Climate: The Extremists Join the Debate at Last!

By |2014-03-14T12:45:29+00:00June 4th, 2010|CFACT Insights|107 Comments

ONE of the numerous propaganda artifices deployed by the now-retreating climate-extremist movement has been the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics.

As the extremists lose the argument and become more desperate, that is changing. John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a bible-college in Minnesota has recently issued – and widely disseminated – a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech by me about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minnesota.

So unusual is this attempt to actually meet us in argument, and so venomously ad-hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.

As usual, though, none of these shallow bloggers makes any attempt actually to verify whether what poor Abraham is saying actually has the slightest contact with reality.

One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian. What is Monbiot’s qualification to write about climate science? Well, like Abraham, he is a “scientist”. Trouble is, he’s a fourteenth-rate zoologist, so his specialization has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham, who nevertheless presents himself as having scientific knowledge relevant “in the area”.

Here’s the thing. All of the sciences are becoming increasingly specialized. So most “scientists” –  Abraham and, a fortiori, the accident-prone Monbiot among them – have no more expertise in predicting or even understanding the strange behavior of the complex, non-linear, chaotic object that is the Earth’s climate than the man on the Clapham omnibus.

They pretend otherwise, of course. Almost four years ago, when I wrote a 2500-word article in the Sunday Telegraph pointing out that the notion of a very large climate warming attributable to future increases in CO2 concentration was scientifically ill-founded, Monbiot wrote a scathing 1800-word response in the Daily Kommissar, in which he made a dozen laughably elementary scientific errors.

Monbiot made the mistake of pretending that he understood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which he had plainly not previously heard.

Here it was I who had the advantage: before writing the article in the Telegraph I had spent three months tracking the equation down, because – though it converts changes in the flow of radiation at a planetary surface to changes in temperature, and is therefore essential to discovering how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will deliver – the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 climate assessment reports do not mention it once.

And why not? Well, put simply, the equation shows that at the temperatures prevailing on Earth you need a very large increase in radiative flux to achieve a pathetically small increase in temperature. That’s not the sort of thing the climate-extremists want known, so they carefully don’t mention it, which is one reason why puir wee Moonbat hadn’t heard of it.

Ever since I compelled the Daily Apparatchik to publish a letter from me correcting Monbiot’s invincible ignorance of elementary planetary physics and undergrad math, Monbiot has seized every chance to have a go at me whenever one of his climate-extremist Comrades asserted that I’d gotten something wrong.

And how he crows at the news of Abraham’s “evisceration” of my Minnesota speech.

Abraham’s approach is novel. He’s saying not that I got one thing wrong but that I got just about everything wrong. And how plausible is that? A couple of pointers. First, it’s now June 2010, and I spoke in October 2009, almost eight months ago. I’ve made a lot of speeches since. Why has it taken Abraham so long to cobble together his ramblings?

The answer – and, as I shall show, it is the right one – is that his deliberately dishonest personal attack on my integrity and reputation is an ingenious fiction, he knows it, and he has therefore had to go to some elaborate and time-consuming lengths to conceal the steps he has taken to hide the truth and make this nonsense look plausible.

Secondly, during the eight months of “investigation” (Abraham’s word) that he carried out, at no single point did he ever contact me to ask me to clarify one of the numerous references which, he said over and over again, were not clear in my slides.

That failure on his part to check with me when he could not find the sources of my data was clearly deliberate. He didn’t want to give me any advance notice that he was planning to launch a widely-disseminated attack on me, because otherwise I might have pointed out his errors to him in advance, and that would have made it a great deal more difficult for him to get away with publishing them.

In a short space I won’t have time to cover more than a representative selection of Abraham’s errors. Let’s begin, though, with the question of sources.

“Monckton’s data don’t even agree with themselves”

Abraham says I displayed two graphs, both citing NOAA as the source, showing the downward global mean surface temperature trend since 2001, but – by an elaborate point-by-point comparison – he shows that the two graphs are slightly different from one another. Why, he asks, can’t I even make sure that my own data agree with themselves? His implication is that presenting temperature data is something that laymen really can’t be expected to get right.

What Abraham has done, here as elsewhere, is to wrench my data deliberately out of the context in which I actually (and accurately) presented then, and then to lie about it.

The truth is that the first graph, plainly labeled “”, is the SPPI’s well-known global-temperature index, compiled monthly from four separate global-temperature datasets, as Abraham well knew because I explained in my talk. It was not a NOAA graph, and was not labeled as such. Naturally, therefore, it differed at some points from the NOAA graph.

Abraham went on and on about how a graph shouldn’t have been labeled with the name of an institution such as “” unless it was that institution that had compiled the graph. That, of course, as he could have discovered if he had bothered – or, rather, dared – to check, was indeed the institution that had compiled the graph, taking the arithmetic mean of the global-temperature anomalies from the HadCRUt, NCDC, RSS, and UAH datasets.

But – and this was the point I made, though Abraham was remarkably careful not to say so – I had showed the SPPI’s four-sources graph in testimony before Congress, to show that there had been global cooling for seven or eight years, and Tom Karl, the director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, who had been present, had failed to admit after questioning from a leading Congressman that global temperatures had indeed been falling for the best part of a decade. He had wriggled and waffled.

So the Congressman had asked me to write proving my result, and I had done so by preparing the second graph, from Tom Karl’s own NCDC (it was labeled as such), which had also showed a pronounced downtrend in global temperatures.

Abraham knew this, because I had said so in my talk. But he also knew that practically no one watching his 83-minute presentation would go to the lengths of looking up what I had actually said. He knew he could get away with a flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation – provided that at all points he was careful never to consult me while planning and circulating his attack.

Monckton’s data are not properly sourced”

Even when the source is in fact plainly stated on my slides, Abraham is prone to say I have not provided the source. I had shown a graph, which I had said was compiled by satellite, of temperatures at the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro, where there has been no warming for 30 years.

The graph was plainly labeled “UAH”, which – as a mere Bible-College lecturer in fluid mechanics might not know, but anyone with any real knowledge of climate science would of course know – is the University of Alabama at Huntsville, one of only two organizations producing regularly-published satellite-based global temperature records.

Another instance: Abraham said I had done a search because I was bored, and had found that between the beginning of 2004 and the beginning of 2007 just 539 papers containing the search phrase “global climate change” had been published, and that not one of them had provided any evidence for any catastrophic consequence of any anthropogenic warming anywhere. However, he had searched Google Scholar and had found 628,000 references, a few of which, he said, showed catastrophic consequences of “global warming”.

The truth is entirely different. First, I am never bored when I am present. What I actually said in my talk – and Abraham knows this, because he spent eight months trying to take it apart – was that “I’m boring that way – I check things”. And I had checked the climate-extremists’ claims of catastrophe by consulting a paper by Klaus-Martin Schulte, published in 2008. The extract from the paper was labeled “Schulte, 2008” on my slide, in quite large letters.

It was not I, but Schulte who had done the search, as I had said in my talk. It was not Google Scholar (most of whose sources are not peer-reviewed papers) but the ISI Web of Science database of peer-reviewed, learned journals that Schulte searched, as I had said in my talk. It was not the “containing all of the words” search option that Schulte had used, though that is the option Abraham used, but the “exact-phrase” option, which returned only 539 papers.

If Abraham had had the courtesy to check either with me or by looking up Mr. Schulte’s paper on the Web of Science database, to which his Bible College subscribes, he would have found that Mr. Schulte used this phrase because Naomi Oreskes, a science historian, had previously used the same phrase in researching climate papers up to the end of 2003. Schulte had carried her research forward to mid-February 2007, and his paper had been published in 2008.

Abraham then trots out various papers he found in his Google Scholar search, one of which says that the world is warming because of human activities: but that was not the point made in my slide. My point was that not a single one of the 539 papers searched by Schulte had provided evidence for catastrophe.

Abraham also mentions a paper he found that talks about extinctions that are predicted as a result of “global warming”But – though he may perhaps not have understood this, for many of his political stamp do not – prediction is not the same thing as evidence. The fact is that most of the predictions of the climate-extremists and their overworked X-Box 360s and Playstation Vs have proven to be spectacular exaggerations.

Gore was right and Monckton wrong about sea level”

The first slide of mine that Abraham criticizes is one in which I show the table of contributions to observed sea-level rise from various sources as published in the IPCC’s 2007 report, and draw from it the conclusion that the measured contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to “global warming” is 6 cm/century, while Al Gore’s mawkish sci-fi comedy horror movie predicts 610 cm (20 feet) of imminent sea-level rise.

Abraham again artfully distorts or carefully omits what I actually said. First, he says that the IPCC predicts 20-50 cm of sea-level rise this century, not 6 cm. Well, yes it does, but the reason for the difference is that the IPCC’s figure (which still amounts to below 2 feet, not 20, and it’s actually rising at just 1 ft/century at present, if that) is for sea-level rise from all sources, chiefly thermosteric expansion, not just from ice-melt.

But Gore’s prediction of a 20 ft sea-level rise is, as his movie makes quite clear, based on ice-melt alone. Abraham says Gore was right to worry about a very large rise in sea level because the IPCC specifically excludes ice-melt from its calculations, saying it cannot yet be quantified. No, the IPCC specifically includes ice-melt in its calculations, as the table on my slide showed, but it does add that “dynamic” effects of unpredictable but theoretically-possible large-scale failure on the ice sheets are not taken into account.

Abraham says that if either Greenland or the West Antartic ice sheet were to melt sea level would indeed rise by around 20 feet, and that, he says, is where Gore got his figure.

Just two problems with that. First, the IPCC also says, on the very page quoted by Abraham, that even if there were a major collapse of the ice the Greenland ice sheet would not entirely disintegrate for millennia, a phrase that was also used in the IPCC’s 2001 report, where it was made plain that surface temperatures at least 2 Celsius degrees higher than today’s would have to persist for several millennia before either the Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could melt away.

True, the British Antarctic Survey disagrees with the IPCC and maintains that the WAIS is in imminent danger of collapse, but so far even the IPCC has not bought that alarmist story.

Secondly, as I said in my talk, but as Abraham very carefully failed to point out in his, both sides of this particular argument have been carefully heard in the impartial forum of the British High Court. The British Government, unsuccessfully attempting to defend Gore on this point, had eventually been compelled – when confronted with what the IPCC actually says about several millennia – to concede that Gore’s 20 feet of sea-level rise was a flagrant exaggeration.

And the judge’s finding could not have been blunter: “The Armageddon scenario that he [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view.” And that quotation, too, was on one of my slides, but Abraham carefully failed to mention it, or to check with me to find out how it was that the judge had come to that conclusion.

Nor, of course, did Abraham mention the slide in which I showed a picture of the St. Regis Tower, San Francisco, with a map showing it to be just feet from the allegedly-rising ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf, and a statement that in 2005, the very year in which Gore was making up his alarmist movie, he had spent $4 million buying a condo there. Would he have bought that condo if he had seriously thought sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet? That, as my Latin Grammar would put it, is “a question expecting the answer ‘No’”.

Well, I could go on. And on and on. And on and on and on. Just about every one of the 115 slides presented by Abraham in his shoddy little piece of lavishly-funded venom contains serious, serial, material errors, exaggerations, or downright lies. All I have been able to do here is to give you some flavor of how unscientific, inaccurate, and deliberately mendacious Abraham’s video is.

Now you will understand why I have already initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster, to answer disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct unbecoming a member of his profession.

Keep an eye out at There, in due course, will appear the letter I am now drafting to Abraham, asking him several hundred pertinent questions designed to make him and anyone who may think of relying upon him understand that academic dishonesty and deliberate lying on this scale and with this amount of public circulation is just not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.

Abe, if you present yourself as “a scientist” – as you do throughout your talk – then it is as a scientist that you will be judged and found lamentably wanting. You may like to get your apology and retraction in early: for I am a Christian too, and will respond kindly to timely repentance.


  1. OveHG June 4, 2010 at 9:40 PM

    “… British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian”? What are you on Monkton?

    As for honesty: Been a member of British Parliament recently? Won any wars?

    The litany of errors that you haven’t addressed here also makes me wonder, are you ignorant or complicit? Seems a pretty relevant question right now.

    • TedCan June 5, 2010 at 12:58 AM

      OveHg, typical leftist, can’t argue the facts so resort to slander.

      Take a bill and relax

    • Bernd Felsche June 5, 2010 at 7:28 AM

      You shouldn’t wilfully misrepresent a respectable scientist, OveHG.

  2. Peter Sinclair June 4, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    Abraham’s takedown is devastating and definitive.
    For those that can’t spare the 80 minutes – you can see his Lordship
    dismembered in only 10, here:

  3. Anton June 4, 2010 at 11:50 PM

    So now the AGW fanatics are backing a dubious cientist from a bible-thumper’s college? Politics DOES make strange bedfellows.

    I have confidence that Christopher Monckton will win this battle.

    As to OveHG’s comment: Monckton is a hereditary member of House of Lords. His titles are real. How about yours?

    • J Bowers June 5, 2010 at 10:18 PM

      “..Monckton is a hereditary member of House of Lords…”

      No, he isn’t. Even if he was, don’t even begin to imagine that would give him any more credibility back in Blighty, which may well have still been a republic had Cromwell not banned Christmas.

  4. GeneB June 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM

    I am a huge fan of Lord Monckton! Abraham’s willful academic dishonesty is sickening.

    • fishonareef June 6, 2010 at 11:19 PM

      How is it that you think Abraham is dishonest? He backed up everything he said, and cited his sources. Can’s say the same for Monkton, who is simply lying to you.

  5. gofer June 5, 2010 at 12:06 AM

    Global warmers, either the most gullible fools who ever lived or the biggest con-artists in existence.

  6. Human Person Jr. June 5, 2010 at 12:12 AM

    Lord Monckton, your ready wit, not to mention your ability to stitch together complex sentences in a manner that would make Dickens proud, serves all rational people in the world.

    Thank you, Sir. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for the wonderful work you do.

  7. gary June 5, 2010 at 12:24 AM

    It will be entertaining in the extreme to watch Abraham humiliated.
    The warmists have so little left of their pathetic agenda it is actually fun to watch them sqirm now.

    30 years and 75 Billion dollars wasted and still no evidence to support the silly claims.

  8. […] George Monbiot, pushed the lurid Lord over the edge, giving rise to a vicious, petty and insulting rejoinder that is all-but-entirely free of […]

  9. Dr Who June 5, 2010 at 12:57 AM

    OveHG is in all likelihood the Queensland based Great Barrier reef scientist, well known for his guilding of lillies and self promotion.

    Its surprising that as a scientist,if indeed it is him, he has nothing scientific to say in response to either Abraham or Monckton.

    .. just more slurs.

    Seems to be indicating that the heaterists have lost and are now completely intellectually barren..but still on the public purses of course.

  10. Dirk June 5, 2010 at 1:54 AM

    I have watched Prof. Abrahams presentation, it is very convincing. If Lord Monckton is being truthful, then what is clearly says to me is that there are many scientists who have sold out to the global warming conspiracy.

    Sadly, I suspect that is the case.

    I wish CERN would publish some results…

  11. Gary P June 5, 2010 at 2:10 AM

    Thank you Lord Monckton for all of your work. I’m not a big believer in titles, but you certainly have earned yours. I was privileged to attend your talk in Minnesota and my friends from work rue the day that they turned down my offer to go with me.

    As an aside, I see that evidence is mounting that orbits of the large planets may be driving climate changes.
    The plausible theory is that the planets cause solar tides that effect solar activity that changes the climate on the earth, perhaps through cosmic rays per Svensmark. I keep thinking this could become the birth of Scientific Astrology where the orbits of the planets at ones birth will indicate the climate one will face over a lifetime.

  12. Roger Knights June 5, 2010 at 3:55 AM

    I’m hoping that Monckton can counterpunch his way to a victory in academic proceedings that will discomfit those who endorsed Abraham, in a manner similar to the British court’s findings against Gore’s film.

    However, one flaw I have observed occasionally in Monckton’s presentations is an occasional tendncy to stretch a point, and also an unwillingness to concede an inch to an opponent. I think that a better strategy in this conflict would be to concede as any errors Abraham has found, especially if they’re trivial, and even if Abraham has in some cases made a mountain out of a molehill.

    Then, with the decks cleared of material with which Abraham could muddy the waters, a decisive victory could be obtained on the remaining, major points.

  13. Roger Knights June 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM

    PS: In other words he shouldn’t formally take issue, in his complaint, about points where Abraham can make some sort of obfuscatory defense. He should note these matters in a postscript, but not include them in the numbered items in the gravamen of his charge.

  14. Rob June 5, 2010 at 4:38 AM

    Fun to watch a classics major and journalism grad resume`puffer claiming to be some sort of scientist squirm when the spotlight of someone who actually is able and willing to call him on his never ending stream of b.s.

    Most entertaining “Lord.”

    Nice crowned portcullis too. What’s that for again?

    • JIMB June 5, 2010 at 7:10 PM

      I am amused by the calls for a real scientific degree in order to understand the points at issue. All that is needed is an analytical mind and access to the data.

      Note that the “science” of climate change is basically software writing; modified to get the desired result. Paleoclimatology is a fuzzy area, and it is the basis for a lot of the projections and alarm about current global temperatures. Even when it is not being based on cherry-picked bristlecone pines.

      As a retired one-time chemical engineer, I know all about “fluid flow expertise”. It is a good basis for having an analytical mind (Reynolds number and all that) but it is not nearly as good a background as McIntyre’s.

  15. Rob June 5, 2010 at 4:43 AM

    As to the Lord’s wondering about the time elapsed between his presentation and Abraham’s wasting of it, it takes more time to actually find sources, inquire of the writers of the original literature, etc. than to just make stuff up. The latter is especially easy with a large staff to help with the chore. I certainly am not surprised that his Lordship didn’t get it.

  16. Bill W June 5, 2010 at 4:50 AM

    “Here’s the thing. All of the sciences are becoming increasingly specialized. So most “scientists” – Abraham and, a fortiori, the accident-prone Monbiot among them – have no more expertise in predicting or even understanding the strange behavior of the complex, non-linear, chaotic object that is the Earth’s climate than the man on the Clapham omnibus.”

    Exactly. And your qualifications, Lord Monckton, are what, exactly? A journalism degree, I believe? At least Abraham has a scientific doctorate, and therefore understands the scientific method.

    It takes very little time and effort to spew nonscientific claptrap. It takes a great deal of time to research the actual science that rebuts the claptrap. Thus the lack of debaters on the AGW side.

    You, sir, are the very epitome of the phrase “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.” What continues to amaze me is how successful you are at it.

    • aruanan June 6, 2010 at 2:45 AM

      “Exactly. And your qualifications, Lord Monckton, are what, exactly? A journalism degree, I believe?”

      Ha ha ha ha. Monckton demonstrates what he knows. And in the field of science, that, aside from any titles, honorary or earned, is the only thing that matters. It’s too bad that so many believe that “degree in science” = “pursuit of truth” or “infallible logic” and then swallow whatever is set before them for reasons having nothing to do with science.

      “At least Abraham has a scientific doctorate, and therefore understands the scientific method.”

      By “scientific doctorate” do you mean “doctorate in a field of science”?

      Knowing a technique doesn’t guarantee its proper use and not having a title doesn’t mean one cannot know the techniques in depth and use them skillfully.

      Someone can have an MBA, understand the principles of accounting, but use them to enrich himself through embezzling. Abraham and so many others pushing AGW are the scientific equivalent of embezzlers, using a position of trust (“Back off, Jack. I’m a scientist!”) to screw over their benefactors (mostly the taxpayers) in order to advance their own political agenda.

      You, sir, are the very epitome of the phrase “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” What continues to amaze me is how committed such people are to holding on to something for which there no longer exists any rational basis.

  17. EoR June 5, 2010 at 5:44 AM

    so venomously ad-hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities (…) One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian

    It is heartening to discern how well the emininent scientist Monckton has learnt his skills and been able to apply them.

    Oh, hang on. That ad hominen wasn’t a joke?

  18. Anton June 5, 2010 at 6:35 AM

    Since the Warmists have started their own program to “refute” the deniers, isn’t it interesting to see the troll letters from alleged experts in the field?

    Christopher Monckton, journalism degree or not, is better educated and informed on the subject of global warming–an invention of Margaret Thatcher (he worked for her)–than all of the Warmists combined. He knows the history of the movement, and was there from the beginning.

    So the Warmists (read fanatics) now attack him for exposing their fraud, rather than confronting their leaders and asking them why they lied. I’ve never seen a better example of religious lunacy. They are so wedded to their doctrine, they cannot stand the slightest doubt.

    Warmists take heart: You have Goldman Sachs on your side. That it is the investment firm most responsible for the housing bubble and international financial crisis, and now most involved with the carbon trading flimflam, should not trouble you. That it dumped half of its shares in BP right before the Gulf disaster should not trouble you. That it has teamed with Al Gore should not trouble you.

    You have holy writ–the IPCC reports–on you side, and are saving the world. Who cares that the IPCC leader is heavily vested in carbon trading, or that the “scientists” you cite would starve if global warming were disproved? Conflict of interest means nothing to you, as long as it’s YOUR interest being promoted.

    Monckton should sue Abraham. He would win in a heartbeat, and then what? You would attack the courts? Of course. The only laws that matter are those that suit you.

    If any of you would shut up long enough to examine the evidence without worrying about your enormous egos, you might discover something interesting. But, ego reigns supreme among Warmmists, who couldn’t care less about reality.

  19. Rob June 5, 2010 at 8:09 AM

    “should sue Abraham…” Hilarious. I can’t wait to see it. Also quite comical to read an acolyte of the faux Lord of the pink crowned portcullis talking about ego reigning supreme. Between his faux Lordship and Marc “how many times can I put my own name on my page” Morano, there’s not a lot of ego left for anyone else.

    Monckton is to facts like Ye Olde Cheese Emporium is to cheese. None in the shop.

  20. Andy S June 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM

    Abraham’s takedown was well doumented and sober. On the other hand…

    Monckton’s purple prose and pink portcullises reveal him as a bluffer and a crank. He’s great entertainment value, admittedly, but anyone who takes him seriously is simply not getting the joke.

  21. James Evans June 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM

    It puzzles me more and more every day. Alarmist activists have recently developed this idea that increasing the volume of alarmist comments on blog posts will have some sort of effect.

    It really doesn’t matter which way you spin the information. People will check out the information for themselves. And then they will see who was being truthful, and who was being sly.

    It’ll come back to bite you in the end.

  22. J Bowers June 5, 2010 at 1:34 PM

    Christopher Monckton: “…He’s saying not that I got one thing wrong but that I got just about everything wrong. And how plausible is that?…”

    Highly plausible. It’s not exactly the first time this has happened. Did Christopher Monckton ever get around to responding to the reply to Professor Barry Bickmore’s enquiry to the House of Lords?

    House of Lords: “Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”

    Not such a bad thng had Christopher Monckton not testified to US Congress and said in an email to Prof. Bickmore that he was a ‘non-voting’ and ‘honorary member’ of the House of Lords.

    Christopjer Monckton in an email to Professor Bickmore: “I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise.”

    Hmmm. Who’s being mendacious?

    Christopher Monckton: “…Why has it taken Abraham so long to cobble together his ramblings?…”

    That is such a ridiculous and unreasonable statement to make. How long has it taken Monckton to cobble together his pseudoscientific ramblings (although a couple of days would honestly not surprise me). As Mark Twain said, “a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on”

    • Gator June 5, 2010 at 3:09 PM

      Gee JB, which story has circled the globe at light speed for the past 20 years, and which story is just now seeing the light of day? I love Mark Twain as well. Keep reading and maybe someday you will understand the quotes you post.

      • J Bowers June 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM

        Actually Gator, since Arhennius was putting ground temperature rise per doubling of CO2 at 4°C way back in the 1890’s, Callendar at 2°C in the 1930’s, and Plass at 3-4°C in the 1950’s, I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension and understand what it is you argue about.

        0.5-1°C is the real twenty year old story.

  23. Anton June 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM

    Rob says:
    June 5, 2010 at 08:09
    “‘should sue Abraham…’ Hilarious. I can’t wait to see it. Also quite comical to read an acolyte of the faux Lord of the pink crowned portcullis talking about ego reigning supreme. Between his faux Lordship and Marc “how many times can I put my own name on my page” Morano, there’s not a lot of ego left for anyone else.

    “Monckton is to facts like Ye Olde Cheese Emporium is to cheese. None in the shop.”

    Andy says:
    June 5, 2010 at 08:58
    “Abraham’s takedown was well doumented and sober. On the other hand…

    “Monckton’s purple prose and pink portcullises reveal him as a bluffer and a crank. He’s great entertainment value, admittedly, but anyone who takes him seriously is simply not getting the joke.”
    Are we sure that Rob and Andy aren’t the same person, or working on the same team? Their talking points are so amazingly similar, as are their delivery styles.

    Rob’s awareness of Marc Morano suggests that he, Rob, is one of the Warmist trolls who invest inordinate amounts of time in attacking skeptics rather than debating them. Morano’s Web site is SUPPOSED to be funny; he modeled it on the Drudge Report and sundry tabloids; it’s a parody on the melodramatic Warmist sights with their doom and gloom headlines. No wonder it so disturbs them. At least on some level, THEY are getting the joke.

    Incidentally, I am not an acolyte of Monckton’s, but face it, he’s smarter than most of his critics, writes better than all of them, and is not intimidated by their pitbull tactics. And yes, he would win in a court of law.

    If he’s filing charges against Abraham for academic misconduct (as in fabricating his material), he must be pretty sure of himself. Let’s see how long it takes for Abraham to back down, if he does. Or maybe he’ll get his co-believer cronies to “investigate” the way Mann and Jones did, and declare him innocent of all wrongdoing.

    James Evans (above) is right: The alarmists think that by orchestrating their attacks and getting more and more dramatic, they will turn the tide (pun intended) back in their direction. No chance. With every new utterance or declaration, they manage to offend even more people. The public is no longer buying the narrative. We can see for ourselves that the seas are not rising, that the ice caps are not melting, and that polar bears, far from becoming extinct, are thriving in numbers far higher than thirty or forty years ago. We can FEEL for ourselves that the temperatures are not higher, no matter how many time James Hansen doctors them to show non-existent warming (he just did it again). We can see and feel for ourselves that the winters are not warmer, but much colder and longer.

    Finally, we can observe for ourselves that the climate scientists spewing scare stories are always flying around on private jets to fabulousy expensive conferences, staying in five-star hotels, riding in limos, and dumping more allegedly dangerous CO2 into the air than almost anybody else. If they believe their scare stories, this behavior makes them criminal sociopaths, willing to hasten the Earth’s destruction for their own fun and entertainment. If they aren’t criminal sociopaths, then they don’t believe their own scare stories, but have concocted them to create and maintain income streams from grants, and to enjoy world travel and lifestyles they otherwise could not afford. Some, like Hansen and Mann, are media addicts, in love with publicity and their temporary status as climate rock stars. But, one thing is sure: They’re all less than honorable, ethical, and particularly bright.

  24. Paul A June 5, 2010 at 3:25 PM

    “He served as a science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher..”

    Come on Christopher, admit it. you were never a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Special economic advisor, yes. Science advisor, no.

  25. John June 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM

    Monckton seems very bitter towards Monbiot. Is this becaue the Press Complaints Comission didn’t uphold Mockton’s comical complaint against him?

  26. Paul A June 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM

    “He’s saying not that I got one thing wrong but that I got just about everything wrong. And how plausible is that?”

    Highly. You are a serial fantasist. How are the cures for AIDS (or is it just HIV?), Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI coming along?

  27. Rob June 5, 2010 at 5:48 PM


    “We can FEEL for ourselves that the temperatures are not higher, no matter how many time James Hansen doctors them to show non-existent warming (he just did it again). We can see and feel for ourselves that the winters are not warmer, but much colder and longer.”

    That takes care of Anton’s level of understanding of the issues involved in climate dynamics.

    As to his faux Lordship prevailing in Court, the idea is worth a hoot but no more. Academic review? Even less chance. Abraham’s presentation was scrupulously documented. Monckton’s? Cobbled together and easily refuted talking points intended to bedazzle the uninformed. That dog won’t hunt in an academic inquiry.

    The “I want a public debate” meme is a sure sign of a losing position when it’s scientific fact being discussed. Policy issues? Sure, debate can be helpful and enlightening in that arena (though even there it tends to reflect personality more than substance).

    Anyway, it’s quite entertaining to watch the faux Lord and his minions squirm under the magnifying glass.

  28. D Bryan June 5, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    Lard Monckton, that shameless wind bag has clearly been defrocked. I’m not asserting that this is a particularly important accomplishment. Nevertheless, any reasonably intelligent neutral observer, upon actually reading / listening to the case presented by each side and checking the “facts”, could not help but agree. Where do they find the parroting yokels and sycophants on this blog page? Time is not on your side.

    Speaking of time, why do we still have Englishmen enriching themselves while destroying the natural environment of North America? Our own colonial corporations can do that quite nicely without your help.

  29. barry June 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM

    I watched Abraham’s video. The most striking thing about it is that Abraham contacted a good number of authors of some of the papers Monckton referenced. All of them said, “He’s wrong,” either those actual words or close facsimiles. It’s pretty devastating when your sources gainsay you.

    Someone upthread scoffed at ‘warmists’ backing a scientist from a non-climate discipline. I wonder if they even bother contorting that logic to accommodates their faith in Monckton, who isn’t even a scientist.

    Not one post on the substance of the claims! This whole discussion has been political, not scientific, and that is exactly the hand that denialists are playing. Google up talking points they don’t understand, propagate the noise, and barrack for whoever says what they like to hear. Brilliant.

  30. barry June 5, 2010 at 6:39 PM

    A head-to-head debate on a scientific theory? Worse than useless. Rhetoric has no place in deterministic disciplines. Politicians and lawyers debate, and facts are subservient to the outcome. It’s the other way around in science.

  31. Anton June 5, 2010 at 6:46 PM

    Rob, experiencing temperatures rather than estimating them is infinitely more reliable. Observational (deductive) evidence will always trump wished-for (inductive) evidence. But, of course, post-normal science isn’t based on logic or induction; it’s based on deduction (also called guessing), and political/social interests. It isn’t science, it’s religion.

    Your smugness is fascinating, as is your obsession with Monckton. Why don’t YOU challenge him to a debate, and while your at it, why don’t you publically, using your full name, denounce him as an imposter who isn’t a real peer of the realm? Let’s see how far you get. I would PAY to see that debate, where Monckton would cite facts, and you would throw ad hominems and appeals to authority. And, let’s not forget appeals to CONSENSUS, a Warmists’ favorite.

    Since none of your side’s predictions of global warming disasters have come to pass, even though many of the predicted doom dates have long since come and gone, I don’t think your predictions concerning Monckton in a court of law or university dispute are any more plausible. Your side obviously is living in Cloud Cookoo Land, where consistently being wrong has no effect on faith.

    Since you are a know-it-all, surrounded by other know-it-alls, who am I to laugh so hard I have to go pee?

    Have a great day!

  32. Anton June 5, 2010 at 6:48 PM

    Typorama. “But, of course, post-normal science isn’t based on logic or DEDUCTION; it’s based on INDUCTION (also called guessing), and political/social interests. It isn’t science, it’s religion.”

    I was laughing so much I couldn’t even type straight. Now, I really DO have to pee.

    Be happy 🙂

  33. Rob June 5, 2010 at 7:10 PM

    Take a deep breath Anton. As I implied above, matters of physics are not settled by debate. And He of the Pink Crowned Portcullis likely has significantly better skills in the arena of “baffling ’em with b.s.” than I do.

    As to his faux Lordhip’s veracity with respect to his positions and title, I’ll leave that to the Upper House as quoted upthread. They have nothing to do with his argument anyway – I wonder why he feels the necessity to trot them out? It only serves to provide fodder for those who like to poke fun at him. Like me. 🙂

    McIntyre, Lonborg, the Pielkes Jr. and Sr., and others at least make an attempt to utilize facts and data. I’d suggest sticking with such as they rather than a hoary windbag like Monckton.

  34. Tony June 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM

    Monbiot may well have marxist leanings but the Grauniad is really a state funded advertising pl;atform for spurious unnecessary jobs. With a bit of luck the shortly to be contracted public sector will cause their advertising revenue to fall so sharply they won’t be able to afford Mionbiot. Perhaps he could get an outlet for his views on CBBC.

  35. Climate Change Con........ June 5, 2010 at 8:52 PM />

    “Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud”

    “Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
    Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
    He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
    on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.”

    see Dr Morner’s evidence (link below) on sea level rises, submitted to Parliament .

    “Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project”

  36. Greggcwa June 5, 2010 at 9:18 PM

    My background (unlike, I suspect, most commentators on this material) is a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics. Lord Monckton is 100% correct in everything he says in his scientific refutation of this AGW nonsense. I have looked at the GCM’s. One of my specialties was modeling complex systems based on coupled integro-differential equations. The GCM’s (if you dont know what that means, you should not be making any comments on this subject at all) are total garbage. They are a “child’s garden” approximation (actually that’s an insult to all children) to an infinitely complex non-linear system. Even the Navier-Stokes equations do not do justice to the full complexity of the world’s weather system. And if you know how to supply guidance on solutions to these equations, I can show you where to win $1,000,000 prize.
    As for Gore, he is undoubtedly the most stupid moron on the planet…. he failed Divinity School. How the hell do you fail Divinity School !!! ???
    Before any of you political scientists (one of the “dismal” sciences) make any more comments, try going back to school and getting a real science education. You are not worthy to shine Lord Monckton’s shoes. Begone Satans !!!

    • J Bowers June 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM

      “..try going back to school and getting a real science education…”

      Given your comments on the article’s author, I’m surprised to see you talk this way about Christopher Monckton.

  37. Anton June 5, 2010 at 9:22 PM

    Rob, I’m impressed by some of the names on your list.

    I have also asked why Monckton uses his titles. I think others actually use them more than he does, but when he sends out letters on “official” stationery, it gives some people ideas.

    Many British and European aristocrats and royals use their titles openly at every available opportunity. Then there are the dubious peers, such as “Sir Elton John,” who do not stop others from calling them this and even addressing them as such. The Press is especially fawning.

    I dislike the general use of titles, including academic ones. I think they’re fine in very narrow settings, but to use them socially is tacky. You will note that many of the writers of the ClimateGate e-mails put every title they could next to, or under, their names, even though they were writing to friends and associates. Talk about pompous.

    Humility is always preferable to pride.

    Inherited titles mean nothing.

    Unearned titles mean nothing, and most earned titles mean nothing, too.

    I will now bury my hatchet, and I apologize for going overboard.

  38. Rob June 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM


    :… try going to back to school and getting a real science education.” I guess you must mean like Monckton’s? Oh, wait…

    I could have inferred that you had a doctorate without your declaration because highly educated scholars typically use punctuation strings like “!!!” and “??? !!!” And the physics was obvious from “coupled integro-differential equations.” Finally, your climate specialization was clear from your use of “GCM’s.” Google is truly your friend.

    As an aside, I don’t have any interest in shining Monckton’s shoes, so you’re right, I’m not fit to do so.

  39. toby June 5, 2010 at 10:02 PM

    I had to laugh at the early paragraphs when Monckton lectured the world on what a “scientist” is. There is even a reapeat of the lie that Monckon was a “science adviser” o the British Government. In fact, he worked in the No. 10 Policy Unit because of a paper he wrote on council housing.

    It is a sign that the US Republican Party, once the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower, has fallen into the hands of the anti-intellectuals when it depends on the “science advice” of the likes of Monckton.

    Monckton got rightly nailed by Abraham, as he was also be Peter Sinclair.

  40. Rob June 5, 2010 at 10:08 PM


    Though based on fundamental and broad principles of radiative transfer and thermodynamics (I’m NOT a specialist) I strongly disagree with Monckton’s conclusions (which I’ll summarize in a way with which, having watched his Minnesota presentation, I think he’d agree – everything climate related is fine), I was quite disturbed with much of the content and tenor of the so-called “climate gate” emails.

  41. toby June 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM

    Rob & Anton,

    I do not think the “climategate” e-mails reflected in any way on the science of AGW.

    Nor do I think the use of titles in an e-mail signature reflects on the sender. The company for which I work insists we have a standard e-mail signature set up in the e-mail software to automatically add to each mail & I am sure the same was true for the professors and scientists involved in the CRU faux-scandal.

  42. Rob June 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM


    I agree that nothing in the hacked emails shakes the foundations of the conclusions of mainstream climate science. And on my corporate email signature, which is automatically attached to emails from that account, my title is included. I don’t put my family’s coat of arms though (and wouldn’t if we had one 😉 ).

    But the emails revealed a spitefulness and pettiness that was very unbecoming. I might speak in such a way in a bar with friends but I wouldn’t, nor would I want my employees, to write in such a way with my firm’s email account.

    That said, I wouldn’t want a hacker to steal our emails either.

    • J Bowers June 5, 2010 at 10:53 PM

      Sir Isaac Newton was no saint. A good job he didn’t have email, I dare say 😉

      • Rob June 5, 2010 at 10:57 PM

        Nor did he suffer from humility.

        Smart though.

    • CFACT EU June 6, 2010 at 12:54 AM

      It appears that the climategate emails were exposed by a whistle blower rather than a hacker although we do not know this conclusively.

      • J Bowers June 6, 2010 at 2:46 AM

        Sorry, I thought you were presenting evidence that it was a whistleblower and not a hacker, but all I saw was spin and conjecture. Can you provide a link to the correct video please?

  43. A. Phillips June 6, 2010 at 12:26 AM

    “Lord Monckton debunks video point by point”


    This is the contrarians’ problem, as I see it: there comes a time when they get enough public attention to become the subject of sceptical inquiry themselves. And that’s when their chickens come home to roost. The double standards are ludicrous. Come back IPCC, all is forgiven!

    Lord Monckton: you will have to do better than ‘Bible College’ or quibbling over the odd detail. You have not addressed the substance of Abraham’s presentation – on sea-level, or temperature, or solar influence, etc. Perhaps you should have done what he has done, and contacted your sources to check whether your understanding of their work was correct. As things stand, you’ve got a bit of explaining to do, and that’s putting it mildly.

  44. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 12:39 AM

    Lord Monckton– You have been exposed as a fraud by real scholars just like the Colorado fraud Ward Churchill was exposed.

    If you were a professor, you would be investigated and fired for systematically mischaracterizing the research of real scholars.

  45. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 12:50 AM

    You are a real slime-ball to denigrate Dr. Abraham’s Roman Catholic university a “Bible college” as if they were supposed anti-scientific “fundamentalists.” What a little creep you are. Roman Catholics are not anti-scientific.

    I went to the Vatican’s website and used the search feature to check out the Vatican’s position on global warming. On May 10, 2007, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, H.E. MSGR. Celestino Migliore addressed the United Nations on the issue of global warming and said:

    The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk…Many of the most vulnerable societies, already facing energy problems, rely upon agriculture, the very sector most likely to suffer from climatic shifts.

  46. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 12:59 AM

    Monckton’s bird-brained anti-scientific canard about the apocryphal plots of crafty climate scientists reminds me of Soviet KGB propaganda about AIDS being made in Pentagon laboratories.

    Eventually, KGB chief Primakov admitted to Soviet university students that his agency spread this destructive canard and Izvestia (3-19-92) reported:

    [KGB foreign intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ ‘crafty’ plots were fabricated in KGB offices.

  47. Theo Goodwin June 6, 2010 at 1:06 AM

    May I please address the question of Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy, a mistake in reasoning. It occurs when someone responds to the argument of another by (1) changing the topic to the personal characteristics of his opponent and (2) abusing that person by insulting them in some fashion. Monckton does not commit an Ad Hominem in his response. He sets out to prove that Abraham is not honest in his presentation. So, (1) Monckton does not change the subject. And (2) Monckton does not abuse Abraham but presents evidence that he is not honest. In general, when one’s goal is to prove that one’s opponent is cheating, it is not an Ad Hominem to present evidence that he is cheating.

  48. Theo Goodwin June 6, 2010 at 1:08 AM

    Peter Sinclair writes:

    “Abraham’s takedown is devastating and definitive.
    For those that can’t spare the 80 minutes – you can see his Lordshipdismembered in only 10, here:”

    I could not understand a single point Abraham claimed to make. Could you explain one? I didn’t think so.

  49. Charles June 6, 2010 at 1:26 AM

    What’s lost here is that CO2 is simply a trace gas that can be taxed and therefore became the progressive’s sacred statue on the AGW alter. But when people are confronted with the percentages of manmade atmospheric CO2 makeup, including IPCC scientists, they go silent.Lets do the math: Assume 1.5% of atmosphere is greenhouse gas.

    1.5 x .0362= .0543 (The amount of carbon in atmosphere.)

    .0543 x .034 = .0018462% (The amount of manmade carbon in atmosphere.)

    .0018462 x .2 = .00036924% (20% potential reduction of carbon.)

    Are we all going to be taxed hundreds of billions to try and reduce a naturally occuring gas 4/10,000 of 1 % ???

  50. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 1:49 AM


    Dr. Abraham’s point is that Lord Monckton does not quote climate scientists accurately.

    He is dishonest to pretend to be using scholarly sources.

    • aruanan June 6, 2010 at 2:53 AM

      Dr. Abraham’s point is that Lord Monckton does not quote climate scientists accurately.

      Yes, that’s his “point.” The question is whether he has honestly made it and has adequately demonstrated it. That appears to be a question for which you have already assumed the answer.

      • fizzy water solution June 6, 2010 at 3:55 AM

        “The question is whether he has honestly made it and has adequately demonstrated it.”

        He has. You can check the references yourself; no assumptions necessary.

  51. […] George Monbiot, pushed the lurid Lord over the edge, giving rise to a vicious, petty and insulting rejoinder that is all-but-entirely free of substance. Oh, it's true that Monckton tries to cherry pick a few […]

  52. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 1:56 AM

    Seems like the Vatican, the Pentagon, and the CIA are all in on the global warming communist conspiracy with the “crafty” climate scientists.

    That is a really big conspiracy Lord Monckton has nosed out. Sounds like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to me.

    Sounds like Hitler talking about Jews or Bolsheviks talking about capitalists.

    And what about that anti-religious Bolshevik crack about Abraham’s “Bible College.” Abraham works for a large Catholic University. The Vatican believes in global warming.

    • aruanan June 6, 2010 at 2:57 AM

      And what about that anti-religious Bolshevik crack about Abraham’s “Bible College.” Abraham works for a large Catholic University. The Vatican believes in global warming.
      So much for the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. I notice you do an awful lot of thinking by analogy and believe that has proved something other than your propensity to argue by analogy, well, that and appeals to authority, both non-starters.

  53. Snapple the apple June 6, 2010 at 2:04 AM

    Snapple, you are brain washed idiot… Sorry, i cant be bothered to waste my time educating you… But your entire post demonstrates the kind of idiots we have running about the place..

    You are nothing more than a global warming alarmist, who hasn’t got a clue.. You have brain washed drone written over every single word you type..

  54. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 2:04 AM

    Monckton is the one who won’t debate scientists. He misquotes them:

    “I wrote to these authors and I read their papers. It turned out that none of the authors or papers made the claims that Monckton attributed to them. This pattern of misinterpretation was becoming chronic.”—Dr. John Abraham in The Guardian (6-3-10)

    • Snapple the apple June 6, 2010 at 2:13 AM

      Get this is in your head twit… Monckton will destroy these people in a court of law, ask John Abraham to go to court and challenge Monckton and you will see him fail, in a big way… How much would you like to bet, you ill never see that day happen? You know why you wont, becuse when it is shown in court what these alarmists are all about, they are finished for good.. Take your silly old, stale propaganda and apply it in places where it will actually mean something, because i can assure you, i know when i see gate keeping brain washed drone when i see one..

      • Rob June 6, 2010 at 3:23 AM

        Ask John Abraham to go to court and challenge Monckton? That doesn’t even make sense. As nearly as I can tell, you’re suggesting that Abraham make a claim for damages based on what Monckton has written in this column? I can’t imagine that getting the wing nut brigade fired up on the web site would damage Abraham.

        And Monckton is going to get “Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster, to answer disciplinary charges?” Sure

  55. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 2:12 AM

    Actually, I am an expert on Russian propaganda.

    What I notice is that the Russian media, which are often owned by the oil and gas monopolies, are saying the same thing as Lord Monckton. They even put him on the Russia Today program. Denialists write for Pravda, too.

    Russia is a dictatorship ruled by the oil and gas interests. President Medvedev is the former chairman of the board of Gazprom.

    The head of the ruling United Russia Party is the KGB officer Putin.

  56. Snapple June 6, 2010 at 2:50 AM

    Climategate: Russian Climate Skeptics Can’t Decide if British Scientists Made the Porridge Too Hot or Too Cold!

    It is ironic that athough Russian climate skeptics accuse the British climate scientists of being “fabricators,” the Russian skeptics don’t seem to agree with each other about what the climate scientists fabricated! Did allegedly dishonest British climate scientists hide the fact that the climate is cooling or did the British scientists exaggerate the extent of global warming? The “dishonest” British scientists probably haven’t done both.

    The various Russian climate skeptics sound like Goldilocks tasting the Three Bears’ porridge: They complain that the British climate scientists are suppressing evidence that the climate is getting both colder and only a little warmer.

  57. Douglas W. Cooper, Ph. D. June 6, 2010 at 3:57 AM

    When Chicken Little warned us “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” she did not have a political or professional or commercial interest in making her erroneous prediction.
    Those who warn us of anthropogenic global warming are not generally so disinterested.

    My training, experience, and expertise have made me very skeptical of the claims of AGW. A modest warming, should it occur, might well be generally beneficial. The costs of trying to prevent it through regulating our activities is likely to be prohibitive.

    Normal technological development can be expected to displace current types of energy generation. Premature adoption of such technologies will simply be wasteful.

    • hmm June 7, 2010 at 8:24 AM

      So your argument is.

      “It isn’t warming, and the warming is probably beneficial!”

      Amusing 🙂

  58. 1DandyTroll June 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM

    Lord Monckton is like a science rambo, he turns every mental greenie to shreds… without the M60 machine gun no less!?!

    • Rob June 6, 2010 at 4:28 AM

      You’re right – Monckton’s plot is every bit as fictional.

  59. bob young June 6, 2010 at 6:14 AM

    Not only does Lord Monckton believe what he says, it has the added benefit of also being true

  60. Dan R June 6, 2010 at 4:28 PM

    “And the judge’s finding could not have been blunter: “The Armageddon scenario that he [Gore] depicts is not based on any scientific view.” And that quotation, too, was on one of my slides, but Abraham carefully failed to mention it, or to check with me to find out how it was that the judge had come to that conclusion.”

    – Monckton

    What the judge actually stated:
    “It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he [Gore] predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

    Here is a transcript of An Inconvenient Truth, if you can find where Gore puts a date on ice-sheet break-up, let me know.

  61. Paul A June 6, 2010 at 4:30 PM

    We should remember that this isn’t the first time Monckton pseudo-science has been eviscerated. In 2008 Arthur Smith wrote a response to Monckton’s non-peer reviewed paper “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” that identified a whapping 125 errors:

  62. Paul A June 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    Oh, and of course we mustn’t forget Peter Sinclair’s Debunking Lord Monckton (Part 1)

    and Part 2

  63. Sam C June 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM

    Only simple-minded people believe a potential 2 degree C temperature rise will have any significant ill effects on the Earth. Alarmist, such as Abraham and Snapple, should study/learn what CO2 is before come to conclusion that CO2 will be casuing any warming of the Earth.

    Stop funding the IPCC, the NAS and those speculated CO2 causing climate change!

  64. The Future June 6, 2010 at 5:38 PM

    People should go read Abraham”s reply to Monckton above reply. Quite damaging. Abraham deals with whether claims are backed by independent scientific review and official journals. lack of citations in Monckton claims abound. The above Monckton reply is a conman’s classic misdirection. If Monckton yells loud enough “look over here!!! No not at independent cited science, at my claims dolled up to look like science!!!” then he fools the general public not reading science publications. The climate is changing. Yelling about it won’t make that not so. Monckton can you hear it approaching? That’s the future announcing your irrelavance.

  65. Sean O'hare June 6, 2010 at 6:07 PM

    ..whenever one of his climate-extremist Comrades asserted that I’d gotten something wrong.

    From Wiki Answers:

    Although the British stopped using the past participle gotten about three hundred years ago, the American colonists and their descendants–especially in New England–still tend to use it.

    Makes we wonder exactly who wrote this article. Or is it just that Lord Monckton has been spending too much time the other side of pond.

    • CFACT EU June 6, 2010 at 7:41 PM

      This article is pure Monckton.

      • Rob June 6, 2010 at 10:51 PM

        I don’t doubt it at all. In writing style it reminds me of the following, taken from Dr. Steven Dutch’s site entitle “Science, Pseudoscience and Irrationalism,” and specifically the article “So-called Experts.” One of Professor Dutch’s correspondents wrote:

        You astound me, Steve Dutch. The reasons for this are varied, and while I do not plan to explore them in full detail, I shall outline them briefly for the benefit of your utterly massive ego. It started with an accidental visit to your site, this mundane scatter of HTML encased with long, long paragraphs. The opinions stated in an irrefutable manner, the disclaimers proudly displayed in the heading of each page, and that peculiar manner in which you choose to write, a manner which often leaves readers unaware of your true feelings. Yet these reasons are what compelled me to sacrifice an entire evening analyzing every detail of your personal monument (for would merit would my words have if they were based on a single article?). I’m given the distinct impression that you represent a mythical hybrid, some odd amalgamation of Basil Fawlty and Santa Claus. However, these perceived follies present the justification for my presence; to actually discover, on the Internet, logical ideas presented in a manner devoid of superfluous graphics and fanfare is commendable. I sincerely hope your students recognize your seemingly endless source of wisdom, as well as your analytical abilities. Also, after reading your praise for the film “Enemy at the Gates,” I’m interested in your opinion concerning “A Bridge Too Far.”

        A forewarning: disregarding the film, or curtailing its perceived historical inaccuracies will result in a lengthy, Ignatius Reilly-esque tirade in which I prove you wrong. Commending it, though, will justify further praise upon your spacious mind.

        Monckton’s gibberish and ludicrous threats (“several hundred question,” “hauled before … Panel”) make just as much (I.e., none) sense.

  66. […] Professor Abraham has nailed Monckton, but he is not the first. Climate Denial Crock of the Week Climate: The Extremists Join the Debate at Last! | CFACT Europe Monckton has issued a serf-serving, bad-tempered and ad-hominem response through CFACT, and […]

  67. Hampy June 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM

    Oh lordy, lordy!

    Are we to debate the validity of quantum physics, evolution, general relativity, genetics?

    The universe doesn’t work on the basis of human choice, democracy, a free market, socialism, communism or capitalism.

    If you can’t take the heat Christopher, the kitchen door is not far away.

  68. […] Stung by John Abraham’s devastating takedown, “Lord” Christopher Monckton offered an incoherent, rambling, pointless reply. […]

  69. wales skeptic June 6, 2010 at 9:20 PM

    Monckton has a reputation to bankroll, I mean uphold. The truth doesn’t matter to him anymore.

  70. […] then Lord Monckton has replied. Consider his opening gambit: ONE of the numerous propaganda artifices deployed by the […]

  71. Patrick Jones June 7, 2010 at 12:40 AM

    Huh, so Monckton has a problem with the fact Abraham and Monbiot are only scientists, not fully fledged and learned climatoligists, well I’ll be blowed, this from a second rate journalist!
    Monckton, get real, Professor Abraham systematically pulled your presentations apart and showed to to be what it is, pure clap-trap.
    As for the people from all walks of life who know and understand the facts that AGW is happening, far from being on the retreat we see the facts being further supported as each day passes, it is you denialists who are stooping to more and more desperate measures to support your non-existant case. Why don’t some of you do some real scientific research into AGW instead of nit picking and distorting the work of others.
    All the while CO2 rises and the world warms.

  72. Mark S June 7, 2010 at 12:43 AM

    Mr. Monkton, it appears you are confused what the phrase ad hominem means. I have watched Dr. Abraham’s presentation and did not see any overt attacks on your character. True, he said you were wrong over and over and over and over again, but that is because, well, you were. However, telling someone they are wrong is not ad hominem. You also appear to think that using ad hominem attacks lessen the credibility of what is being said, however, you use ad hominem attacks quite regularly in your reply. If I were a betting man I would bet that you use them to make your opponent seem less credible, even though in your reply it appears you believe the opposite.

    From this confusing double standard use of ad hominem I can guess that the attack from Dr. Abraham has left you worried about your credibility and, hence, reputation. Certainly from my perspective your credibility is shattered.

    Last point: how far do you think your complaint with Dr. Abraham’s university will go after you continually belittle them by referring to them not by their proper name but with the ad hominem attack ‘Bible College’?

    • AJames March 21, 2014 at 8:44 AM

      And yet, the relative temperature remains pretty much the same!

  73. simon barney June 7, 2010 at 1:35 AM

    The amount of personal abuse contained in a posting or comment is a good guide to the worth of the argument. There seems to be quite a bit of abuse here – both in the lead article and in the comments. Perhaps it’s good fun but it doesn’t elucidate anything.
    I don’t pay much attention to Al Gore but I’m always amused by the profound consequences of his behavior. Apparently if he buys waterfront it means sea levels aren’t rising much and he knows it. So if he sells his waterfront pad should we all start getting worried?

  74. blizzard June 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM

    Why do you warmers get so uptight; you are like hissing cats bailed by a pit bull!

    I am sorry guys what are you not getting about the train coming thats’s coming down the track” and it is called the USA Legal System. There is now serious Political and Normal Science will to pursue the corrupt science of The AGW Agenda. The Mann/Hockey Stick and CRU/Climategate whitewashes were a watershed that just pissed off the well thinking and reasoned Person, Scientist, Politician, etc. Warmists are not prepared to expose their science to Normal Scientific debate; a fundamental premise of all science. No what they did was obfuscate for the purpose of protecting “The Science is In!”

    Grow up; you chose to pursue a myth created by post normal science so the angry pursuit of “warming evangelism” goes with the territory. The Global Public is fairly open and fair but they get very angry if they think or learn that someone breaks with their trust and they are increasingly becoming disbelieving of of alarmist diatribe “Honey we shrunk the planet and everybody to pay for it!!!

    The Science of AGW is borderline at best and corrupt at worst. For you AGW Alarmists you continue to quote the messiahs Mann, Trenberth, Dunford, Wakimoto, Pitman, Karoly, et al and all you do is just keep your science and commentary within the AGW Club. There is nothing in what they have done or do that is not representing of Governments and powerful Green Financial vested interests, especially those Countries Governments, who’s Masters seek to influence a paradigm shift in Global Politics through the manipulation of “The Carbon Cycle”.

    Why are those that are skeptical [your word not mine] now standing up and pushing back? They are simply saying to the proponents of AGW that you cannot expect the world to compromise significant economies and cultural lifestyles through moving trillions of $$’s sideways without AGW science being properly audited and validated. The problem for AGW is it uses a model with recognised flaws and limitations as a basis for a new science that of “Climate” to prove its Theory. The traditional domain of Global Climate Science sat with Scientists of other disciplines and they are now reminding all that they have cumulative knowledge and experience in years that dwarfs the AGW gray science lifespan.

    In fact Climate Science insults the traditional Normal Scientist by only holding their science to the measurement of 150 years and you wonder along with all your friends above why frustration with unethical scientific practice [at best] is turning to anger in some quarters.

    Give me a break, I need to ask all you Wally’s were you borne naive or has it taken years of practice to become so. Although AGW Climate science has huge public recognition it is a minnow science compared with its big cousins.

    So let’s understand that firstly people in glass houses should not throw stones which your AGW Associates have done ad nauseum from the time they were first asked to account for their conclusions. Further when pressured to be more open [because they wouldn’t] these honorable men just hid their science and yelled and screamed that they were misunderstood “environmental” samaritans and should be given grace for their global moral stance. The simple thing here is they cracked as their science became formally reviewed by its big cousins!

    The best thing to do here for AGW is to let normal due process of review both scientific and legal [especially the RICO Laws of The USA] to take place and then let us see what still stands.

    Let us have no more of AGW by-line “the science is in” please as it is plainly nonsense until such formal reviews are completed.

    Now you and your friends spare us all the “we are only little please do not hurt us” emotional rubbish and stand up like honourable persons and take criticism when proffered on the nose as big “boys”. Monkton is prepared to not like you brave little bloggers for whom anonimity is your disguise!

    All I will close with is heaven help any dope that has been silly enough to perform “tricks” to receive or create financial gain for themselves [or others] as someone [or many] will go to jail.

    God save the planet from fools and those that prey on them.


    P.S. Warmers your own NASA GISS’s ARGO [Oceanograpghic Temperature database] measures the global oceans in real time and can find no warming in fact marginal cooling since 2003. If The Oceans, being the biggest heat sink on the planet [top 2.6 metres heat holding capacity greater than the Earths entire atmosphere], are not warming then ergo the atmosphere cannot be warming! This is the AGWarmers own NASA and Hansen with this data so why is it not front page news…… Normal Science knows it takes only one proven anomaly to disprove a Theory. Your AGW Science is withering on the vine; it needs CO2 to grow and be healthy.

  75. Roald J. Larsen July 14, 2014 at 5:28 AM

    Another example of the dishonest nature of the alarmists. And now, 4 years later, skeptical science still promote that hoax of a movie.

  76. Nicholas Schroeder September 9, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science
    “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. They are uncertain about the connection
    between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. Like the 3”
    drought that hit Phoenix. They are uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets
    behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. They are uncertain about heating in the ocean
    below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing
    heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. They are uncertain about the magnitude of
    the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 17 plus years of
    rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude,
    CO2 makes no difference.

  77. Gene Browne December 6, 2015 at 7:08 PM

    To replace fossil fuel burning to nukes like a smoker quitting for crack

  78. Gene Browne December 6, 2015 at 7:12 PM

    This spent fuel issue has been around since day one of this industry and gets worse and worse.

Comments are closed.