WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (part one)

{Part two will review the Wall Street Journal letter in detail}

Considering the oft repeated refrain at a discussion forum I visit of: “it all depends on which scientists you choose to believe” along with something like ‘who am I to judge the voracity of a scientist?’ this recent dust up seems worth sharing. Since it once again underscores the crazy-making Mr. Watts and his pals are guilty of.

WSJ claims there’s “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (part two)

Regarding the substance of the Wall Street Journal’s letter “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” signed by 16 supposedly “prominent scientists”

The letter can be found at here.

{Below the letter’s text is in black, with my comments in blue.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WSJ Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶ one:
Yet, if this is the case then way could they only muster 16 signees?  Worse only two have actual climatology experience and seven of the sixteen are directly connected to right-wing think tanks that actively opposed any action to address Anthropogenic Global Warming on economic grounds.

{please do read on}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Don’t mock the Monck" ~ WUWT 11/20/11 ~ Anthony's claims examined

 I'd like to examine another post over at WUWT 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck/
Don’t mock the Monck
Posted on November 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts

“Apparently, Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, according to constitutional lawyer in England.”
{...}
“Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers. . .”

Yet if one takes the time to look up their member profile here’s what you’ll find for Hugh O’Donoghue:

A Comment at Watt's Up With That

 I've just posted the following at Watt's Up With That - 
it remains to be seen if their moderator decides to trash it... 
thus for good measure I figured I should 
document the post over here:

It concerns the discussion over there that seems to have 
gotten side tracked on Monckton's peerage rather on 
Monckton's serial misrepresentations of science and quotes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well it's official this comment did not get through 
the censors at WUWT, 
although their comments are finally moving away from peerage nonsense.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What's with this diversion about the Lord this or Lord that?
...
Monckton misrepresents both his standing as a member of the House of Lords as "FaceFirst" pointed out [January 16, 2012 at 5:16 am], if you don't believe him try to find Monckton's name on the official list of members [http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/]
And then there's this official reprimand demanding Monckton stop making these false claims: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
~ ~ ~ 
quoting from that letter:
"Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.


Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. 
It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims. . ."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
He has also misrepresented is roll as Prime Minister Thatcher's advisor.  
From SPPI's personnel page: "SPPI's Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. . ."
and then the lavish claims made here at WUWT see:
“Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist”
Posted on June 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/

...
Yet the man isn’t mentioned once in Margaret Thatcher’s 914 page autobiography.  In fact, she credits one George Guise as being her science policy advisor.
~ ~ ~ 
Why don’t such “inconsistencies” send up red flags to thinking skeptics?

And isn’t all this attempting to build up the Lord’s supposed “authority” in the eyes of his audience nothing more than an appeal to authority?  I thought you folks attack ‘appeals to authority’ why is it OK for the Lord to play that card so eloquently?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But the real concern should be over his constant misreporting scientific work as
John Abraham [http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/] and
Peter Hadfield [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM] have documented?

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files

Considering the recent dust up between Monckton plus Anthony Watts v. Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 - 
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 

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 - 

where I reference other sources please 
be sure to include those references.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WUWT champions and cheers Monckton's lies, fortunately Peter Hadfield gives an excellent response

LORD MONCKTON FEATURED AT
WATT'S UP WITH THAT
{Peter Hadfield’s video taped response within}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
 
  First there was YouTube’s “Potholer54” video series 

“Monckton’s Bunkum” highlighting the Lord’s “errors.”
Then someone compiled and posted a list of those errors.  
Anthony can explain the rest:
~ ~ ~

"Monckton answers a troll"
WUWT Post September 18th, 2011, by Anthony Watts
“This is a response by Christopher Monckton to the comment on the "Nurse anti'science thread yesterday by anonymous commenter “The other Brian” who in typical troll style, tries to distract away from the post and point being made - with noise    {signed}, Anthony Watts. {...}”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Peter Hadfield replied to this post by making another YouTube video with a point by point, evidence backed, indictment of the Lord's stated claims and denials, which can be viewed below. 

The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards

I would like to share the Pacific Institute's "2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards"

For more information please link to:

http://pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/climate_bs_award_2011.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pacific Institute's

2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards


[* B.S. means “Bad Science”]

Background


Even as unusually frequent and intense extreme weather events killed people and damaged property, and as the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate continued to strengthen, national leaders did little to ameliorate or plan adaptation strategies for climate change. Peter Gleick attributes this failure to act in part to the difficulty of the challenges of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing the rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, rising sea-levels, loss of snowpack and glaciers, disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and more. But he also points to what he describes as “a concerted, well-funded, and aggressive anti-science campaign by climate change deniers and contrarians.”

“These are mostly groups focused on protecting narrow financial interests, ideologues fearful of any government regulation, or scientific contrarians who cling to outdated, long-refuted interpretations of science,” said Gleick. “While much of the opposition to addressing the issue of climate change is political, it often hides behind pseudo-scientific claims, with persistent efforts to intentionally mislead the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change.”

In response to these efforts, in 2010 the Pacific Institute launched the annual Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards. We are now pleased, and disturbed, to announce the winners of the 2011 (second annual) Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards:

THIS YEAR’S WINNERS OF THE
2011 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARDS:

Fifth Place: Anthony Watts for his BEST hypocrisy


Anti-climate-science blogger Anthony Watts said he would accept the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature or “BEST” study, even if it proved him wrong. Unfortunately for him, the study showed that the Earth’s surface is warming and at just the rate that numerous previous studies had shown – but he reneged and attacked the paper and the science.

Fourth Place: The Koch Brothers for funding the promotion of bad climate science


Fourth place goes to fossil-fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, Inc., who provide substantial funding to groups and politicians who deny the science of climate change. The Koch brothers fund a veritable Who’s Who of groups that put out misleading science or tout bad science on climate change as an intentional strategy.

Third Place: Spencer, Braswell, and Christy


Third place goes to Roy Spencer and William (Danny) Braswell for a debunked research paper on climate sensitivity, and John Christy, for an astounding piece of misleading testimony at a Congressional climate change hearing.

Second Place: Disinformation from Fox News and Murdoch’s News Corporation


Fox News moves up from their fifth place finish last year, joined by the entire News Corporation empire of Rupert Murdoch because of its regular misrepresentation of climate science and anti-climate science reporting among the different Murdoch outlets in the UK, the U.S., and Australia.

AND IN FIRST PLACE
All of the Republican candidates for President 
being anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, seems a requirement for nomination to lead the Republican Party. 

Not a single one of the Republican candidates for President has a position on climate change that is consistent with the actual science accepted by 97-98% of all climate scientists and every national academy of sciences on the planet. 

The choice among the current Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, disdain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the individual candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? 

The group wins the 2011 Award hands down.