Monckton Myths needs to make a big splash. So we need to make it as comprehensive and kick-arse as possible. So sorry to continually beat the drum but we need several things for that to happen:

  1. More Monckton articles added and crucially all the skeptic arguments in each article also added
  2. Spread the word as widely as possible. Ideas I have so far:
    * Approach Guardian, ask them to republish my blog post
    * Interview on The Climate Show on Wed 2 Feb to promote the page
    * I've approached Treehugger about writing blog posts for their website but it's a bit last minute, I should've done it weeks ago
    * I've also asked Peter Gleick how I could write for Huffington Post. He put in a good word for me but again, probably too late for this launch
    * Will ask the league of climate bloggers but to be honest, I find they're not really that receptive when I ask them to mention new stuff on Skeptical Science. No reaction when I asked them to link to Dana's article, which was disappointing (but one of them spoke glowingly about the article after it was published on Guardian).
  3. This is also last minute but if there are any Monckton arguments yet to be rebutted that could be written before Feb 1 - probably not the overly detailed ones but there may be some low lying fruit we could target - that would enhance the resource also.
So any help submitting articles, writing rebuttals or suggesting ways to spread the word would be appreciated.
2011-01-28 18:04:46Response to James
John Cook


If there are other Monckton articles not on SPPI and they're not exact duplicates of other Monckton articles that we already have listed, then yes, definitely do add them. Especially if they're recent.

James, there is an argument 'NASA GISS adjustments introduce warming bias' but we have no rebuttal to it yet. Apparently Tamino rebutted it at False Claims Proven False but that blog post is gone and it's not listed in our Lost Open Mind Posts article.

2011-01-28 18:06:32GISS etc.
Julian Brimelow

Hi James,

He make some pretty ridiculous accusations about GISS-- I'm sure that they have been debunked, but sorry, can't recall where. Maybe Googling some key phrases will reveal something. Not sure how to deal with them, except to say that GISTEMP agrees extremely well with other SAT products.

Monkey also alledges that they have been tampering with the Jason sea level data in some of the PDFs, bit then uses those same data to claim that sea levels are not rising fast or that they have even stopped rising.  Enough to make your head spin.

I went through all the Monckton PDFS, but I only linked those in which I found something suspicious after skimming them.  So because a SPPI report of opinion piece is not listed is not to say there was no errors in it-- I fully expect there are errors in all of them.  Here are some of the potential problems I found (again after a very quick scan), there are some intentionally silly comments and juvenile digs, but I had to do so to keep my sanity:

Name in quotation marks refers to the PDF in question.

From "unsound_advice":

"As for “coral bleaching events”, there has only been one such global event recently, and that followed the naturally-occurring Great El Niño of 1998, when the oceans worldwide warmed strongly for a few months for reasons that are still poorly understood."

Note how he says "one such global event".  So bleaching is only important only if it occurs on a global scale?!

You know what struck me reading his diatribes?  He very rarely provides references.  Rather opinion is stated as fact.  This is a tactic that we took a journalist to a Press Council for, as it is one of the no-nos in their code of conduct, and a no-no for a journalist-- which Monkey is meant to be.

And from "climate_science_brief".

"The IPCC falsely assumes that if the atmosphere warms then there will be more water vapor."

Dressler's recent paper refutes that....

Also, from "climate_science_brief" (released late 2009):
"Since he pointed out the tampering four years ago, the data have shown no statistically-significant rise in sea level at all."

"There is, therefore, no scientific basis for any statement to the effect that we are approaching any particular “tipping-point” in the climate: nor will there ever be any scientific basis for any such statement."


Oh the lies.....

From "sen_stabenow" (Aug 2009):
"for the simple reason that there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years. Indeed, there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling for almost eight years."


From "co2_report_aug_09"
(Aug 2009)
"Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.3 °F (1.4 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC predicts"


From "co2_report_july_09" (July 2009)
"The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections."

From "co2_report_july_09" (July 2009):
"Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows the “global warming” scare is over."

Umm, no.

From "sen_kerry_misfires" (Aug 2009):

"Senator Kerry said the recent cracking of the thin “ice-bridge” linking the Wilkins Ice Shelf to the Antarctic Ice Shelf was caused by “global warming”. It was not: there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years."

Wrong, and also the Antarctic Peninsula are is amongst the fastest warming areas on the planet.

From "sen_kerry_misfires" (Aug 2009):
"Sea level rising 3 feet: Senator Kerry said “global warming” would raise sea level 3 feet. It will not: sea level rose 8 inches in the 20th century, is currently not rising at all, and will rise by little more than 1 foot in the 21st century."


From "sen_kerry_misfires" (Aug 2009):
"There is a good reason why extreme-weather events tend to become rarer as the weather warms. One of the main drivers of climate is the difference between daytime and night-time temperatures: it is this difference, rather than the absolute value of the temperatures, that contributes to storminess."


From "sen_kerry_misfires" (Aug 2009):
"The projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming in the tropical mid-troposphere is not observed in reality."

Sound familiar?

From "major_talking_points" (June 2009):

"Droughts and Floods Variable as usual."
Dai and Trenberth (2004)would disagree.

From "major_talking_points" (June 2009):
"Arctic Sea Ice Normal in winter, down a little in recent summers, but well
within natural variability."

Polyak et al. (2010) disagree.  But natural variability over which period?  The Holocene? 4.6 billion years?

From "major_talking_points" (June 2009):
"UN High-end Forecast Slashed from 3ft to <2ft sea-level rise by 2100: UN best
current estimate 1 ft 5 in."

I smell a rate, the increase is being revised upwards in recent years.

From "major_talking_points" (June 2009):
"Antarctic Peninsula Ice-shelves about 1/55 the area of Texas have gone, but were
not there in the Middle Ages."

I strongly suspect the Larsen B and other ice shelves have been around longer than the MWP.

From "central_question_on_sensitivity" (May 2009, he was a busy monkey in 2009):

"CO2 concentration is rising, but well below IPCC predictions"


From "central_question_on_sensitivity" (May 2009, he was a busy monkey in 2009):
"IPCC predicts rapid, exponential CO2 growth that is not


From "monckton_dangerous_climate_change" (April 2009)
"Nature adamantly refuses to publish any paper suggesting – however compelling the evidence and arguments –
that anthropogenic “global warming” will not be as significant as the UN’s climate panel suggests. Nature’s selection process is, therefore, openly prejudiced ab initio."

OMG.  Conspiracy theorist much?

From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009)

"There is no point in destroying most of the global economy for the sake of preventing just seven inches of sea-level rise."

From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009)
"However, a paper by NASA in 2008 attributed this ice-melt to unusual northbound currents and winds bringing warmth up from the tropics to the Arctic, and a more recent paper says that the summertime Polar winds in 2007/8 had blown much of the sea ice southward into warmer waters, where it melted."

That is lying by omission. That is not the whole story.

From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009)
"Global sea-ice extent shows practically no trend in 30 years, even though there was strong “global warming” during the first 20 years of the period.


From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009)
"Temperatures in the Arctic and in Greenland were warmer by up to 3 Fahrenheit degrees in the late 1930s and early 1940s than they are at present"

Worth checking.

From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009):
"Alexander et al. (2007) established definitively that solar activity, not CO2 concentration, is the principal influence on changes in rainfall patterns over time"

Uhh?  This is from near where I grew up.  The role of ENSO is known to modulate rainfall in SA, not sunspots

From "Monckton_Arctic_and_Sealevel" (April 2009):
"Why are the oceans cooling? Precisely because the atmosphere is cooling."

He needs one of SheWonk's Dunce hats for that one.

From "wet_office" (April 2009):
"Also, the rate of warming between 1975 and 1998 was no greater than that from
1860-1880 and 1910-1940, from which it follows that there is no detectable
anthropogenic influence on temperature at all, and the influence of CO2 on
temperature is a great deal less than the UN’s climate panel imagines"

BS.  A few minutes on WFT can refute that.

From "mar_09_co2_report"  (March 2009):
"Sea ice extent in the Arctic has now recovered to the 30-year average"

From "mar_09_co2_report"  (March 2009):
"Arctic sea-ice extent has scarcely declined in the 29 years since 1980"


From "mar_09_co2_report"  (March 2009):
"Proof that CO2’s warming effect is exaggerated"

Note use of the word "proof".  He is referring to L&C (2009), so he had a head's up from Dick it seems....

From "mar_09_co2_report"  (March 2009):
"Global warming tends to retard El Niño activity while global cooling tends to promote it."

Referring to this paper: Langton, S.J., Linsley, B.K., Robinson, R.S., Rosenthal, Y., Oppo, D.W., Eglinton, T.I., Howe, SS., Djajadihardja, Y.S. and Syamsudin, F. 2008. 3500 yr record of
centennial-scale climate variability from the Western Pacific Warm Pool. Geology 36: 795-798.

However, in later reports in 2009 he said that global warming had nothing to do with ENSO, or something along those lines.

From "feb_co2_report" (Feb 2009):
"Though James Hansen of NASA says sea level will rise 246 feet, sea level has not risen since the beginning of 2006."

No context in terms of time line.  Did Hansen even say this?

From "feb_co2_report" (Feb 2009):
"The UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, had projected temperature increases at 4.5 to 9.5 °F (2.4 to 5.3 °C) per century, with a central estimate of 7 °F (3.9 °C) per century. None of the IPCC’s computer models had predicted a prolonged cooling."

Referring to "Since Al Gore’s climate movie An Inconvenient Truth was launched in January 2005, global cooling has occurred at the"equivalent of 10 °F (5.5 °C) per century.

This is quite the red herring, and meaningless.

From "feb_co2_report" (Feb 2009):
"Sea level has not risen for three years"

This is another red herring, and meaningless.

From "warming_not_happening" (Feb 2009):

"Scafetta & West (2008) conclude that the Sun caused 69% of the global warming that ceased in 1998."

Oh, 1998 again.  Does he get paid to write these reports?

From "gore_testimony" (Feb 2009):
"The “climate crisis” is not getting worse, because CO2 concentration is rising
at well below the IPCC’s estimates, and because temperatures are falling
when the IPCC had predicted that they would rise."

The IPCC did not predict a monotonic increase, former statement re CO2 levels false.

From "monckton_scarewatch_greenland" (Jan 2009):
"The truth: Remarkably, Mr. Schneider does not provide references – or any other
evidence whatsoever – for his assertions. He merely declaims. Let us examine his
declamations seriatim, comparing them with the scientific evidence and data."

That is what you do Monkey, and it is what John et al. are going to do to you ;)

From "fateful_decision" (Jan 2009):

"Ocean “acidification”: In fact, the oceans are alkaline, and there has been a very small
reduction in that alkalinity over the past century."

True, but does he not understand the pH scale, and does he not understand the difference between times past and what the future holds if we keep pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and eventually oceans?

From "monckton_scare_guardian" (Dec 2008):
"Coral bleaching” last occurred on a significant scale ten years ago, in 1998, as a result of
the exceptional (but not unprecedented) natural alteration in global ocean currents known as
the El Nino Southern Oscillation."

From "monckton_scare_guardian" (Dec 2008):
"There has been no trend in northern-hemisphere snow-cover extent in the 30 years of continuous
satellite monitoring. New records for northern-hemisphere snow-cover extent were set in
2001/2 and in 2007/8, and the latter record may well be surpassed in 2008/9.

Wrong.  He just keep rehashing the same BS.

From "monckton_scare_guardian" (Dec 2008):
"The purpose of The Guardian in inventing this galloping concatenation of ingenious but
baseless fictions was to induce nations such as the United States to part with large sums of
taxpayers’ money to subsidize the imagined consequences of their past over-use of wicked
fossil fuels for the poorer countries of the world."

How about?

"The purpose of Monckton in inventing this galloping concatenation of ingenious but
baseless fictions was to induce nations such as the United States to not part with their wasteful and harmful lifestyles" ;)

From "Guardian-Coolest_Year_For_Decade" (Dec 2008):

"For 600m years, it was 7 °C warmer than today"

And your point is Munchkin? 

From "Guardian-Coolest_Year_For_Decade" (Dec 2008):
"For most of the 10,000 years of the present interglacial period, global temperatures were warmer than the present"

From "monckton-global_warming_has_stopped" (October 2008):
"The year 2008 will turn out to have been no warmer than 1980 – 28 years ago. This is not a short-run
change: the cooling trend set in as far back as late 2001, seven full years ago, and there
has been no net warming since 1995 on any measure."

Oh that is beautiful...spectacularly wrong.

From "warming_profiteers_wrong" (April 2008)
"or that the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet grew by 2 inches yearly from 1993-

Pretty much entirely misses the point, and the fact that the greatest loss is occurring along the margins, with a net loss in mass.

From "23errors" (October 2007):
"In fact, according to the land and sea temperature records of the National Climate Data Center the rate of warming in the 1920s and 1930s, before humankind had much influence on climate, was as great as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Since the IPCC’s previous report in 2001, there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all."

Umm, close, but no.

From "23errors" (October 2007):
"Trenberth says, “We can prove – using climate models – that it is due to human influences changing the composition of the atmosphere”. One cannot prove anything with numerical forecasting models: Lorenz (1963) demonstrated, in his landmark paper that founded chaos theory, that climate forecasting for more than a few weeks ahead is altogether impossible."

There was a post on this at SkS recently.  He is confusing an initial value problem (NWP forecasts) with a boundary forcing problem (GCM forecasts).

From "23errors" (October 2007):
"Trenberth says, “Solar activity does not dwarf all other factors.” There is insufficient data to draw this conclusion."

Actually Monkey there is a shit-load of evidence to support Trenberth.

From "moncktongreenhousewarming" (Sept 2007):
"The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming predicted by computer models
is absent from real-world, observed trends in atmospheric temperature change"

BS.  Santer and others have used fingerprinting techniques to demonstrate that there is an antrho signal.

From "moncktongreenhousewarming" (Sept 2007):

"No correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature"

"There is no correlation between the exceptionally smooth year-on-year increases in global atmospheric CO2 concentration (above) and the noticeably sharp annual changes in global temperature (previous graph)."

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):

"CM: Temperature stopped rising in 2001. “Slow ocean response” means the sea, 1100 times
denser than air, is taking up much of the heat. If so, we have more time and less of a
problem than had been thought."

Hmm, later Monkey claims that the alleged decrease in OHC over a 5-year period (remember here he is saying the inertia is real and a good thing) means that AGW has stopped.

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: Atmospheric water vapour content has increased since the 1980s over land and ocean as
well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water that
warmer air can hold.
CM: The result of the more humid atmosphere is a substantial greening of the fringes of the
Sahara, which has shrunk by 300,000 square kilometers in the past 20 years."

Oh dear Monkey, grasping at straws much...

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: Mountain glaciers and snow have declined. Decreases in glaciers and ice caps (not counting
Greenland and Antarctica) caused sea level to rise by 0.50mm a year (1961-2003) and 0.77mm a
year (1993-2003).
CM: Mountain glaciers account for less than 5% of the world’s ice. Ice mass in Greenland
and Antarctica (95% of the world’s ice) has grown in the past 30 years, compensating for
loss of mountain ice."

Now that cannot be right....

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: Numerous changes in climate have been observed at the scales of continents or ocean
basins. These include wind patterns, precipitation, ocean salinity, sea ice, ice sheets, and aspects
of extreme weather.
CM: Climate has always changed, because it is what mathematicians call a “chaotic object”.
Behaviour of chaotic objects cannot be predicted, but is capable of changing suddenly in
any direction."

Again confusing weather and climate.

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: Arctic permafrost surface temperature has risen up to 3°C since the 1980s. The maximum
area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900.
CM: The bones of woolly mammoths and other creatures are found in the thawing
permafrost, showing that it was not always frozen. Scares about release of methane from
permafrost have proven false."

Especially suspicious of last line.

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: Paleoclimate suggests recent warming is unusual. Past warming has shrunk ice sheets and
raised sea level. Recent studies show more variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures than the
2001 report.
CM: The UN casts doubt upon the integrity of its climate change reports by failing to
apologize for the defective and now-discredited “hockey-stick” graph of world temperatures
since 1000 AD."

The hockey sticks (plural) live on and are in fact multiplying.  Another new one release din Science today in fact.

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: It is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming than observed
because volcanic and manmade pollutants have offset some warming.
CM: Most of the warming arises from the increased frequency of El Nino events in recent
years. Volcanic aerosols only have a temporary effect."

BS-- thanks Tamino :)

From "ipcc_4th_report" (Jul 2007):
"UN: The Antarctic ice sheet may remain too cold for widespread melting and may gain mass
from increased snowfall, but net loss of ice mass may occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates
the ice-mass balance.
CM: In the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice-sheet has grown, reversing a 6,000-
year melting trend. Antarctica contains 90% of the world’s ice, and growing."





2011-01-28 18:55:58Another change to the MM page
John Cook


Done some reprogramming. Previously, I had to manually assign skeptic arguments to a skeptic. But now I've programmed it so that the system just looks at every article assigned to the skeptic and gathers up all the skeptic arguments used by those articles. Then it automatically generates a list of every skeptic argument used in articles written by that skeptic:


I also programmed it to count how many times Monckton uses each argument in order to see which are his favourites. Obviously this will fluctuate and get more "accurate" as we add more articles:


Arguments by Monckton Usage
"Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated" 6
"Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming" 6
"Climate sensitivity is low" 4
"Sea level rise is exaggerated" 4
"CO2 lags temperature" 4
"Hockey stick is broken" 4
"Temp record is unreliable" 3
"IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers" 3
"Greenland is gaining ice" 3
"Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain" 3
"Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use" 3
"It hasn't warmed since 1998" 3
"There's no tropospheric hot spot" 3
"Antarctica is gaining ice" 3
"There's no empirical evidence" 3
"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming" 3


2011-01-28 19:35:47
Ari Jokimäki


Dana: "Ari - Spencer has made the exact opposite argument"

Ahh, yes. Well, actually it's the same argument as mine but he's using it to try to show weak water vapor feedback. I didn't consider that because I know water vapor feedback has been determined to be positive by direct measurements. His arguments is similar to trying to measure solar activity by looking at Mars brightness instead of direct measurements of solar activity. ;)

2011-01-28 19:49:20Just so we don't double up
James Wight

I'm going through Monckton's "Monthly CO2 Reports" for SPPI.
2011-01-28 20:29:28Problem with editing links database
James Wight

I added lots of arguments for "Monthly CO2 report: November 2010" via the Firefox plugin, but the plugin doesn't let you add a date so it wrongly gave the article today's date. I tried to edit it in the links database to change the date, but the edit form only allows ten arguments per link, so a few arguments disappeared from the list. I'll go and add them again, but in the long term is there a way to fix this problem?
2011-01-28 20:40:05"Monthly CO2 Reports"
James Wight

Actually I've gone through a few of those "Monthly CO2 Reports" and they're all pretty similar. Should I go to the trouble of adding them to the database or should I just leave it at the latest one.
2011-01-28 20:57:46Just the latest should suffice
John Cook

Don't want it to get repetitive
2011-01-28 21:25:42
James Wight

Monckton claims his Monthly CO2 Reports are "widely cited on television, in universities, and in Congress"! Does anyone know if this is true? Even with the sad state of journalism today, I find it difficult to imagine many citing these ravings.
2011-01-28 22:08:21Monckton boasts
John Cook

You would know well by now to take Monckton's words with a grain of salt. He is especially known for padding his resume.