Considering the recent dust up between Monckton plus Anthony Watts v. Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 -
I figured I should repost these for interested students
I figured I should repost these for interested students
of the politics of Anthropogenic Global Warming denial.
And to highlight that Monckton’s record of deception goes way back.
Admittedly the following isn’t the best
since I am simply an interested citizen
Admittedly the following isn’t the best
since I am simply an interested citizen
and neither an academician nor journalist,
but the parade of deception has driven me to do
what little I can to oppose it.
Please feel free to use any of the following -
what little I can to oppose it.
Please feel free to use any of the following -
where I reference other sources please
be sure to include those references.
be sure to include those references.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Who Is Lord Christopher Monckton ?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
“There’s an exciting brouhaha going on within the Global Warming blogosphere these days. Every bit as heated and implication laden as ClimateGate was a half year ago. Not surprisingly, big media isn’t covering this story. Just as they seem to be ignoring the exposure of the fabricated charges and supposed sins scientists perpetrated in “ClimateGate.”
This saga concerns the lowly academician who dared question the darling of the “Man Made Global Warming Is A Hoax” community. You see, one John Abraham PhD, a professor of Thermo Sciences sat in on the, by now infamous, September 14th 2009 lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton for the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Professor Abraham came to listen and what he heard so disturbed him that for the next few months he turned all his spare time and energy into investigating specific claims Lord Monckton made and then created a presentation of his own:
“Abraham v Monckton” . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“This is a first step to a larger project exploring Lord Monckton's presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, given September 14, 2009. The PowerPoint is available at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13460116/Lord-Christopher-Moncktons-Power-Point-Bethel-University--Global-Climate-Change-Conference-Oct-14-2009 . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The following is a series of Emails that I sent to
Lord Monckton and SPPI’s Mr Ferguson
Lord Monckton and SPPI’s Mr Ferguson
{since Monckton appears to be their “brain-trust”
on all things climate related}.
on all things climate related}.
After a few initial responses from them, they went silent
and it turned into a virtual conversation -
and it turned into a virtual conversation -
still I had more points to make so I continued.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“. . . It seems that for someone to deliver those words as movingly as you have, the infallible Bible must be central to how you view everything. That being the case, I’m puzzled - How can you claim to be an impartial conveyor of scientific information? . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#2} Replying to Lord Monckton's 8-16-10 email
“. . . However, the essay you shared, “What is Science Without Religion,” side stepped my actual questions. First and foremost, (regarding 5:20; 9:45; 10:45), calling up the Bible in the manner you do demands a fidelity to the notion of a Biblical six day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago. Appealing to the one literal notion of the Bible and ignoring the other seems like a cynical showman stunt - dishonest to all . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“What is Science Without Religion?”
Examining an essay Monckton shared with me . . .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#3} Citizenschallenge v Monckton
Reviewing Monckton’ reply:
“Dear Mr. Miesler, - Answers are in the body of your email below. Since you have chosen to be impolite, these are the last answers you will receive. All further emails from this address will be auto-deleted before I see them. - Monckton of Brenchley
Lord Monckton, please don’t run and hide. You claim yourself ready to debate.
Therefore, please allow us to take part in a frank discussion.
Sincerely, Peter Miesler August 20, 2010 . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#4} Questioning the voracity of Lord Monckton’s attributions
“Considering that Lord Monckton’s PowerPoint presentation offered the best venue for clear citations or reference to the many quotes the Lord tosses out. I thought it would be interesting to look at the side notes with his slides and see if LM offered any information that would help in tracking down the voracity of his various quotations . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#5} Lord Monckton about your claims regarding An Inconvenient Truth and the UK trial
“Lord Monckton,
You seem to be avoiding me, but my examination into your claims will continue - as will my attempt to engage you in a frank discussion on the matter of the voracity of your many claims regarding your promulgation of the notion that AGW is a hoax. Today, I ask about your often repeated implications that a UK Judge found AGW to be a hoax . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#6} Examining Lord Monckton's Rhetoric
“Lord Christopher Monckton,
Early in your 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation you make the following promises to your audience:
~ ~ ~
Monckton promises at 7:10:
“But, one point I do want to make, is that you must not believe a word I say.
... I am not gonna to tell you what the truth about the climate is.
I am simply going to tell you a series of facts from the science and the data and the peer reviewed literature...
at 9:05:
“And that is what we are going to do tonight, there won’t be rhetoric, there will just be boring fact after fascinating fact.”
~ ~ ~
“In this sixth segment of our correspondence and my examination of your 10/14/9 MFMI presentation, allow us to examine how well your actual words live up to your promise. Early in your presentation you did give us your word that you would present the latest science facts sans “rhetoric.”
“So, in this letter I would like to focus on the rhetoric that leaked out. That is, the manipulation of words in order to evoke gut level reactions rather than facilitating a thoughtful examination of evidence that leads to a genuine learning experience. . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#7} SPPI - Lord Monckton's "Nils Axel Mörner" claims examined
{replying to a rather snippy email from SPPI’s Mr. Ferguson}
“Dear Mr. Ferguson, and Lord Monckton,
It would be nice to keep this civil. Simply, because you may not like me, or what I’m writing, doesn’t mean I can’t ask you, Robert Ferguson... Science Public Policy Institute, and SPPI’s brain trust: Lord Monckton, some pointed, and public, questions.
I shall continue my little examination of the way you folks present science to a public in need of real and complete information, learning, understanding and appreciation for the global situation humanity is in. In this email {#7} I shall review statements made on SPPI’s website and in the MFMI talk by Lord Chris Monckton regarding Nils Axel Mörner PhD and his claims . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#7b} Appendix to {email #7} Church et al. 2006, highlights
Church, J.A., N.J. White and J.R. Hunter. 2006. Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Global and Planetary Change, 53, 155-168, doi:10.1016/j.glopacha.2006.04.001.
(http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_pubs_peer.html)
“. . .I did include Church et al. 2006 in my previous email to SPPI - but, this email has inspired me to share some of its content . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#8} SPPI & Monckton’s claims regarding David’s: “The Down To Earth Guide to Global Warming” examined
{Regarding his attacks on Laurie David's children’s book}
“Lord Monckton,
That switch in colors, (a lamentable production blunder...) was one error, an error no one is disputing; that will be corrected in future editions.
As for the accompanying text, it contained no mistakes. And, I’m thinking, neither did any of the other hundred some pages of her book, or you’d be all over it. Moreover, considering this is for children, the information they glean from that graph one way or the other is that those two lines are pretty close together all the way through. So, this color thing isn’t any earth shaking matter... like you’re trying to morph it into . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#9} SPPI & Monckton’s claim regarding Greenland's Cryosphere being OK - examined
“In this, my ninth email, we’ll examine SPPI and Monckton's claim: “I find it hard to discern anything to worry about in Greenland’s ice.”
Including Monckton’s misleading claims about the Distant Early Warning DYE line stations and exposing the lie behind Monckton’s claim: “the Viking burial-ground at Hvalsey, in south-western Greenland, remains under permafrost to this day . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#10} SPPI and Lord Monckton, The Data Creates the AGW Consensus
“In my last email {#9} I claimed that increased snow fall in Greenland is tied to AGW and does nothing to support Lord Monckton’s thesis that manmade global warming is a hoax. So, I thought this tenth email should review some of the evidence leading to the AGW consensus . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination
“Containing the text of:
Seitz’s Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996, Op-Ed
Ben Santer’s censored reply ~ Wall Street Journal letter to Ed, June 25, 1996
IPCC’s censored reply ~ Wall Street Journal letter to Ed, June 25, 1996
~ ~ ~
“Lord Monckton, Mr Ferguson, SPPI, (and Dr. Seitz),
This letter cuts to the heart of your AGWHoax storyline, its fabrication and propagation. To fully appreciate this story, we need to review some history first and look at someone who can be considered your intellectual mentor, one Dr. Seitz.
In particular, his June 12, 1996 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal: “A Major Deception on Global Warming.” Even the title is audacious in its open hostility . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#11b} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Ben Santer - anatomy of a character assassination
“Lord Monckton, and SPPI's Mr. Ferguson,
In this email I want to look at how some lies never die. In particular, today's reincarnation of the Wall Street Journal's travesty, with it's relentless, substance lacking, attacks on Dr. Benjamin Santer.
{...}
Lord Monckton you often repeat this meme. To do so you ignore reams of contrary evidence. Why should we take your word for it?
Beyond that, why must you paint climate scientists like foreign enemies? In my last email I documented how these charges against Professor Ben Santer were shown to be gross falsehoods. Yet, here we are nearly fifteen years later and the same knowingly false charges are still being advertised. What a stellar example of the Monckton brand of “fidelity to the truth . . .”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{#11c} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC) - anatomy of a character assassination
“Previously, I wrote about the anatomy of Ben Santer’s character assassination. In this next example, we have the added element of “tactical set up.” But, first a look at a couple quotes regarding Dr. Pachauri’s qualifications:
{...}
Unfortunately, once again Lord Monckton what you’re saying is not the truth. Pachauri is no more a “railroad engineer” than you are a member of the House of Lords! I dare you to look at his accomplishments:”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind - Ben Santer 2/24/10
“The following was (copied) from RealClimate.org and is a guest commentary from Ben Santer.
The original can be found at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/ — 24 February 2010”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Has Monckton finally arrived at his Waterloo ?
“A group of scientists has put together a detailed study of Mr. Lord Monckton’s Congressional testimony, unlike LM’s many lectures and blogs, LM was under oath while giving false testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Hopefully, we can finally see the court trial that the good Lord keeps threatening.
With him as defendant !
{hope springs eternal} . . .”
From Professor Scott Mandia website: Global Warming: Man or Myth?
Monckton Testimony at US Congress: Ignorance or Perjury ?
No comments:
Post a Comment