Comments on: Monckton replies to Prof Andy Pitman

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:17:52 +0000

Climate Department grants are far better funded and much less based on scientific merit than ARC grants (you have to believe in AGW)- if only all the money had to put through ARC grants then we’d have confidence in the process. ARC and real research grants are extremely tough to get.

Report this

0 0

By: uni administrator

uni administrator — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:30:22 +0000

As anyone who is associated with research in Australia knows, about 90% of academic departments budgets are spent on salaries. A Professor would spend 90% of his/her time on research rather than on teaching. An Australian Professor costs about $200,000 to $250,000 per annum. So over the past 10 years, the distinguished professor who claims that the skeptics are well funded, had cost the Australian tax payer about $2,000,000. Add to this all the research grants, and the funding by the ARC (aka the Australian tax payer) of his PhD students (each costing $100,000 or so in scholarships and other direct and indirect costs), and you probably have $3M to $4M spent on the Professor’s research. That is just one professor, but apparently we have two professor working on this at the University of NSW. So exactly who is well funded?

Report this

0 0

By: MattB

MattB — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:33:49 +0000

My understanding is where Pinker explains:
“The question raised by you is related to this interpretation.
I will try my best to understand the comments of all sides and clarify the concept of
“cloud forcing” used by Christopher Monckton.
Here is the accepted definition of this concept:
The effect of clouds F, on the Earth’s radiation balance is measured as the difference
between clear-sky and all-sky radiation results both in shortwave (SW) and longwave
(LW)
FSW (cloud) = FSW (clear) – FSW (all-sky)
FLW (cloud) = FLW (clear) – FLW (all-sky
Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud)”

Pnkers 3.04 is the term FSW, wheras Monckton uses it in his equation in Q4 to Pittman to mean Fnet, which is where Pinker says “The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting
refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.”

Report this

1 0

By: Brendon

Brendon — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:56:56 +0000

At a quick glance I can help with questions 4 & 5.

Pinker recently pointed out how Monckton was misunderstanding her work, and specifically how he’d got the climate sensitivity wrong.

Tim Lambert used her comments in a recent debate against Monckton.

Report this

0 0

By: radiospu

radiospu — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:15:16 +0000

Results of the NASA CEI request:

Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/?singlepage=true

Report this

0 0

By: ADE

ADE — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:54:05 +0000

If you want the culprits in this conspiracy,
look here, http://euro-med.dk/?p=11956
and, http://euro-med.dk/?p=56

Report this

0 0

By: MattB

MattB — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:28:15 +0000

Actually Shipwrecked if you read my posts on 27th Jan you will find that I was questioning recent newspaper reports that say Monckton is a mathematician. I only listed his quals to show that none of them appear to be in mathematics. I don’t care what his quals are but he is not a mathematician. I don’t know if newspapers just have it wrong, or of someone is making them think he is a mathematician, but they have it wrong for sure.

When you say that Monckton has a fistful of refereed anti-AGW papers what do you mean? As in he has written, or he has as ammo ones written by others? You’re not clear.

I’m quite comfortable with my right to comment so clearly I don’t think it should be restricted to people with high level climate science quals.

Report this

0 0

By: Shipwrecked

Shipwrecked — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:24:09 +0000

@MattB Jan 27

Matt, you discuss Monckton’s qualifications to discuss the matter (he has been trained in classics etc). This is not relevant. FOR EXAMPLE Rupert Posner, who was chosen to oppose Monckton on John Faine’s ABC Local Radio show has no scientific qualifications either (see http://www.climatechangesummit.com.au/speakers.html).

I strongly disagree with your approach. Anyone who has something to say should be given courteous attention, including Posner. However, Posner’s flat out refusal to accept that Monckton has a fistful of refereed anti-AGW papers does not help his cause. And that is the sort of judgement that people do not have to have science degrees can make.

The public must not NEVER accept the view that they cannot comment because they are unqualified. They must never be gulled into thinking that they cannot think.

Report this

4 0

By: Denis Ables

Denis Ables — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:14:56 +0000

Do you recall the youtube delivery of anurban / rural study of several US sites with data from 1900 forward, by “a sixth grader and his dad”?
It showed no temperature increase in rural areas for 100+ years.

Here comes another one from New Zealand, where the CRU report showed increasing temperatures, but when the raw data is used, basically a flat line from about 1853 forward ! Not to mention the other goodies.
Have a look: http://euro-med.dk/?p=11956

Report this

1 0

By: Denis Ables

Denis Ables — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:37:44 +0000

Today’s Washington Times leading editorial (title and subtitle appear below

Osama and Obama on global warming
Discredited climate theories make strange bedfellows

Report this

0 0