JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.

John Abraham, University of St Thomas.

What do you do when someone speaks against your faith, sounds authoritative, well informed, and backs everything up with lots of evidence? If you’re sane, you change your mind.

If you are John P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, you write to a few select scientists distorting what your opponent said, and then collect the infuriated responses. Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn’t say,  complained about things he didn’t cite (even if he did and it’s printed on his slides), pretended he couldn’t find sources (but didn’t take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton’s character.

The untruths and fabrications have come back to bite him.

We’ve seen these tactics before. Tim Lambert (aka Deltoid) did a similar thing when he ambushed Monckton with quotes from Pinker that he arranged with emails he still hasn’t revealed. And when it comes to attacking things, graphs and arguments that weren’t made,  John Cook of SkepticalScience did the same with his attempt to rebut the Skeptics Handbook. What matters to the religious is not the details, but the keywords. They hope that if they use confident bluster to mention the same hot topics in general, and find mistakes in reasoning that someone else said (and it may be someone imaginary), it will win the PR war. The attack-dogs get their dog food, the daily-bread of misinformation, and it keeps those pesky skeptics busy pointing out error after error, tying them up for days.

Monckton replied on June 10th with a 84-page letter and 466 questions, in a polite list of mistakes, errors, and misquotes pointing out how embarrassing it was for a learned center of higher education to be seen in the same domain-name as such a malign, uninformed and dishonest production. He gave Abraham and the university a month to apologize, remove the embarrassing video, and pay $110k to a Haitian charity. Calling Monckton’s reply “detailed” and “comprehensive” is an understatement. It’s exhaustive, enumerating, eviscerating.

Christopher Monckton.

The only way to deal with bullies is to blitz them back with accuracy and logic, and if you are Christopher Monckton, load it with Latin barbs to make it so painful that they lift their game and are deterred from contributing to the wasteland of public disinformation. Shaming universities works. I’ve had success with the University of WA where, at least, after humiliating them repeatedly, Professorial fellow Lewandowsky is finally trying to talk evidence and restrain himself from repeated ad hominems, fallacious arguments from authority, and baseless innuendo.

This is their vulnerable point: No matter how far universities have fallen, they still think they are “elite”, can reason, and have an opinion that’s more elevated than pagan witchcraft. So a university rightly cringes when someone publicly points out how grossly Stone Age their pronouncements are. Monckton accuses Abraham of bad faith,  malice,  appealing to a false authority,  academic dishonesty,  and lying repeatedly.

The response from the University of St Thomas

Abraham and the university are half-heartedly attempting to characterize the issue as a mere “academic dispute”, as if telling lies is what academics do. However Abraham has put up a new version and taken out the worst of the outrageously libelous errors, which amounts to a full ten minutes of lies removed!

Abrahams original version. Newer, tamer, but still incorrect version.

As Monckton points out on Watts Up, this is an admission on their part that the first version was libellous, but with many errors still remaining:

Plenty of libels indeed remain in the new version of Abraham’s talk: he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me. In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels. And when the courts find that his talk was and remains malicious, then he will have thrown away the one defense that might otherwise have worked for him – that in US law a public figure who sues for libel must be able to prove malice. I can prove it, in spades.

I asked Christopher Monckton what the university said in reply (see the correspondence here). So what did they do when faced with a long detailed dissertation of errors? They declared it was the university’s position that Prof Abraham had done no wrong, and not engaged in professional misconduct. (Thus St Thomas thinks it’s normal for profs to add up numbers wrongly, misrepresent people, and slur people who disagree with their “interpretation” of science.) The university wouldn’t investigate or apologize, nor pay any money.

Furthermore, the university is appalled by Monckton’s disparaging and defamatory remarks (though they can’t name any exactly, they really don’t like it when someone points out professors behaving badly), and bluffed that they will match Monckton’s legal attacks with one of their own. Signed, the lawyers.

Monckton replies that he will pursue this:

It is fair to notify you that I intend widely to publish the full correspondence on July 10, subject to any reasonable requests your clients may make within the next seven days; and also, in due course, to publish a book devoted to an analysis and exposure of the mendacities of Professor Abraham, which follow a pattern that reveals the state of mind, and the tactics, of those whose opinions on the climate he shares, so that his conduct is worthy of a wider international audience.

Until I have heard from you, I shall continue to be entirely free to make whatever comments I please about Professor Abraham, who has only himself to blame for his uncomfortable predicament. I need not, I think, cite the United States Constitution insofar as it touches upon freedom of speech. As you may know, Professor Abraham has made numerous disparaging, outrageous, defamatory, and mendacious remarks about me, and has published them widely. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain, in your reply to this letter, why your clients consider that Professor Abraham, using the University’s logo and facilities and servers, is entitled to persist in publishing these remarks about me, whereas I am debarred from replying.

The university replies:

We received your email response to our June 25, 2010 letter. The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abrahams right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham Father Dease and The Univerity of St Thomas.

Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham.

Signed: Phyllis Karasov, Moore Costellow and Hart, P.L.L.P.

So it’s ok for an employed Prof to post videos with hundreds of errors and personal attacks in the name of science, but when someone replies with  corrections, they silently acknowledge some, ignore the rest, and crawl back in their holes, pretending that being caught lying is just a scholarly difference, and, having been humiliated, that they’ve effectively held up a white flag by not replying to the detailed points, and by providing nothing in support of their own accusations. Yet, they hope no one will notice that Monckton has categorically defeated any pretense that Abrahams deserves to have the title “Professor”, and that the organisation called St Thomas deserves to use the word “University”.

Monckton replies June 29th:

…you disingenuously talk of mere “disagreement” and “scholarly differences”… I have with good reason and upon detailed evidence accused – and on July 10, subject to anything that your clients may say, shall publicly accuse – the Professor of academic dishonesty in the shape of material, serial, serious mendacity. It is Professor Abraham’s lies, as well as his bad faith and his assumption of a spurious authority, that I am asking your clients to investigate.

Monckton pushes back at the lawyers, asking them to name the specific organization they serve’ to specify the “disparaging remarks” they object to, to confirm Monckton can publish all their correspondence and expose the lies and intellectual cowardice, to explain why it’s ok for the University to publish untruths but not ok for Monckton to reply to them, and to name the Trustees of the clients so Monckton can write to them to ask them to investigate both Abraham’s and Dease’s indefensible behavior.

Abrahams et al did not reply.

They have no answer to any of Monckton’s points.

Monckton suggests that if you think universities should aim higher than this, you can contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu.

ADDENDUM: Lordy Lordy?

It’s a bore listening to the endless triumphant claims that Monckton is not a Lord (as if it makes much difference to the climate), but for the record, here’s his full explanation (from the Watts Up page) of how he does qualify, as he has always explained, as a non-voting hereditary member of the Upper House. Indeed, I asked him to frame a question about the total UK IPCC funding as of March 2008 (the answer was essentially: No, we can’t tell, it’s too expensive to figure it out. Imagine if I said that to the tax office).

“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.9/10 (18 votes cast)
Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths., 6.9 out of 10 based on 18 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2fwcwq8

344 comments to Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.

  • #
    MattB

    methinks your support of monckton’s original is a tad over-zealous.


    Report this

    11

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Ben

    These green communists either want to scare mankind by telling us we are either going to fry or freeze!

    The truth is NEITHER!

    The agenda is CONTROL!

    http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Ross

    I hope Monkton pushes this to the limit , legally or otherwise. Some of these universities think we should ‘knee at their alter” because they think they are the intellectual elites who should not be questioned , no matter what they say


    Report this

    01

  • #
    cohenite

    mattb @ 1; why?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cbp

    Defending Monckton? I hope you’ve got your ski boots – one massive shark coming up ahead!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neil

    Saw Lord M in Melbourne in Feb 2010.

    You would wanna have all your facts right with
    Lord M coming after you !

    The man is brilliant, and bringing truth to this
    whole disgracful AGW debate.

    It’s all about the lefties control really, and the Turnbull
    Merchant Banks making millions !

    Neil


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Cohers @6 so you defend Monckton’s lectures and graphs 100%?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Go on Cohers defend question 379.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    What mock indignation. It’s all good theatre isn’t it. Methinks our lord doth protest too much.
    Jo lost objectivity when she said “when he ambushed Monckton with quotes from Pinker “. Ambushed in a debate? Unheard of. Simply outrageous !

    Anyway just contemplate what all this looks like to the rest of the population. The sceptic vote will harden or course. But notice the green vote increasing every day.
    And don’t blame me – I haven’t been polled.

    So if you were selling Pepsi here – you might be a tad worried about the rabid redneck look. Scary guys. Really scary.

    But in the long run – no decent journal publications – impact = zero point zero.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    It is poor form of Abraham to not respond to Monkton’s critique of his flawed talk. It was also very poor for Abraham to simply issue a newer, better version of his talk fixing some of the errors without citing specifically which part of his original talk was corrected, and without apologising for the previous errors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    yes not only ambushed, but ambushed with direct quotes from a researcher, and not only that but quotes that pointed out the Monckton didn’t understand her (or his if you ask the lord) work. Outrageous!

    ——-

    [I forgot to add the links in to the two posts I did on Deltoids ambush. See the pinker tape ambush to which Deltoid replied, and I responded again. Thanks for reminding me Matt :-) --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    July 15th, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    “Go on Cohers defend question 379.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Very well MattB, I take it you had no problem with the preceeding 378 questions if it took you that long to find one you objected to. Fact is, Abraham produced a piece of tripe and needs to account for it. The University (if you can call it that) is hoping they can ignore the situation and it will go away. Unfortunately for them it will not, and their rep will follow Abraham’s down the same gurgler if they support this kind of rubbish.

    BTW tried stringing more than a handful of words together in a post lately?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    cbp:
    July 15th, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Defending Monckton? I hope you’ve got your ski boots – one massive shark coming up ahead!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    LOL because ski boots make it easier to swim away from a shark? Wonderful example of the critical thinking ability of the AGW faithful methinks. What milord would call “argumentum ad ignorantiam.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lol could you imagine anyone wasting their time enough to read all the way through to 379 Bulldust! I’m trying to find slides that are not discredited by use of that pink portcullis that suggests he is a member of the house of lords for starters.

    The intention of many of the lords slides appear to be to decieve, but of course he twists and turns in to “did I say that?” when really it is crafted to make his gullible audience take it away and repeat it at the watter bubbler/coffee shop/TAB wherever.

    I hope this does end up in court… but I bet you $10 Monckton does not push that hard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Refresh my memory Mattb, what is question 379?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    July 15th, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    “Cohers @6 so you defend Monckton’s lectures and graphs 100%?”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Did Cohenite ever say that? I have no doubt that if we look really, really hard at the slides we may find things that could be displayed better, or with more clarity. Perhaps there is a quote or two that might be misunderstood because of a lack of context.

    MattB you seem to be taking leaves out of Abraham’s book and creating strawmen to attack. Nowhere in Cohenite’s comment does he give anything resembling a full support of every slide in Monckton’s presentation. Once again you are way off on a tangent.

    Perhaps your time would be better spent looking at a slide or two and mounting a scientifically-based debate why that slide is misleading or simply wrong. Much easier to snipe a meaningless one-liner methinks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Jessssssus. After a review of Chris Monckton evisceration of that poor useless bugger Johnny Abraham, all I got to say Johnny is right – the end is nigh. Uh, that would be the end of his career.

    MaattButt, The Black Knight, sums it up brilliantly: after 378 points of ass kicking, AH HAH, GOT YA, who can possibly defend #379!

    ROTFL! “Come back here you yellow bastards I’ll bite your legs off!”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feature=fvst


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    July 15th, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    *SNIP meaningless jabber*

    The intention of many of the lords slides appear to be to decieve, but of course he twists and turns in to “did I say that?” when really it is crafted to make his gullible audience take it away and repeat it at the watter bubbler/coffee shop/TAB wherever.

    Which brings me back to my previous comment. Feel free to pick just one slide and give a clear argument why it is meant to deceive by referencing data, papers, whatever to prove so. Are you up for that task, or are you all verbose jabber?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Actually question 379 was merely one by Monckton asking whether he had fairly assessed Abraham’s criticisms of one of his slides. I have read most of Monckton’s original document, and it is a fairly easy read. It makes what Arthur did to the Black Knight look like a tiptoe through the tulips. Abraham literally has not a leg to stand on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    ok cohers – how about 231 instead? Have you read the piece?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: #16
    July 15th, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    I hope this does end up in court… but I bet you $10 Monckton does not push that hard.

    Clarify what you mean by “push too hard”. If by that you mean Monckton will not take this to court, then I’ll give you 2 to 1 and accept the bet. I’ll bet Monckton will take this to court unless an apology is forthcoming.

    Loser (you $10 or me $20) pays to Jos fund.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> Cohenite: I think you’ll find MattB made up that number as a taunt. I doubt he had any idea what question 379 was when he wrote one of his typical meaningless one-liners. As it happens he picked a question which was simply a comprehenesion exercise as described above… hence of no real import.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    But in the long run – no decent journal publications – impact = zero point zero

    Describes yes butt to a T


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And MattB now proves my point by randomly shooting off another number. Ignore him as the random noise he is.Clearly MattB does not want to debate any of the specifics, but merely waste our time. Nothing new here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And no Bulldust… question 379 relates to the slide Monckton uses that says:

    “The Sun causes most climate change
    The Sun caused recent global warming
    Today’s warming is normal
    Global warming will end soon
    IAU (2004)”
    all on a burning sun background.

    And of course Abrahams goes on to demonstrate that the IAU said no such thing. To which Monckton’s pathetic response is “Did I say that the statement shown on the above slide “was an official statement””

    Bzzzt fail – quote and reference certainly gives the impression to the audience that is what you meant Lordy lord.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No way if I lose I’ll pay $10 to Jo. If you lose you can pay me $20 thanks and I’ll go to the pub. I was happy evens but am happy to take an extra tenner.

    as for Q231 – no I have no idea what that is. ok it is a comment about maldives sea level rise and Morner.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:

    Perhaps you need a simple lesson in English comprehension. Do you agree that question 379 is accurately copied here?

    “379: Please confirm that in the following passage I have accurately encapsulated your criticism of my use of the slide (above) in which I record the conclusions of a symposium under the aegis of the IAU in 2004:”

    Followed by the comprehension text…

    Perhaps you are reading something else into that question than what 379 says? Perhaps you actually mean the questions that follow 379 that address the implications of Abrahams statements?

    379 was a simple conprehension question. You sir fail at understanding simple English.

    Anyway, no more soup for you… I am off to dinner for pleasant conversations with the missus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    OMG I had no idea Monckton’s slides had “CO2 is only a trace Gas” very funny. Seriously Jo can you coach him on not using a scattergun approach?


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Timdot

    @MattB #16

    “Lol could you imagine anyone wasting their time enough to read all the way through to 379 Bulldust! I’m trying to find slides that are not discredited by use of that pink portcullis that suggests he is a member of the house of lords for starters.”

    Here we go, (in AFL-speak) attacking the man, not the ball…

    “The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust don’t be a d*ckhead. The IAU “quote” is baloney and you do yourself no good waffling around that fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Well the house of lords don;t think so buddy. I’ll take their word over the lord’s.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Anyway no point continuing you’ve obviously got some seriously man-love-crush on Chris and I don’t want to upset you by highlighting errors made by the love of your life;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Timdot

    @MattB #33

    A Wikipedia page Connolley hasn’t barstadised, yet…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB, I have read the piece; I thought you might have been referring to some of Lambert’s interminable threads on Monckton. Monckton has made mistakes before; he misunderstood the full meaning of cloud forcing when he used Pinker et al’s paper in the debate with crafty, little Tim Lambert. And the issue of Pinker’s gender which Lambert raised indicated some sloppiness. But here’s the point: despite that Monckton was still correct in using Pinker to illustrate how IPCC dreadfully inflates climate sensitivity; as you well know since you were one of the cheer squad who must have been dreadfully disappointed when Pinker gave a civil and on balance supportive to Monckton reply to Lambert’s leading questions; you must also have been dreadfully disappointed when Steve Short wiped the floor with some of the leading pugalists at Deltoid on such issues as cloud forcing and sensitivity.

    If Monckton has misrepresented IAH then he should retract but 2 issues emerge; firstly, what did the symposium conclude about solar forcing; that is the issue not the denial by the current president. Secondly, again, Monckton is correct about solar having, had and continuing to have the major effect on climate.

    Now, what is your point about 231?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Today’s Guardian (London, UK)carries a ridiculous warmist tilt at the Viscount and which ardently defends Abrahams by G Moonboot, with his sycophants cheering him on with their following comments. The entire piece has a slightly desperate air, as if the Warmists are flailing around in a search for something new that will validate them and their cause. MattB would fit right in with MB’s credulous followers.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: #28
    July 15th, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    You lousy cheapskate. You’re happy to accept the benefits of this blog but you refuse to donate even bet winnings to help keep the blog going. You don’t honour bets anyway, just ask Richard Courtney.

    Regards question 379 of Moncktons, do read a little before opening your mouth. The questions are grouped together relevant to the particular topic mentioned. So the answer to your question about Q379 lies further down the page thus…

    383: Did you not notice that the quotation that you gave from the IAU spokesman whom you consulted does not actually address the questions whether the IAU actually held a symposium in 2004 (it did), or what conclusions it came to?

    384: Given that you have not, in what you call your “investigation”, actually found out what the conclusions of the IAU’s 2004 symposium were, do you have any rational or scientific basis for your assertions that, in what you will now appreciate was my mild and sensible account of those conclusions was a
    “misrepresentation” (85)?

    I’ll summarise for you MattB.

    Monckton makes a claim about an IAU symposium conclusion.
    Abraham contacts IAU and asks “is that your official position?”
    IAU says no it’s not.
    Abraham claims Monckton misrepresented the IAU
    Monckton counters that he was specifically talking about the symposium and asks Abraham to produce the communications he had had with the IAU.

    So what’s wrong with all that MattB?

    Bloggers will recall MattB did this exact same thing when the Citizens Audit came out. He was too piss lazy to read all the document, picked an odd bit out and tried to stir other commenters by rubbishing the audit and the auditors.
    He now seeks to do the same.

    I suppose we can’t blame him, he is a sustainability manager for a living, he needs this AGW fraud to keep going so as he can make his cut out of it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mattb: OMG I had no idea Monckton’s slides had “CO2 is only a trace Gas” very funny. Seriously Jo can you coach him on not using a scattergun approach?

    Mattb – now you’re bagging Monckton for repeating simple truths, eh? Lemme guess, he was supposed to lie and say CO2 is a major component…

    PS: I’ve posted those links to the Pinker Tape Ambush inline in your comment and up in the post. You must be kidding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    God its fun watching intellectual lightweights get creamed.

    Go Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    Jo,

    I tried to follow the link to the correspondence, “see the correspondence here,” but I get an ‘Access denied’ error.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Huub. Fixed. (More web red tape). — JN


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kilted Mushroom

    Dear Jo. I really hope you are sure of what and who you are supporting. I doubt very much that the Lord will follow through. AFAIK he has never said that he intends to sue.
    Baa Humbug I will take your bet and hope I lose it. Since Krudd increased my pension by $15.00 a week I can afford it and Jo may need it more than I soon enough.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    If Monckton can not provide a link/source/document indicating that was the outcome of a symposium supposedly held then he has no right putting it in 4 simple sentences and attributing those sentences to the IAU. Had the source been “Unverified recollection of a symposium that contradicts the IAU’s actual position on the matter.” Then I’d be quite happy with that, as it would be meaningless and worthless.

    So now then Jo are you saying that because CO2 is a trace gas then it does nothing to warm the planet from a CO2-less equivalent temperature. It is quite clear that the Monckton line is that it is a trace gas therefore a lot of worry about nothing…. absurd and I’m honestly surprised you’d stoop to defending it.

    Cohenite – 231 was a random number. What about 74 a real ripper.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    The amusing part of the “Climate War” is that scientists have been able to do and say whatever they wanted without question as they were deemed “experts in the field”. When they do get questioned about their reseach, it becomes an attack on their character and not on the science.
    When you do find an error in the science, it is covered up with “peers” and articles from other “experts in the field”. Rather than answer to the questions or showing the research data that came to the theory or conclusions. But do the errors get corrected? Not unless the errors are made public or extremely outragous.
    Who do you go to in this process that will not cover up or defend the science that is being questioned?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Timdot

    Jo, try not to be TOO hard on MattB. You’re bringing an Abrams tank to a Scalextric meet’. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    I don’t think Abraham surrendered, and I find both Abraham and Monckton somewhat over the top.
    Abraham is over the top in his parody of an AGW true believer- dissembling, deceptive and inaccurate. Monckton is almost a parody of a peer of the realm- officious, obssesive, and pompous. Neither does the discussion much good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    mattB; polar bears? Are you serious? I hate the damned things; they’re big, mean and vicious. If I wanted that I’d play 4th grade rugby.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Pity Matt isn’t so punctilious in demanding proof from those on his side when they make ridiculous statements about cyclones, earthquakes, malaria outbreaks etc.

    And yes, carbon dioxide is a trace gas, <0.04%; he must have forgotten that after looking at all the "black bag" junk advertising? Did he complain about the misrepresentation there?

    It might also come as a surprise to him that the solar influence on climate is taken very seriously in Russia, China and Japan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Awww..cohenite, the bears are only mean and vicious if you resist when they’re trying to eat you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Matt
    On the basis that “no publicity is bad publicity” Lord M would no doubt classify your many posts about him as the act of a “useful idiot”. As for quality of your comments “useful“.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    is 74 really polar bears:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Excellent article and thanks for the link to the correspondence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete Hayes

    MattB:
    As with your knowledge of climate, you have zero knowledge of the history of the House of Lords or the granting of a title by the Queen of Great Britain.

    It matters not a jot what C.M.’s title is. be it Mr. or Viscount! He scares you lot into playing the man instead of the ball and every time you do it another bunch of sentient people come over to the dark side!

    Keep up your excellent work!

    Did someone say the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota should investigate…….Here I go again! Down to the local B&Q for more white wash!!!!

    By the way Matt…..if you must post, at least use your real name!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete Hayes

    Oops! For Queen please insert Reigning Monarch (it was a while back)! I think we can let the “flower whisperer” out of the net!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    Matt,
    Please tell us what CO2 is in the atmosphere, if it is not a trace gas?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/report-from-climategate-guardian-debate-with-monbiot-mcintyre-pearce-watson-keenan-and-some-uea-guy/

    A video is in the offing. It will be good to see Keenan accusing Phil Jones of fraud. Didn’t retract when given a chance either!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Exactly Pete – so you’d have to ask the Viscount why he uses the symbol of the house of Lords on his presentations… since it matters not one iota.

    Peter – there are about 16 posters here not using their real name. I’ve used mine here before, go figure it out would not exactly take a private eye genius.

    Hunter… you need to read the lord’s presentation… do keep up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    duckster

    Please tell us what CO2 is in the atmosphere, if it is not a trace gas?

    CO2 is a trace gas (i.e. less than 1% of total atmospheric content), but what of it? That doesn’t mean it is insignificant, or that it doesn’t play a significant role in climate.

    I doubt you would find any serious scientist (AGW supporter or denialist) who would argue against this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    MattB,
    I already stated I do not like Monckton. Please enlighten me about our insights on CO2.
    How is something that is less than .001% more than a trace gas? You are clearly in your own mind the smartest guy in the world. Certainly smarter than a blow hard demi-Lord. Enlighten us all. And unlike Monckton, use small words. I am an American, after all.
    TIA


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hunter – I am not saying it is not a trace gas… I’m criticising the illogical extension that increases in said trace gas can not possibly do anything as it is a trace gas. As I say I’m commenting on his presentation, and the critique of that, in which it is clear that Monckton is using that line of argument.

    My heart is only a trace part of my body, maybe I’ll take it out?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    @MattB
    7:16: Bulldust don’t be a d*ckhead. The IAU “quote” is baloney and you do yourself no good waffling around that fact.

    So the beginning of the end of the arm waving defense of an unwitting troll trying to save face.

    7:17: Well the house of lords don;t think so buddy. I’ll take their word over the lord’s.

    In great lameness the unwitting troll appeal to an imagined authority, by faith, supposedly greater than the written law even.

    7:18: Anyway no point continuing you’ve obviously got some seriously man-love-crush on Chris and I don’t want to upset you by highlighting errors made by the love of your life;)

    But once defeat is imminent the unwitting troll tries to head up his own sewer hole finding an absurd sticky reason, he finds both intellectually compelling and hilariously funny even if a tad bit hairy, for leaving the sun light and, hoping, everyone else behind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    to elaborate… the argument proposed on this site in the main is that the key to AGW is the feedbacks, there is no argument for the most part of the effects of say doubling CO2 alone (although some say even that breaks the 2nd law)… therefore if we are inagreement on the basic rate of temperature change per doubling of CO2, then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely irrelevant. In fact, the fact it is a trace gas makes it even MORE important, as it means human emissions can change the concentration in the atmosphere. If the atmosphere were 10% CO2 then there would be no such thing as AGW as we’d have zero chance of changing the atmospheric concentration.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    1DandyTroll you are 1DandyMoron. Your post doesn’t even make any sense???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB

    The problem is that while the argument might be over feedbacks in the modelling, it is another matter entirely for any gas, at a lower temperature, to raise the temperature of an object hotter than it. Further, no gas can store energy.

    The misunderstanding is that while climate science has measured downwelling IR at night (pointless during the day), it then assumes that this downwelling IR comes from radiating gases in the atmosphere, to wit CO2. Except that physically this is not possible, CO2 radiating IR warming a hotter object.

    So where is this downwelling IR coming from? Electric currents in the atmosphere operating in dark current plasma mode.

    In fact I suspect that life itself on the earth’s surface is totally contingent on the maintenance of the plasma double layer encapsulating the earth and isolating it, electrically, from the plasma of its space environment. Plasma double layers occur in the presence of electric currents (moving ions). The earth is continually receiving electrical energy via the magnetic flux tubes connecting it to the sun, as well as the less obvious inputs via the plasma torus known as the Van Allen Belts.

    In sum all those electric currents entering into and out of the earth system generate IR, and the source of the measured downwelling IR.

    CO2 has diddly squat to do with it, but when you only think with a limited number of ideas, you do tend to resort to imaginative constructs to explain things using unphysical explanations.

    Add electricity and the problem disappears. The earth is at the temperature it is not from a greenhouse effect but from the energy associated with the plasma double layers encapsulating it; electric currents, when passing through matter, tend to generate heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    If St Thomas uses it’s website to post an emotion and lengthy smear, it can get very expensive. It can backfire.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Henry Chance #66

    “If St Thomas uses it’s website to post an emotion and lengthy smear, it can get very expensive. It can backfire.”

    Henry, we are dealing not with scholastic disagreement but institutionalised science versus the lumpen masses, us.

    St. Thomas has to be part of the state system of government funded education, and is thus the establishment.

    But when the establishment itself is populated by dumbos, with PHd’s as proof, what to do?

    This issue is all about them, the self appointed intellectuals self appointed to “guide” us, and we, recalcitrant, proles.

    Messenger shooting is the last resort of the politically bankrupt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis noone is saying that CO radiates IR to warm a hotter object. When an object emits IR, it does not stop doing it in the direction of a warmer object… it radiates in all directions. IR radiates off the surface of our planet towards the sun… but it does not warm the sun. What does happen in AGW is that the IR is kept in the system longer, thus warming (or reducing the cooling).

    Of course dark current plasma mode how have I been so blind!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Yes but: (@11)
    July 15th, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    No surprise here — the usual, logically fallacious, vacuous opinion and mockery.

    But at last: A purported statement of fact!

    But in the long run – no decent journal publications – impact = zero point zero.

    Alas, lying as usual, I see. Peer-reviewed, published papers refuting AGW

    Perhaps I’m too harsh, leaping to the conclusion Mr. But is lying — he might just be too stupid to do his own research, depending as he does on letting his chosen cult gods (AGW “authorities”) do his thinking for him.

    The Troll infestation seems to be growing — witness all the spurious “thumbs down” ratings. Most of them seem to be lurkers: Probably scared off by the treatment of the more foolish who display their lack of critical thinking skills openly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Louis Hissink says:

    “Further, no gas can store energy.”

    Strange, that – how then does your refrigerator manage to cool your beers?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bernard J.

    strawman argument – but we are not discussing how a gas cools somthing, but how it “warms” something using the energy it receives from the object it is trying to warm.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB you are far too intelligent to believe half the drivel you write on this wonderful blog.
    You are provided the gracious opportunity to discuss facts pertaining to CAGW and most posters are patient with the games you play. Deltoid and RealClimate does not give those who disagree with their opinions any true opportunity to discuss the “science”. Your bullying and name calling is sad given you never took the time to read what Christopher Monckton actually wrote. I would bet you never even listened to what Monckton said originally in his speech that John Abraham attacks.
    Your whitewash of the videos John Abraham produced with the full permission of The University of St. Thomas, a Catholic institution, is par for the course for AGW supporters.
    I wish I could understand more fully why you do not use the gift of reason you possess to search for truth instead of acting as a playground bully. I might even give you the benifit of the doubt and believe you have fallen into the trap of Noble Cause Corruption. I truly would expect more from you.
    I suppose you adhere to the fact that the “science is settled”. At least then you would be true to the games you play on this site.
    Joanne, my deep respects to you and the other gifted bloggers you have on this site. You are true heroes in my eyes.
    In retrospect, Mr. Monckton has never hid behind a fake screen name to state what he believes of AGW. He is a remarkable man as can be seen in all he has written and made available at Science and Public Policy. His courage to speak truth is noteworthy and commendable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bernard J

    In addition, refrideration involves removing energy, :-) and a non sequitur you write.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Awesome support for the St Thomas catholic school. All the warmists that religion but the bigger enemy for them is Lord Monkton.
    If roles were reversed and the school was sceptical, the attacks would be aginst the church, pope and all the dark ages etc from the beginning.

    Warmistas need to be carefull. If some rich donor wants a building with their name on it and finds the warming hoax is out of line, it can cost the school 20 million and they never know it.

    This posturing by the school can help them get a grant for the Al Gore Center for Womens Studies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Siliggy

    MattB:
    July 16th, 2010 at 12:46 am When an object emits IR, it does not stop doing it in the direction of a warmer object…

    Good you can see that! So how many Watts per M sqd does the earth recieve this way then Matt?
    Oh and prove your number.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    For some reason the above link goes to the wrong place.
    Try this click here
    If not then cut and paste it please.
    Receive not recieve (sorry Tel).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    MattB:
    July 16th, 2010 at 12:46 am When an object emits IR, it does not stop doing it in the direction of a warmer object…

    How much from this?
    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Louis Hissink.

    Have you ever felt the heat exchanger at the back of your refrigerator?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Hughes

    BobC:
    July 16th, 2010 at 1:00 am

    Alas, lying as usual, I see. Peer-reviewed, published papers refuting AGW

    Nice one. I particularly appreciate:

    Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
    - Oliver K. Manue

    Which explains that global warming isn’t happening because the sun is made of Iron.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Just to remind you Louis, you said “Further, no gas can store energy.”

    My comment is not a straw man: it is intended to point out that your original statement is incorrect. You might think that my comment is an irrelevance , but if you’re going to expound on gases and their capacities for energy storage/transferance, you must first be very clear about your basics.

    I am simply trying to straighten out your basics.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Baa Humbug:
    July 15th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
    MattB: #16
    July 15th, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    I hope this does end up in court… but I bet you $10 Monckton does not push that hard.
    Clarify what you mean by “push too hard”. If by that you mean Monckton will not take this to court, then I’ll give you 2 to 1 and accept the bet. I’ll bet Monckton will take this to court unless an apology is forthcoming.
    Loser (you $10 or me $20) pays to Jos fund

    MattB payoff? ROTFLMFAO!!! MattB never seems to learn! Baa, do you remember his “bet” with Richard S. Courtney? Matt started off by using a figure of speech when he said, “I bet.” Richard took him at his word literally and pounded matt. Matt then said he was going to review and critique Richards paper. He also claimed that the bet was a bet of “honor.” Later, he changed the bet to a “Trading Places” bet of one dollar. Matt never followed through on his critique of Mr. Courtney’s paper and he never paid the dollar, either!

    You would think Matt, an intelligent human being, would learn from his mistakes. After stiffing Richard S. Clourtney for a measly dollar, he resurrects the fiasco a few threads back and accuses Richard of being a liar!

    http://www.answers.com/topic/deadbeat

    Slang.
    n.
    One who does not pay one’s debts.
    A lazy person; a loafer.

    Matt, I understand that you have founded your own business and I wish you all the best. I hope you brush up on your communication skills before you open the doors. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB.

    You’ve only said one thing I can agree with — Monkton will probably not take the matter to court.

    I say that even though he seems to have a very strong case that the University couldn’t counter. So why not take it to court?

    1. Juries are entirely unpredictable. A case like this where testimony would be about stuff the jurors don’t understand — and the defense would make sure of this — could go either way. It’s a crap-shoot.

    2. He can write a book and do his adversary a lot of PR damage and in spite of their heavyweight law firm, they couldn’t touch him for the same reason he probably won’t go to court.

    Personally I’d rather see the book. It would hang around the University’s neck for a long time. The best kind of justice is exposure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    Lord Monckton states

    “I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.””

    The Viscount’s statement on this matter is unquestionably false.

    The automatic right of hereditary peers to remain members (sitting, non-sitting, or otherwise) of the House of Lords was specifically removed under the 1999 House of Lords Act. The legislation is explicit on this point. It states

    “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”

    Here is the text of the Act in full.

    Those hereditary peers who remained in the house did so by virtue of being elected to the House by the House itself. The Viscount stood in such an election and received ZERO votes. The hereditary peers that have retained a seat in the House do so upon a Life Peerage (i.e. non-hereditary peerage) conferred upon them for that constitutional purpose. The Viscount holds no such Life Peerage. There is no-such thing as “a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    toby

    Game and set to John Abraham, I would say. Soon, the match as well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    L Monkton sent Abraham a set of questions. The lack of ability to respond tells us it is defeat.
    Universities today are in great need for money. Now is the worst time to use the schools name to smear people. It only takes a few statements to divert donations elswhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    You appear to have left something out of the letter sent to Monckton. The paragraph should read (omission in italic)

    “Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further about your decision to sully the University of St. Thomas, Professor Abraham, and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Denialists are actually casting this as proof that Monckton’s ”rebuttal” has won …! [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gail C.

    Constitutional:

    The Viscount’s statement on this matter is unquestionably false.

    The automatic right of hereditary peers to remain members (sitting, non-sitting, or otherwise) of the House of Lords was specifically removed under the 1999 House of Lords Act. The legislation is explicit on this point. It state

    ==========================================
    I do not know UK law, however Lord M. explains the law was not legal and gives the specifics.

    This is to my mind is very similar to the “Commerce Clause” fiasco in the USA that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The original intent of the Commerce Clause was, literally, to regulate interstate commerce. That is commerce between states (not people)

    However. in 1942, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the interstate commerce clause applied to Mr. Filburn’s 239 bushels of homegrown wheat used on his own farm! Here is the convoluted reasoning applied:

    “[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.” – US Supreme Court

    So what did those who wrote the Constitution actually mean? In plain terms to ensure a level playing field for commerce between the several states. The writers did not want the states applying tariffs to competing states when product traversed their state as businesses were bringing product to market.

    The words of Madison (Federalist papers No. 42), on the federal government’s right to regulate interstate commerce:

    “…A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.”

    Thus Madison clearly establishes that the federal’s role was that of making commerce regular or fair across ALL the states and that was the meaning and function of the “commerce clause” in the US Constitution.

    Unfortunately because the US Supreme Court intentionally misinterpreted the meaning of the “Commerce Clause” it is now used in the USA as a wedge for many more unconstitutional and thus false “laws”

    To put it bluntly, just because a law gets passed does not mean it is lawful or just. Those of us subject to laws should be aware of that so we can fight unjust or illegal laws.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Roy Hogue:

    At #83 you say:

    Monkton will probably not take the matter to court.

    Knowing Chris, I think the matter would depend on whether someone other than him could provide the legal fees.

    I assess that if he can get the money, then he will certainly sue and go for maximum publicity of the trial.

    You suggest that he could write a book instead of the trial. But the book would get much larger sales following the trial.

    Richard

    PS
    Several have commented on MattB offering a bet in this thread. I can confirm what Eddy Aruda says at #82: i.e. there is no point in accepting MattB’s bet. MattB made a similar bet on another thread, I accepted it, he lost it, he failed to pay the debt.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Louis Hissink wrote

    The misunderstanding is that while climate science has measured downwelling IR at night (pointless during the day), it then assumes that this downwelling IR comes from radiating gases in the atmosphere, to wit CO2. Except that physically this is not possible, CO2 radiating IR warming a hotter object.

    So where is this downwelling IR coming from? Electric currents in the atmosphere operating in dark current plasma mode.

    And you know, somehow those dark current plasmas emit light with exactly the spectral characteristics of CO2 (and H2O) and if you analyze the emission even more carefully, why it is exactly the emission you would expect based on the pressure and temperature of the layer where it is emitted. Sorry Louis, no way.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Eli Rabett:
    July 16th, 2010 at 5:08 am

    You appear to have left something out of the letter sent to Monckton. The paragraph should read (omission in italic)
    “Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further about your decision to sully the University of St. Thomas, Professor Abraham, and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham.”

    Your point being? Maybe you should change your name to Eli Rabid? Bunny droppings? That is putting it mildly! I saw your site. Another fanatical CAGW site that further evidences the death throes of the greatest scam to ever come down the pike! Despite your obvious dislike of Viscount Monckton, I notice he mops the floor with the pro AGW crowd every time he debates them!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “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.”

    Those words aren’t mine, they are words from the House of Lords Information Office.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    oh for Christ’s sake please give up on the “lord or not a lord” BS – If you had any real interest in Christopher Monckton you would know full well that the man is a showman with a great sense of humour – his emblem on his slides is for show, he jokes about it!! (it’s also there so others don’t misrepresent his slides, it’s like a copyright stamp)

    If you want to address Monckton discuss his science, the rest is irrelevant.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    janama:
    July 16th, 2010 at 6:41 am

    oh for Christ’s sake please give up on the “lord or not a lord” BS…

    Good point, Janama. It is typical of the CAGW crowd to strain out the minutia while ignoring the elephant in the room. All of this blathering about “Lord” Monckton is an ad hominem (at the man) attack rather than focusing on the real issues.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charlie A

    @Eddy Aruda — no call for your irrational response to Eli Rabett’s pointing out of a transcription error in the head post.

    I stumbled over that section of the post when reading it and wondered what it was supposed to say.

    Try not to follow Abraham’s example. Look at what is said. Respond to what is said. Eli’s blog or beliefs on other matters does not affect the validity of his helpful pointing out of a typo/transcription/copying error.

    Charlie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charlie A

    @Louis Hissink — your understanding of effect of CO2 on longwave radiation is incorrect.

    Although it may be counter-intuitive, the radiation from a colder body can indeed heat a warmer one. Another posted said something to the effect that the longwave radiation from the earth will not warm the sun.

    While it is not very significant, the sun is indeed warmer because earth is here than it would be were there no sun. While the radiation from the earth towards the sun delivers only small amounts of energy, it does indeed further warm the sun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “oh for Christ’s sake please give up on the “lord or not a lord” BS – If you had any real interest in Christopher Monckton you would know full well that the man is a showman with a great sense of humour”

    You make him sound like a clown. He isn’t. He defended the charge of not being a Lord in a serious, non-joking way by saying he is a “non-voting hereditary member of the Upper House”. Sounds like he is serious that he is a Lord. Either Monckton is talking nonsense or the House of Lords Information Office is. I of course draw no conclusion, I just share the information to let other people decide for themselves.

    As for the validity of self-ascribed titles being “minutia”, the main article thinks it’s important enough to discuss:

    “Yet, they hope no one will notice that Monckton has categorically defeated any pretense that Abrahams deserves to have the title “Professor””

    I agree. Claiming a false title would reduce the credibility of the person doing it. It’s an important thing to determine. Afterall if someone doesn’t even know their own name…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Jo, this post must have gotten under a few believers skin, they seem to have descended on this post like a rash. Alas most have added nothing to the debate, their only here to attack the “LORD” over whether he is or isn’t titled.

    If he was as delusional as most of them claim they wouldn’t bother to post.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Charlie A:
    July 16th, 2010 at 7:31 am
    While it is not very significant, the sun is indeed warmer because earth is here than it would be were there no sun. While the radiation from the earth towards the sun delivers only small amounts of energy, it does indeed further warm the sun.

    So too does the light reflected from the moon warm the earth. There is more light from the moon when it is full at perigee than when it is new at perigee, so the later half of this year will be colder right?:
    look at the table “distance to the moon 2010″ here (link posted for that chart only. I have no idea what the rest of the site is about):
    http://www.lunarplanner.com/LunarPerigee/index.html
    This has some numbers:
    http://www.optics.arizona.edu/palmer/moon/lunacy.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Charlie A:
    July 16th, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I stumbled over that section of the post when reading it and wondered what it was supposed to say.

    Adding the italicized section did nothing to change the context. You are offended because I do not like Rabid’s blog droppings? Too bad!

    Charlie A:
    July 16th, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Although it may be counter-intuitive, the radiation from a colder body can indeed heat a warmer one. Another posted said something to the effect that the longwave radiation from the earth will not warm the sun.

    If that is the case, could you please cite some source? If we follow your logic then the sunlight that is reflected by the moon warms the earth a little?! Think of cold as the absence of heat and go from there. Good luck on that one!

    While it is not very significant, the sun is indeed warmer because earth is here than it would be were there no sun.

    Argument by gibberish. I agree that without the sun that the solar system, if it existed, would almost certainly be colder! Geesh!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Sliiggy

    You beat me to the punch. I gotta type faster! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Socold:
    July 16th, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Do you know what the fallacy ad hominem is? It is an attack against the man rather than the argument. If being a lord was relevant to the science it may be an issue, but it isn’t. If a professor in a subject were not a professor, then it would be important to whatever field or discipline the professor taught about.

    You make him sound like a clown.

    A straw man fallacy. Janama did not say that!

    I have heard of the B team but you and Charlie A. must be from the Z team. You two are going to have to do better than the illogical tripe you have delivered so far!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Chistopher Monckton says he is entitled to claim his house of Lords membership UNTIL SUCH TIME as the reigning monarch changes it. I don’t believe she has done that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Eli knows better, and so does BJ, that radiation from a cooler object to a warmer one will not warm the warmer object but stop it cooling as quickly as it would otherwise do if the radiation from the cooler object was not reaching it.

    As for gases storing heat; most things can store heat if it is directed at them; the issue is for how long does that storage continue without the continuation of the heating from the heating source. In the atmosphere, not very long, in the ocean slightly longer, on land somewhere in between.

    With back radiation it is not the total flux at the surface but the net flux, which is very little; this can be seen from the K&T cartoon which is the backbone of the greenhouse effect:

    http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm

    Now 323W/m2 of backradiation or DLW sounds impressive but when you reduce it to a net surface flux the figures become interesting; the 2008 K&T cartoon differs slightly from their 1997 one; a comparison of the net fluxes between the 2 versions is instructive; in the 1997 version the NET fluxes from the Surface are:
    a. Direct Radiation “through the window” to Space is 40W/m^2.
    b. Fluxes into the Atmosphere:
    (1) Evaporated Water Vapour, 78W/m^2
    (2) NET Radiation, 26W/m^2
    (3) Conduction, 24W/m^2

    [Numbers are from Kiehl &Trenberth, 1997. See IPCC, AR4, WG1, Chapter 1.]”

    The 2008 K&T cartoon gives a NET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w/m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w/m2 and conduction to 16w/m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun’s 168/166 w/m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Harold

    Charlie A: July16th, 2010 at 7:31am

    Earth warms Sun – give us your educated guess on an impact scale? Are there enough zeros after the decimal point to post on this web site?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard in 90 – you are a LIAR. why you keep on making this plain for all to see I’m not sure.

    So everyone is clear, Richard thinks this scenario is valid:

    Punter (Mattb) enters TAB:
    Hi, I’d like to place a bet on the 3:20 at Randwick

    TAB Agent (Richard)
    ok – you owe me $5000

    Punter: Erm I’ve not made a bet for $5000

    TAB Agent: LIAR!!!!!! LIAR!!!!!!

    lolzrofl;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    SAGWH

    About the closest thing to seeing CAGW Theory going on Trial that I can think of so far. The Cataclysminoids aren’t going to like this one at all. The presentation of Real Data and Real Facts in a court of Law? No hype , no Bull, Just The Facts. GO MONTY!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Louis in 71. How does a jumper “warm” a body that it is in fact cooler than? I suggest you walk around naked next winter while thinking about this little breach of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “Do you know what the fallacy ad hominem is? It is an attack against the man rather than the argument.”

    “I have heard of the B team but you and Charlie A. must be from the Z team.”

    Right. Are you called Mr Pot Kettle?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Yes but

    Holy cow – Cohenite has discovered back radiation and net flux ! Wow ! Whatever happened to the 2nd law of thermodynamics ruse.
    Karked it with the alfoil light bulbs or better the commercial Osram IRC instantiation of the principle?
    So many sceptic ruses – such little time. zzzzzz

    And isn’t so so typical of big end of town sceptics to threaten dissenters with law suits. How piss weak really. What glass jaws.
    The olde rightist free speech suppression tactics.
    Of course libel depends on whether one’s significant reputation in the field has been sullied. So then one might ask what that reputation actually is?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Charlie A in 97 – yes of course you are correct re IR from the earth “warming” the sun.. but of course it is a completely insignificant amount. but it would be there in the energy balance.

    Eddy in 101 – erm yes the reflection of the sun’s rays via the moon does of course warm the earth. Or do you think reflected light is not actually light?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charlie A

    Harold:
    July 16th, 2010 at 9:13 am
    Earth warms Sun – give us your educated guess on an impact scale? Are there enough zeros after the decimal point to post on this web site?

    Others had said that it is impossible for a colder object to increase the temperature of a warmer object. The question is not the magnitude, but the basic understanding of how radiative energy transfer differs from conductive heat transfer.

    For example, just a few posts up, Eddy Aruba says

    If we follow your logic then the sunlight that is reflected by the moon warms the earth a little?! Think of cold as the absence of heat and go from there. Good luck on that one!

    Actually, that is a pretty easy example to follow. If the moon were not there, then the earth would just “see” the relatively low radiation incoming from outer space in that area. Make the moon magically appear and that roughly 1/2 degree circle is now occupied by a body that is significantly warmer than the average temp that was there before. The total radiation incoming to the earth will increase.

    This is all a bit off topic, and it’s time to resume the regularly scheduled program.

    Charlie

    p.s. Some posters have responded not to the actual comments Eli Rabett’s made above, but instead have vented towards a person they dislike for other reasons. I also suspect that few of you have any idea of my opinion on the Monckton vs Abraham catfight, and even less of an idea of my general opinions on AGW. I will bet, though that I have actually done more direct work to correct AGW alarmism via FOIA requests, EIR requests, and Quality of Information Requests for Correction than most (all) posters to this thread so far.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    @Gail C.:

    “I do not know UK law”

    Clearly. The rest of your comment which concerns some issue completely unrelated to the Law of England and Wales, the Law of Scotland and the constitution of the United Kingdom is irrelevant.

    “Lord M. explains the law was not legal and gives the specifics.”

    Lord M’s explanation, like his claim that he is a non-voting member of the House of Lords, is false. Whether the Viscount views the law as lawful or unlawful is irrelevant.

    He states:

    “… Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant.”

    The gift does not, as Monckton falsely infers, include by right membership of the House of Lords, but only the usage of a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom for oneself and one’s heirs. The former was an automatic right received as a consequence of the latter. But the 1999 Act revoked this automatic entitlement.

    The 1999 House of Lords Act was passed by the upper and lower chambers of the British parliament and is therefore the Law in statute. Its passage has not been formally contested (afaik), and Monckton’s protestations about its legality are irrelevant. The Viscount’s effrontery at his family’s ejection from the Upper Chamber of the British Parliament is his own concern, but his continued misrepresentation the matter, especially when addressing those, like yourself unfamiliar with the UK constitution, is disingenuous. The law unequivocally states that in order to be a member of the House of Lords one must hold a Life Peerage, or be a a member of the Lords Spiritual (i.e. a senior bishop or Arch-bishop in the Church of England, the established Church), and that Monckton and his fellow hereditary peers are no longer entitled to be members of the Upper Chamber. This law came into effect before the 3rd Viscount ascended to the peerage upon the death of his father. As the House of Lords information office has stated with specific regard to Monckton – the 3rd Viscount Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords and there is no such thing as a non-voting non-sitting member of the House of Lords. Anyone who claims to be a non-voting member of the House of Lords is either deluding themselves or deliberately lying.


    @Socold

    “You make him sound like a clown. He isn’t.”

    I think you will find that there are people of my side of the Atlantic who have a different opinion.

    “He defended the charge of not being a Lord …”

    It is unfortunate that confusion arises as to what being a “Lord” in the UK means. The confusion is understandable. Those who held an hereditary peerages conferred upon an ancestor and thereby the right to act as legislators by right of birth were part of an anachronism that was substantially removed by the 1999 Act. Monckton is one such Lord. Non-hereditary Life Peerages were introduced in 1958, and all members of the House of Lords (except the Lords Spiritual referred to above) must now hold a Life Peerage (even if they hold an existing hereditary peerage). Monckton does not hold a life Peerage.

    In summary: He is a Lord. He and his heirs hold an anachronistic title (Viscount Monckton of Brenchley). He is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords and he does not have any right to call himself a member of the House of Lords (sitting, non-sitting, voting or non-voting) whether he thinks he is entitled to do so or not. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    From post # 70,Bernard J. writes:

    Louis Hissink says:

    “Further, no gas can store energy.”

    Strange, that – how then does your refrigerator manage to cool your beers?

    It does it by using a COMPRESSOR.

    Try this LINK to learn about it.

    CO2 is not used by the way.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB

    I reads your post at 112 regarding the warming of the erath by moonlight. I read this article and I wonder what you thought of it?

    http://www.nature.com/news/1999/990624/full/news990624-9.html.

    Regarding your post at 107 your analogy is false. You used the term, “I’ll bet” in a figurative manner at a thread in February. Richard S. Courtney jumped all over it. He later admitted that he did not really expect you to pay the $5,000 or $10,000 dollars, whichever it was. He was just tired of you shooting your mouth off and wasting everybody’s time. He would have been more than willing to accept an apology. You applied your usual diplomatic balm, insulted E&E and Richard, said you were going to critique his paper and then stated in no uncertain terms that it was a matter of honor. Again, you later said you would do a “Trading Places” bet of one dollar. You were referring to the movie, Trading Places, starring Eddy Murphy and Dan Aykroyd. You never critiqued the paper, you lost the bet by default, and you never paid the one dollar “debt of honor” Those are the facts, Matt. Anybody that reads the exchange will see it is as I have written. I told you a couple of threads ago when you resurrected the matter and called Richard a liar to let it go and “let sleeping dogs lie.” However, you chose to do otherwise. Perhaps a better analogy would be, “A dog returns to its vomit.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    “If being a lord was relevant to the science it may be an issue, but it isn’t. If a professor in a subject were not a professor, then it would be important to whatever field or discipline the professor taught about.”

    What follows from this is that scientific arguments made by someone with title ‘professor’ carry more credibility than arguments made by someone with title ‘lord’.

    My reasoning is thus (by the way I do sympathize with you as it’s not possible to resolve such a genuine set of double standards without falling foul)

    Apparently whether Abraham has, or doesn’t have the title of Professor is a relevant topic. But whether Monckon has, or doesn’t have, the title of Lord is irrelevant. The question is why the difference?

    I’ve been told the arguments are the important thing here, not “the man”, so argument wise what’s the difference between Lords and Professors? The only thing I can think of is scientific credibility. So by a strange turn of events we have skeptics implicitly arguing that the title of “professor” would lend Abraham’s arguments more weight (and hence that’s why his title is an important subject)

    How did this strange turn of events happen?

    Skeptics went after Abraham’s title originally because they thought he had described himself wrong. We only get a change-of-story once that Monckton became in the same situation and they want to shut down that topic by describing it as “minutia”. They can’t claim titles themselves are an irrelevant topic, because that would be an obvious double standard! So they try to exploit the difference between Lord and Professor that they can claim distinguishes them. and Aha! from the pot into the fire.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Florida

    Constitutional said:

    “’I do not know UK law’

    Clearly. The rest of your comment which concerns some issue completely unrelated to the Law of England and Wales, the Law of Scotland and the constitution of the United Kingdom is irrelevant.

    The UK does not have a constitution, at least something most of the word would recognize as a constitution. To what document do you refer?

    In a nation where citizens are still defined as “subjects,” no law sounds particularly logical. Until the rights of the individual are recognized as higher than the rights of the collective, there will never be true social progress. Unfortunately, many in the US now want to revert to the European model, assuming it to be superior to their own. The grass is always greener on the other side of the pond, but in this case, it may be greener from too many Iron Age leftovers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Socold

    btw I actually think Monckton should have been a member of the House of Lords, I didn’t agree with the reform. For what it matters.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Constitutional:
    July 16th, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Clearly. The rest of your comment which concerns some issue completely unrelated to the Law of England and Wales, the Law of Scotland and the constitution of the United Kingdom is irrelevant

    Thank you for your erudite and scholarly dissertation on a subject which has nothing to do with CAGW.

    Allow me to elaborate.

    Clearly, the rest of your comment which concerns some issues completely unrelated to the Laws of Physics, the subject of Global Warming and the unconscionable conduct of the CAGW cabal is irrelevant.

    Discuss the merits of Monckton’s arguments and avoid the ad hominem (at the man) fallacy, please.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    16 July: WSJ: A Climate Absolution?
    More like a 160-page evasion of the real issues that confront global-warming science
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703394204575367483847033948.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Toby at post #85,writes this howler:

    Game and set to John Abraham, I would say. Soon, the match as well.

    Have you yet learned that Abraham made up things out of the air?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    1. The laws of physics are never violated, including the laws of thermodynamics.

    2. In case the laws of physics are ever violated, see 1 above.

    You make an ass of yourself by arguing otherwise.

    There is no trick or argument by which you can get around this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cal Barndorfer

    I’m curious how you can describe Monckton’s rebuttal “‘detailed’ and ‘comprehensive’” when it’s completely free of references for many of the claims made therein. I’m sure your readers would like to know how you were able verify the accuracy of all 466 questions without these references?

    Do tell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “So by a strange turn of events we have skeptics implicitly arguing that the title of “professor” would lend Abraham’s arguments more weight (and hence that’s why his title is an important subject)”

    Actually, that’s jerking the facts around, mate. Monckton only brought up Abraham’s title to reveal the hypocrisy and irrelevance of Abraham’s original attack on Monckton’s title. To now argue skeptic are the hypocrites because they suddenly care about titles is disingenuous. It’s the same inversion of truth as the claim that skeptics publish few peer reviewed papers. Duh, yeah, thanks to climategate we know why: There is an organized conspiracy to subvert the peer review process against any work that doesn’t support AGW..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Socold:
    July 16th, 2010 at 10:44 am

    “If being a lord was relevant to the science it may be an issue, but it isn’t. If a professor in a subject were not a professor, then it would be important to whatever field or discipline the professor taught about.”

    What follows from this is that scientific arguments made by someone with title ‘professor’ carry more credibility than arguments made by someone with title ‘lord’.

    A straw man. You said, “What follows from this…” No, it doesn’t. Another fallacy, Circulus in demonstrando (circular reasoning) and also the fallacy, complex question, as you assume it (arguments made by someone with title ‘professor’ carry more credibility) to be true without offering any proof.

    Monckton’s peerage is irrelevant to the science. The point of the analogy was to discuss the use of the fallacy, ad hominem. The fallacy refers to an attack against the person instead of his argument. If someone claims to be a professor and is not, in truth, a professor, then one could conclude that the person was committing fraud. Another example would be someone claiming to be a doctor and not being a licensed physician. You would have impressed me more if you argued something about my analogy being in essence an endorsement of an appeal to authority. If that would have been the case, I could have clarified my statement and it would have been a settled issue. Unfortunately, that did not happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Cal Barndorfer:
    July 16th, 2010 at 11:03 am

    I’m curious how you can describe Monckton’s rebuttal “‘detailed’ and ‘comprehensive’” when it’s completely free of references for many of the claims made therein.

    Speaking of curious, why don’t you “reference” some examples! After you get specific we can address the issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “I’m sure your readers would like to know how you were able verify the accuracy of ALL 466 questions without these references?”

    Cal Barndorfer is doing a fair imitation of Monty Python’s Black Knight:

    “Come back here you yellow bastards I’ll bite your legs off”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feature=fvst


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    @Florida

    “The UK does not have a constitution, at least something most of the word would recognize as a constitution. To what document do you refer?”

    The UK does not have a written constitution. I.e. There is no one document titled “The Constitution of the United Kingdom”. This does not mean the UK is without a constitution. The constitution of the UK is founded upon convention, court judgments, and statute.

    “In a nation where citizens are still defined as “subjects …”

    This is false. You are 30 years out of date. The term “British subject” has been redundant for citizens of the UK since the British Nationality Act (1981) came in to force in 1983.

    I point these facts out so that you will be better informed in future. However your comments have no relevancy to the substance of mine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    So MattB mate… he who scored more runs (negative votes) overnight than the combined Aussie and Pakistani teams at Lords, where to start?

    Let me encapsulate the story to date:

    MattB: Pointless one-liner stating Jo is over-zealous in her support of Monckton.

    Cohenite: Asks why MattB thinks so.

    MattB: Completely shifts topic and asks whether Cohenite supports Monckton’s presentations 100% and follows up with a one-liner that he defend question 379.

    Now Question 379, as I promptly point out was merely a comprehension exercise on Monckton’s part asking whether he had correctly summarised Abraham’s criticism of a given topic in Monckton’s presentation.

    MattB: Then suggests that slides with a pink portcullis discredit themselves somehow… astonishing scientific deduction that is Matty… he then jabbers at random.

    I reiterate a previous question of whether MattB is even up to the task of discrediting (with references) a single slide of the presentation he so desperately wishes to discredit. I also explain to Cohenite that question 379 was merely a comprehension question.

    MattB: Randomly (as later confessed) suggests Cohenite defend question 231. Matty is found of shifting goalposts when on the run from direct opposition.

    MattB: Then explains (@ 27) that by question 379 he actually meant an entirely different question altogether, but related to the issue in that question. He then says I failed to answer the question that was in his head but never stated on the thread. Grats at winning your own imaginary game show Matty /golfclap

    I carefully explain again to MattB that question 379 was a comprehension question, nothing more, nothing less. I even quoted Monckton’s question for him in the thread (@ 29).

    MattB: Goes off at another tangent talking about CO2 being a trace gas. Thanks for clearing that up. It IS a trace gas – simple scientific fact.

    MattB: (@ 32) Utterly defeated in his original question 379 line of argument now results to calling me names.

    Thanks MattB for showing your true character once again. You seem to keep the veneer of politeness most of the time, but when backed into your own errors you lash out predictably.

    PS> In relation to the previous thread:
    I am the same Bulldust that coined “ClimateGate.” The nature of the original remark at WUWT was one of sarcasm. I was a victim of my own wit it seems, because the name caught on. I love the irony. Am I proud of it? Not particularly… but I think it is funny as hell. You’d have to understand my sarcastic sense of humour (I was brought up on Python after all) to appreciate this fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Florida:
    July 16th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Constitutional said:

    “’I do not know UK law’

    Clearly. The rest of your comment which concerns some issue completely unrelated to the Law of England and Wales, the Law of Scotland and the constitution of the United Kingdom is irrelevant.

    The UK does not have a constitution, at least something most of the word would recognize as a constitution. To what document do you refer?

    I beg to differ, it was the English that laid the ground rules for all modern constitutions with the Magna Carta.

    Magna Carta (also called Magna Carta Libertatum, the Great Charter of Liberty) is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin and is therefore known by its Latin name. The usual English translation of Magna Carta is Great Charter.

    Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects, whether free or fettered — and implicitly supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

    Magna Carta was arguably [according to whom?]the most significant [citation needed] early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. However, it was “far from unique, either in content or form” [1]. A key statute of the uncodified British Constitution,[2] Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law [citation needed] and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[3] Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century, however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.

    Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I specified particular areas where his powers would be limited.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Sorry I forgot to acknowledge the above information comes from wikipedia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cal Barndorfer

    Eddy Aruda:
    July 16th, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Speaking of curious, why don’t you “reference” some examples! After you get specific we can address the issue.

    While I’m not interested in going through the entire document in this manner (since this should’ve been Monckton’s work and not my own) here are just a few:

    1) Ques 27, 28: Where is the 2nd graph (the graph on the right) from

    2) Ques 32: Where did the info on the ARGO bathythermographs originate?

    3) Ques 35: Where are the images in that slide from? They are unreadable.

    4) Ques 39: Where does the evidence that polar bear populations have increased substantially come from?

    5) Ques 45: Where is this conclusion of the IPCC stated?

    6) Ques 46: When and how was this “statistical abuse” brought to the attention of the IPCC and EPA?

    7) Ques 48: Where did the “full data” on hurricane activity originate?

    8) Ques 53: Where did this IPCC table originate?

    9) Ques 55, 56: Where did that IPCC conclusion originate?

    10)Ques 60: Where is the evidence of this real estate purchase?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    @Eddy Aruda

    “Discuss the merits of Monckton’s arguments and avoid the ad hominem (at the man) fallacy, please”

    Allow me to explain the difference between an ad hominem and an ad hominem fallacy. Lets say I was arguing with someone called Teddy.

    If I were to say Teddy “You are fat” – that would be an ad hominem.

    If I were to say “Teddy your argument is is nonsense because you are fat”. That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

    It is fallacious to claim that an argument is invalid because of a perceived fault in the person making the argument. I have made no claim about the validity or invalidity of Monckton’s argument with regard Climate Change. I have related the precise, correct and verifiable facts of Lord Monckton’s title and also who is and who is not entitled to be a member of the House of Lords. It is unarguably disingenuous to misrepresent oneself in such a manner. Whether the reason behind this is delusion or dishonesty i cannot tell. Those are the two options that occur to me, but perhaps you have some other explanation?

    I have pointed out these facts because of the addendum on this post titled “Lordy Lordy?”. The statement made in the addendum is false. I point this out so that readers of this blog will be better informed in future.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Eli presents some anodyne twaddle about backradiation, with H2O in brackets as though he is ashamed to admit that H2O dominates back radiation just as it dominates climate, then BernardJ drops some waffle about gas retention of heat, Mattb welshes on a bet and Constitution impugns Monckton’s claim to be a member of the house of lords; he does this by arguing thus @ 114:

    “… Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant.” [Monckton's position]

    “The gift does not, as Monckton falsely infers, include by right membership of the House of Lords, but only the usage of a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom for oneself and one’s heirs. The former was an automatic right received as a consequence of the latter. But the 1999 Act revoked this automatic entitlement.” [Constitutional's position]

    The 1999 act did not in effect revoke this status but placed a condition before its operation, which was election; it is therefore not right to say Monckton’s membership has been revoked but rather it has been placed in obeyance until a condition precedent has been fulfilled. The proof of this is that Monckton is eligible to run for election but non-peers are not; I presume that would include Constitutional, which may explain the politics of envy which oozes from his comments: “anachronistic title” for instance; “bloody peasants” comes to mind.

    In any event the level and standard of critique of Monckton’s reply to Abraham’s deplorable and excruciating ‘expose’ of Monckton has been pitiful. Even the banshee of the blogs, luke, has been anemic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I don’t know and can’t know whether Christopher Monkton is entitled to call himself Lord Monkton or not. And being an American I have no particular reason to care except for common courtesy to the man. So I will call him what he wants to be called.

    I do know this however. I would not want him coming after me because he is a formidable adversary. He’s told the “emperor” that he has no cloths on and the “emperor” has only bluster with which to counter the accusation. Knowing full well that Lord Monkton is right, Abraham has made an attempt to make his presentation more acceptable (after a long delay if I read this right). Unfortunately it’s a pretty sorry attempt. But thereby he gives himself away. Only the guilty, someone who knows he can’t withstand scrutiny, does that. If he thought his case against Monkton was strong he would have no reason to modify his epic hit piece.

    It’s very helpful as you go through life to watch what people actually do instead of making a big thing out of the words themselves or the names and titles of the players. Lord Monkton’s peerage is simply extraneous to the matter at hand. On the other hand, Abraham is vulnerable in his position as a University Professor because he has a position of authority, whereas Lord Monkton doesn’t have the same kind of authority at all.

    I’ll get torn up by someone for this I’m sure. But it won’t be the first time. So let the but and the others go at it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    This is an interesting accusation by Monckton:

    232: Though you say you are here “moving on to the next topic”, at this point in my talk was I not still
    demonstrating the numerous lies and deceptions by promoters of the climate


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Whoops, here’s the rest of it. Wonder who those Aussies were?

    233 For what reason, here as so often elsewhere in your talk, did you wrench my words out of their context
    in a manner calculated to mislead your audience into believing that I had been making a quite different point
    – and one that you could set up as a straw man and then demolish?

    234 At this point, did I not display the above slide from the Maldives, showing a photograph taken by
    Professor Niklas Mörner in 2007 of an uprooted tree, still in leaf, on the sea


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Socold:
    July 16th, 2010 at 10:44 am

    My reasoning is thus (by the way I do sympathize with you as it’s not possible to resolve such a genuine set of double standards without falling foul)

    A Red Herring as that portion my post concerned the fallacy ad hominem and had nothing to do with double standards, another straw man.

    Apparently whether Abraham has, or doesn’t have the title of Professor is a relevant topic. But whether Monckon has, or doesn’t have, the title of Lord is irrelevant. The question is why the difference?
    I’ve been told the arguments are the important thing here, not “the man”, so argument wise what’s the difference between Lords and Professors? The only thing I can think of is scientific credibility. So by a strange turn of events we have skeptics implicitly arguing that the title of “professor” would lend Abraham’s arguments more weight (and hence that’s why his title is an important subject)

    You asked and answered your own question. Your answer assumes that the only difference between a lord and a professor is scientific credibility.That is the fallacy dicto simpliciter, a sweeping generalization. It does not matter if one is a Lord or a professor. All that matters is if the argument is valid and holds up under scrutiny. If it passes scrutiny it is worthy of consideration. If not, it is rejected. You offer no proof that anyone explicitly or implicitly argued that the title of professor would lend Abraham’s arguments more weight. That is nothing more than more circular reasoning based on a straw man. Logic is concerned with arriving at the truth with facts and evidence, not implications.

    Skeptics went after Abraham’s title originally because they thought he had described himself wrong. We only get a change-of-story once that Monckton became in the same situation and they want to shut down that topic by describing it as “minutia”. They can’t claim titles themselves are an irrelevant topic, because that would be an obvious double standard! So they try to exploit the difference between Lord and Professor that they can claim distinguishes them. and Aha! from the pot into the fire.

    “Skeptics went after Abraham’s title originally because they thought he had described himself wrong.” An unsubstantiated opinion unsupported because you cited no evidence.

    ” We only get a change-of-story once that Monckton became in the same situation and they want to shut down that topic by describing it as “minutia””. You have employed another fallacy, a red herring. Also, there is no change of story as the fact do not change. There is a difference between someone trying to pass himself off as an authority by virtue of being a professor and distracting and dissembling remarks about whether or not someone is a member of the house of lords; an irrelevant issue and thus a red herring.

    “They can’t claim titles themselves are an irrelevant topic, because that would be an obvious double standard!” Another straw man and a non sequitur statement.

    “So they try to exploit the difference between Lord and Professor that they can claim distinguishes them. and Aha! from the pot into the fire. Another straw man and more circular reasoning.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust @130 – that is about as accurate an account as your citizens’ fraudit.

    To be quite honest though dusty, my initial comment about your coining the phrase “Climategate” was said in the context of me being fairly confident that you would have thought exactly what you state at the bottom of post #130. Others howled to your defence as though I had insulted you deeply – not your fault I guess that most AGW skeptics are devoid of sarcastic/ironic humour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    235 Would it not have been fairer if you had provided the proper context here, making it plain to your audience that it was this tree that was the focus of my discussion at this point in my talk?

    236 Did I not explain in my talk that Professor Mörner, who had concluded after a decade was probably the most detailed survey of sea that sea level in the Maldives was similar to what it had been 1250 years ago, had found the uprooted tree by the shore, had been puzzled that it was still in leaf, had asked the locals how it had come to be uprooted and had learned from them that a team of Australian environmentalists, realizing the tree was good evidence that there had been no sea level rise in the Maldives for the last 40 years, had uprooted the tree to prevent anyone else from using it as evidence?

    237 Is it not clear, therefore, that my mention of Professor Mörner’s survey results in the Maldives was not what you have called the “major topic”, but was merely incidental to my then theme, which was the habitual mendacity of the climate exemplifies?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I’ve just found one of my favourite sketches of all time with Robin Williams and Dustan Hoffman from way back in the 90s I think.
    It was created for a 1 hr ABC TV special on Earth Day. The TV show was a full on greenie love in about the impending climate problems with Olivia NJ and all the LA Lefty set. – I just love Dustan Hoffman’s character. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK3DERdXUJ8


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Just a question to all, where in the linked cartoon from Liberal Vision would you place yourself or others posting here.

    http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/07/14/24-types-of-authoritarians/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Florida

    Constitutional said:

    “’The UK does not have a constitution, at least something most of the word would recognize as a constitution. To what document do you refer?’”

    “The UK does not have a written constitution. I.e. There is no one document titled “The Constitution of the United Kingdom”. This does not mean the UK is without a constitution. The constitution of the UK is founded upon convention, court judgments, and statute.

    “’In a nation where citizens are still defined as “subjects’–
    This is false. You are 30 years out of date. The term ‘British subject’ has been redundant for citizens of the UK since the British Nationality Act (1981) came in to force in 1983.

    “I point these facts out so that you will be better informed in future. However your comments have no relevancy to the substance of mine.”

    In other words, the UK DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION. Convention, court judgments, and statutes do not a constitution make, and in the United States are viewed as subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, each state has its own written constitution, subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, but superordinate to state, county, and local convention, local court judgments, and local statutes. Our constitutions set boundaries on our laws, not the other way around.

    British citizens are still commonly referred to as “subjects,” and you might want to look up the word “redundant.” It means an unnecessary repetition of something already stated or implied. If “subjects” is redundant, than the subjective status of UK citizens is already accepted as a prior fact.

    As for the relevancy of my comments, if they have none, then why snipe?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ayesha , inferiae4542. inferiae4542 said: Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths. « JoNova: http://is.gd/dsV8x [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Constitutional:
    July 16th, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Allow me to explain the difference between an ad hominem and an ad hominem fallacy. Lets say I was arguing with someone called Teddy.
    If I were to say Teddy “You are fat” – that would be an ad hominem.
    If I were to say “Teddy your argument is is nonsense because you are fat”. That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy
    fallacy

    Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-sē\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural fal·la·cies
    Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
    Date: 14th century
    1 a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception
    2 a : a false or mistaken idea b : erroneous character : erroneousness
    3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

    Your above block quoted is incorrect. Allow me to explain.If you say Teddy is fat you have made a declarative statement that may be true or false depending on whether or not Teddy is fat. Your second statement is a example of the fallacy ad hominem because you are attacking Teddy instead of refuting or negating an argument or claim that Teddy made with facts.

    I appreciate your trying to “set the record straight” regarding the addendum, ‘Lordy Lordy.” As Jo stated in the addendum, “It’s a bore listening to the endless triumphant claims that Monckton is not a Lord (as if it makes much difference to the climate).” The point of the addendum was to state Monckton’s position on the matter.

    Perhaps now we can continue discussing the topic?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It seems like everything will go into high gear now that an election call is imminent:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/speculation-rife-that-gillard-to-set-election-date-tomorrow/story-e6frgczf-1225892675027

    Gillard clearly does not want the media spotlight on her for too long prior to an election, especially now that the cracks are starting to show. Looks lke August 28th will be the date. Let’s watch her try to keep climate from being a major election issue. How about dodgy accounting in the budgets, the BER scams, Green Loans scams, midnight backstabbing of Rudd, etc…

    Let’s hope that she shares the same fate as previous un-elected Labor leaders… Carpenter (WA) and Brown (UK) spring to mind. Carpenter was also infamous for calling an early election to avoid embarrassing report deadlines… Sadly Abbott is hard to elect, so it will be an interesting one. Shame Costello isn’t around, he would have taken Gillard to the cleaners on polling day.

    And MattB swings and misses again…. well left mate… straight through to the keeper.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Cal Barndorfer:
    July 16th, 2010 at 11:52 am

    While I’m not interested in going through the entire document in this manner (since this should’ve been Monckton’s work and not my own) here are just a few:

    Great work, Carl! I will bring this up tomorrow when I speak with Chris Monckton!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Carl Barndorfer

    Please bear in mind that Monckton was responding to Abrahams critique of his earlier work.

    As Monckton said:

    21: Given that you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why you did not at any time during the months of preparation of your talk contact me even once to ask me to assist you with identifying the sources of my material.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Bulldust # 130

    Great encapsulation!

    I like MattB. Lets face it, this site would not be as nearly exciting without him! ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite said, at 11:53 am 16 July 2010:

    Eli presents some anodyne twaddle about backradiation, with H2O in brackets as though he is ashamed to admit that H2O dominates back radiation just as it dominates climate, then BernardJ drops some waffle about gas retention of heat…

    You and Louis may see the matter any way you desire, cohenite, but the fact remains that Louis claimed that “Further, no gas can store energy.” Neither you nor Louis has in any way said anything to justifiy this claim, or to address the implications thereof.

    And sunsettommy (#115, 10:36 am 16 July 2010), in response to my comment:

    Strange, that – how then does your refrigerator manage to cool your beers?

    says:

    It does it by using a COMPRESSOR.

    whilst completely oblivious to what the compressor is actually doing in the process. Hardly a justification for Louis’ original claim.

    And sunsettommy, your comment:

    CO2 is not used by the way.

    is completely beside my point. It’s irrelevant (although its dipole moment is not…). A strawman in fact, as so many here are prone to ejaculating…

    Boys, if you are going to attempt to apply thermodynamics to your arguments, you need to gather some momentum in the fundamentals. Thus far you are all still dithering around on the starting blocks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Louis.

    Humour me.

    Can a gas ‘store’ chemical energy?

    Can a gas ‘store’ gravitational energy?

    Can a gas ‘store’ nuclear energy?

    Can a gas ‘store’ electrical energy?

    Can a gas ‘store’ kinetic energy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Bernard J

    It’s called a pressure change according to PV = nRT so what is your point???

    A rock can store energy as well again what is your point???

    and by the way I noticed they dont use CO2 as a refrigerant – why is that????


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Bernard, are you going anywhere with this? If so, could you respond to my observation that gases do not store heat [sic] for a great length of time, hence night being colder than day, and oceans store more heat than land, hence afternoon sea breezes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Timdot

    Does CO2 actually cause warming?

    Mabey not – A Null Hypothesis For CO2 – Dr Roy Clark


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Timdot

    Apologies. Is CO2 actually causing the warming?

    Oops.

    Big tip – don’t drink and post. ;-}


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @janama: 94

    oh for Christ’s sake please give up on the “lord or not a lord” BS – If you had any real interest in Christopher Monckton you would know full well that the man is a showman with a great sense of humour – his emblem on his slides is for show, he jokes about it!! (it’s also there so others don’t misrepresent his slides, it’s like a copyright stamp)

    Actually, what Monckton is doing by using his emblem(flag) is declaring his sovereignty under Commonwealth Maritime Law. So, mounting a legal case against Monckton is going encounter quite a few nasty surprises to any plaintiff. IE; I’m sure Monckton has a constitution document tucked away somewhere which, backs any communication made with his flag on it.

    Quite clever if you ask me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Scott asks at #153:

    It’s called a pressure change according to PV = nRT so what is your point?

    My point is that the gas is doing something in the system, but you and a surprising number of others here seem to be ignoring (or ignorant of) what that something is.

    A hint – revisit Loius’ original claim.

    Or simply think about the various energetic processes that occur in the cylinders of your Ford…

    A rock can store energy as well again what is your point???

    “…as well…”, huh?

    Ah, then you shouldn’t have to ask me what my point is.

    and by the way I noticed they dont use CO2 as a refrigerant – why is that????

    As I have already patiently explained to sunsettommy at #151, this is a strawman. I have never said that carbon dioxide is a refrigerant, and the fact that it is not is nevertheless irrelevant to my point, which seems to be escaping so many here.

    [Sigh...]

    Then cohenite at #154:

    Bernard, are you going anywhere with this? If so, could you respond to my observation that gases do not store heat [sic] for a great length of time, hence night being colder than day, and oceans store more heat than land, hence afternoon sea breezes.

    Your “observation” completely contradicts Louis’ original statement, no matter the heat capacitites/heat retentions of various states of matter.

    This completely changes the thermodynamic implications of Louis’ comment, and this in turn will lead to a very different understanding of the radiation physics of the atmosphere. Of course, if Louis and his supporters here want to persist in their hammering of a square peg into a round hole after being chided that it doesn’t fit, then I guess there’s not much more to be done.

    As has been observed elsewhere recently, one can lead an ass to water, but one cannot make it drink.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Divide and conquer as usual BJ; you’re the type of guy who’d still be arguing the toss about the thermal properties of your coffin as they shovel dirt on it; my experience of Louis is that he is quite capable of defending his own views and if you think you can spot a contradiction between him and someone else here then kudos for you buddy; the problem with guys like you BJ is that you think you are the fount of all wisdom, knowledge and moral propriety; if AGW hadn’t happened you would have had to invent it; no issue other than the fate of the world could possibly do justice to your attention; your wisdom and goodness, Bernard, are saint-like; yes, that’s it, you’re a saint Bernard, Saint Bernard.

    Now, I repeat SB, stop pussy-footing around, if you’ve got something to say, say it instead of skulking around with these little dare type-challenges like: “Or simply think about the various energetic processes that occur in the cylinders of your Ford”; why would I want to do that, I don’t drive a Ford, like all responsible adults I drive a Prius; don’t you?

    And what is this: “Ah, then you shouldn’t have to ask me what my point is.”? A variation of, if “you don’t know I’m not going to tell you”? Are we in kindegarten?

    And don’t call me an ass.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I did get through the entire Monckton letter to Abraham, and must say it was an entertaining read. I must say that one question did stand out as being quite ridiculous, and Lord Monckton should explain:

    422: Have you heard of Mr. Albert Arnold Gore’s astounding invention, the World Wide Web?

    Methinks this is Monckton’s sense of humour.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bulldust @ 130: Nice detailed analysis. Bravo and thanks for the researched approach.

    That’s what it comes down to doesn’t it? Most of the time the discussion of a heated topic is not about the topic itself (because of all the flawed ways to have a real conversation) but about misquotes (non-quotes), misunderstandings, and just discussing the discussion.

    Discipline in communication is the only way we can rise above the patter.

    For what it’s worth, I too appreciate Mattb’s input here, and wouldn’t mind if there were more of him. He has revealed his full real name in the past, and sometimes he asks questions none of us would think of. I like that. Sometimes I give matt a uptick myself, especially if he is scoring negatives for politely pointing out a different view, even one I disagree with.

    When Mattb said “OMG I had no idea Monckton’s slides had “CO2 is only a trace Gas” very funny. Seriously Jo can you coach him on not using a scattergun approach?”

    Matt could have been more accurate and explicit and said something like: “Does Monckton use the argument that CO2 is a minor gas and therefore it can’t make any difference?”

    If he had I would have said: I don’t know. (Just because a slide mentions something doesn’t tell us what the person said about the slide). If CM does, it’s not a big part of his speeches. So yes, I agree Matt, the point is not one I’d put in my top twenty reasons to be a skeptic. But I don’t think it’s in Moncktons top list either. Isn’t he allowed to just mention in passing that CO2 is a minor part of the atmosphere, and that our emissions are a minor part of the total?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    John Abraham’s presentation was devastating. All it had to do was check the sources of each of Monckton’s claims – where they could be found – and demonstrate how he had misrepresented or misinterpreted the data.

    We’ve seen Monckton do this before on Australian TV where he made claims about the Barrier Reef that were supposed to have come from the Great Barrier reef Marine park authority as mentioned to here.

    There is no hint of malice in John Abraham’s presentation. If Monckton could actually refute the points made he should have done so. Instead he used a ridiculous long list of questions to insinuate things about John Abraham’s presentation.

    What is truly funny is that he is threatening the Professor with a libel suit. One can only hope that he goes on with this so that his comprehensive lack of substance on the AGW issue can be further publicised. People might also wonder about what the choice of threats and insinuation rather than a clear point by point rebuttal of John Abraham’s presentation say about Monckton’s confidence in his own position.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    @Florida

    In other words, the UK DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION. Convention, court judgments, and statutes do not a constitution make,

    You are incorrect. You are applying the term constitution to a document which encapsulates “the constitution”. This is understandable because under the United States system the two are synonymous.

    However ….

    con·sti·tu·tion (knst-tshn, -ty-)
    n.
    1. The act or process of composing, setting up, or establishing.
    2.
    a. The composition or structure of something; makeup.
    b. The physical makeup of a person: Having a strong constitution, she had no trouble climbing the mountain.
    3.
    a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.
    b. The document in which such a system is recorded.
    c. Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

    I refer you to entry 3a.

    Your statements about the term British subjects lead us further away from relevance. Redundant means no longer useful or required. I might as easily have said obsolete. The British Nationality Act of 1981 established the right of British citizens and rendered the term subject obsolete.

    @Eddy Aruda

    Allow me to explain.If you say Teddy is fat you have made a declarative statement that may be true or false depending on whether or not Teddy is fat.

    You are correct and such a statement is an ad hominem when used in an argument. For example. If I said “Teddy, you are fat and your claims make no sense. Lose some weight.” I am using an ad hominem. But I have committed no fallacy.

    Your second statement is a example of the fallacy ad hominem because you are attacking Teddy instead of refuting or negating an argument or claim that Teddy made with facts.

    This is almost exactly what I said.

    Again I point out that the statement regarding membership of the HoL is false. I think Monckton’s continued misrepresentation of this matter have to call in to question his credibility. Others think not.

    ______

    Editor’s note: “Redundant” means superfluous, unneeded, excessive. If the term “redundant” applies to “subjects” with regard to British citizens, then it means that the word “subjects” is superfluous, unneeded, or excessive, and that “citizen” already carries this meaning with it. “Obsolete” is a better choice, but implies that “subject” was once correct. Keep in mind that in Britain, “redundant” is used to mean “unemployed,” but this is not a standard usage, and is probably unfamiliar to most English-speaking people throughout the world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The point should not be one you’d put in your top gazillion for being a skeptic Jo:) I admit I make the assumption that most here understand that my comment relates to the fact that CM seems to think it matters that CO2 is “only” a trace gas.

    If Monckton’s slide had “CO2 is a trace gas” then it could pass as being a pointless waste of a slide making no contribution to his presentation, but the word “only” to carries much more meaning… it suggests that there is not enough to have any impact. It is a regular sceptic argument and excuse me for thinking the good lord is stoking the fire.

    Lastly in my books going from 0.03% to 0.04% is a 33.33% increase not a 0.01% increase.

    Intended to mislead/deceive. untrustworthy smoke and mirrors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Constitutional, apart from your condescending manner, I have enjoyed your comments but I think you are wrong for these reasons which I have posted at 135 earlier:

    ““… Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant.” [Monckton's position]

    “The gift does not, as Monckton falsely infers, include by right membership of the House of Lords, but only the usage of a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom for oneself and one’s heirs. The former was an automatic right received as a consequence of the latter. But the 1999 Act revoked this automatic entitlement.” [Constitutional's position]

    The 1999 act did not in effect revoke this status but placed a condition before its operation, which was election; it is therefore not right to say Monckton’s membership has been revoked but rather it has been placed in obeyance until a condition precedent has been fulfilled. The proof of this is that Monckton is eligible to run for election but non-peers are not;”

    Care to comment?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    COpnstitutional, unfortunately Monckton riddles his pieces with an assortment of absurdities like the house of lords thing, so that when any rationally minded person comes across it early in the piece they think “This guy is nuts”. He invites the ad-hom by making blatantly incorrect statements, then is able to accuse of ad-homs. Scpetics leap to his defence “play the ball not the man” when on the playing field Monkton is the equivalent of the streaker or the mascot dressed as a moose doing somersaults on the sidelines. There is no ball to play.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    @Cohenite

    The 1999 act did not in effect revoke this status but placed a condition before its operation, which was election; it is therefore not right to say Monckton’s membership has been revoked but rather it has been placed in obeyance until a condition precedent has been fulfilled. The proof of this is that Monckton is eligible to run for election but non-peers are not;”
    Care to comment?

    I do not have time at this moment to reply in full. The letters patent grant or revoke the title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, but the right to membership of the House of Lords is now governed by the 1999 Act. The 1999 is very clear. No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by right of birth. The remaining 92 hereditary peers remain in the house only by being granted a Life peerage. Monckton has no Life Peerage. When one of the 92 dies a by-election is held and those holding only hereditary titles are eligible. But what of it? I am eligible to stand as Member of Parliament, but I cannot claim to be a member of the House of Commons.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Bernard,

    My point is that the gas is doing something in the system, but you and a surprising number of others here seem to be ignoring (or ignorant of) what that something is.

    Yes its called increase in temperature due to increased presure in a closed system.

    Like I said whats your point???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Me thinks poor Bernard is the ignorant one or as we like to say here an intellectual lightweight that doesn’t understand basic science or analogies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Or simply think about the various energetic processes that occur in the cylinders of your Ford…

    So Bernard your fridge runs off your Ford cylinders? not very clever are you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Scott. In #65 Louis says “no gas can store energy.”

    Bernard says “strange that” in #70

    you say “A rock can store energy as well, what’s your point?”

    You’ve said “as well”.. meaning you think a guess can store energy, meaning you agree with Bernard’s point and should not have to ask what it is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    guess = gas sorry


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Constitutional; the point is, as you say, only hereditary titles are eligible for election to the HOL; that includes Monckton but not me and I presume you; the election process for the HOL is not based on your final distinction of not being a member of the House of Commons even though you are eligible to stand; your eligibility to stand for election to the Commons is a right of citizenship; the right to sit for election to the HOL is based on the status of former membership of the HOL; all that has changed is the introduction of a condition that the HOL chooses you for membership; that is, the House chooses its own members from a prescribed and limited pool. The best way of looking at it is the difference between non-voting and voting company directors; as Monckton says:

    ” I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”

    And he is right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    It is noteworthy that the documents here http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/membership/

    does not list non-voting non-elected hereditery peers who are not entitled to sit or vote in the house as one of the three categories of membership.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Matt explain to me how a Closed system with a compressor and heat exchanger has anything to do with an open system containing CO2 so the analogy is invalid


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Scott explain to me how your question pertains to the statement “no gas can store energy”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Scott explain to me how your question pertains to the statement “no gas can store energy”.

    Explain to me me how it doesn’t


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB: #165
    July 16th, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    The point should not be one you’d put in your top gazillion for being a skeptic Jo:) I admit I make the assumption that most here understand that my comment relates to the fact that CM seems to think it matters that CO2 is “only” a trace gas.

    If Monckton’s slide had “CO2 is a trace gas” then it could pass as being a pointless waste of a slide making no contribution to his presentation, but the word “only” to carries much more meaning… it suggests that there is not enough to have any impact. It is a regular sceptic argument and excuse me for thinking the good lord is stoking the fire.

    Lastly in my books going from 0.03% to 0.04% is a 33.33% increase not a 0.01% increase.

    Intended to mislead/deceive. untrustworthy smoke and mirrors.

    You made a relevant point but then destroyed it with the extra paragraph. “In your books” an increase from 0.03% to 0.04% is 33.33% not 0.01%. Are you trying to convey the message that it’s a LARGE increase? Whilst at the same time admonishing CM for stating that CO2 is a trace gas, meaning there isn’t much of the stuff at all. Are you the pot or the kettle?

    For a long time now, pro AGW types have used emotive terms such as “we can’t keep pumping this pollution into the air” and “we can’t use the atmosphere as a sewer” and using tonnage instead of percentage or ppm to convey visions of LARGE volumes, very much like what you did with your 33.33% quip.

    Who is intending to mislead/deceive? By your definition, it’s both of you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB; is one of the categories “Elected Hereditary Members”? If so my point is valid. This is such a dud point; do you have anything substantial to critque Monckton with other than the fact that he is a Lord but not a sitting member of the HOL?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    hey matt

    Matt explain to me how a Closed system with a compressor and heat exchanger has anything to do with an open system containing CO2 so the analogy is invalid


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Timdot

    Just another peer-reviewed publication about trace gases, this time from Physicists.

    Falsifcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

    One of two replys to critics. The second is behind a paywall.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cal Barndorfer

    Eddy Aruda:
    July 16th, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Please bear in mind that Monckton was responding to Abrahams critique of his earlier work.
    As Monckton said:
    21: Given that you have repeatedly stated that I had not cited my sources adequately, please explain why you did not at any time during the months of preparation of your talk contact me even once to ask me to assist you with identifying the sources of my material.

    I understand. That’s why I find it particularly surprising that so many of the claims in this rebuttal are not sourced.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben

    AUSTRALIA
    Enters the new red haired queen
    My God, she can be oh so mean
    First she got rid of our famous Rudd
    Although we all knew, he was a real Dud
    Then she solved the miner’s crises
    With new 40% profit tax rises
    It all turned out to be a disaster
    As the mining bosses are their own masters
    Now do not get hot and red under the collars
    We need the Federal coffers to fill with dollars
    After spending all our hard earned money in haste
    In an incredible fast way, it leaves me a taste
    of what is to come to this God blessed land
    It all seems to be sinking very fast in the sand
    Of course next we get saved by the carbon tax
    That will increase all we buy to the possible max
    And what about the boats visiting our shores this year
    We cannot possibly believe all that we hear
    At least one new boat appears every week
    What is it that these people possibly can seek?
    We are in debt, up to our eye balls you know
    What happened to the saying ‘have a fair go’
    No money left for our teachers and schools
    Except for expensive toilets, who on earth made these rules?
    And what about all these houses and their bats of the colour pink
    Could it be possible that there is actually a fire link?
    I fear the future and the up coming election
    As we seem to have a large ignorant section
    Of voters who do not care about a government that has not mission
    And has no idea as how to make a wise and sound decision
    We are sowing for our children the unwanted seeds
    For a life time of our stupid deeds


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    If you were to research physics like the AGW debate, you would find a tiny error made that makes up the LAWS of physics. This one error has caused many theories to be generated for the sake of knowledge advancement. These subsequent theories then are also incorrect from that one error in research.
    Can you find that error?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    “Scpetics leap to his defence “play the ball not the man” when on the playing field Monkton is the equivalent of the streaker or the mascot dressed as a moose doing somersaults on the sidelines. There is no ball to play.”

    You know it pains me to admit that useful idiot MattB (@167) has a point. He’s wrong about the ball, it’s there to play, but how do we bloody find it!!!

    I read the whole bloody difficult, poor English, bad attitude, PDF stuffed-up coded document and have to conclude that Monckton is truly completely Monty Pythonesque bonkers. His 489 points or whatever are a crushing tsunami of mostly hard body blows on poor little Johnny. But it’s a horrible format, totally organized for only one absolutely idiosyncratic purpose and ultimately completely ineffectual as a skeptical document of importance. If Monckton had directed this amount of time, effort and sheer bile into something like Jo’s The skeptics Handbook, it would have been a comprehensively masterful document that might have had some effect on the debate. As such, it only proves that Monckton is a “Moose doing somersaults”, at least in this instance. A vindictive and bloody minded Moose at that.

    You see, I just don’t feel the grand Lord’s outrage that some whanker academic in 3rd rate provincial college disrespected his Lordship with the usual AGW True Believer delusional taunts. Heck we get as much every couple of hours down here in the digital trenches and the Nobility doesn’t send us extra rations. Sure, Johnny deserves a rhetorical capping or two, but 486 times?…in the face? I call that a dispatching with extreme prejudice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    MattB,

    Thanks for posting a serious response. And your point about human influence on CO2 being more possible due to its being a trace gas is a reasonable position. The good news is that the trend of human influence has been for CO2 as a product of economic activity to decline over time, at least until the AGW movement took over the public square.
    You even ID the central issue: feedbacks. I challenge you to take the next step: since CO2 is a trace gas it is therefore highly variable in concentration. If the feedbacks are anywhere as close to the sensitivity the AGW community relies on, we would see evidence of this in the record. It is not there.
    And the simple fact is that the AGW promotion industry decided to rewrite history to avoid this inconvenient truth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    wes george,
    Exactly, The vision I get of Monckton is that of Capt. Queeg: right on the point, but terribly terribly wrong in other ways.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zgeQmzV9kk


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite foams at #160:

    Divide and conquer as usual BJ; you’re the type of guy who’d still be arguing the toss about the thermal properties of your coffin as they shovel dirt on it; my experience of Louis is that he is quite capable of defending his own views and if you think you can spot a contradiction between him and someone else here then kudos for you buddy; the problem with guys like you BJ is that you think you are the fount of all wisdom, knowledge and moral propriety; if AGW hadn’t happened you would have had to invent it; no issue other than the fate of the world could possibly do justice to your attention; your wisdom and goodness, Bernard, are saint-like; yes, that’s it, you’re a saint Bernard, Saint Bernard.

    Hmmm, a lot of attribution there cohenite, from someone who actually doesn’t have a clue about my thoughts on wisdom, knowledge or moral propriety. I must have really salted your soup…

    Oh, and brilliant beatific comparison cohenite. How long did it take you to think that one up? Perhaps I should ask Eddy Aruda if that constitutes an ad hominem dig.

    But enough of our flippancies. You say:

    Now, I repeat SB, stop pussy-footing around, if you’ve got something to say, say it instead of skulking around with these little dare type-challenges…

    Which puzzles me, if you are the scalpel-brained lawyer and climatologist that many in your camp seem to take you to be. It should be quite plain to anyone with a basic grasp of physics what I am saying…

    Louis Hissink stated that “Further, no gas can store energy” and I have attempted to clarify from him (and others who have wandered into the fray) whether he (and they) stand by this claim. It’s really a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ dichotomy. However, only one answer is correct, and if one bases all of one’s subsequent thermodynamic interpretations upon the incorrect answer, one will have nothing useful to say about energetic transfers in gases.

    It’s not a trick question cohenite. It’s plain and simple and anyone with a first-year university competence in thermodynamics should be on it in a twinkling.

    Are gases able to store energy?

    Cohenite continued:

    …like: “Or simply think about the various energetic processes that occur in the cylinders of your Ford”; why would I want to do that…

    Well, I was interested to see if Scott was able to list the various forms of energy that are present inside a combusting gas mixture. A satisfactory answer to this question (or to the refrigerator one) would have automatically answered the question I asked of Louis Hissink.

    It’s intriguing that so many here are skirting around the issue.

    And then:

    I don’t drive a Ford, like all responsible adults I drive a Prius; don’t you?

    Hmmm… As you seem to be struggling with the fundamental point being made, perhaps I should spell it out in small words so that you understand.

    It matters not what make of vehicle one drives; the nub of the question remains the same – what types of energy storage do gases demonstrate, and what types of energy storage do they not demonstrate?

    Of course, I have no need to suspect that you were using a lawyerly dissemblance technique to construct a strawman in the minds of third parties following the discussion, do I?

    And for what it’s worth, I wasn’t asking the question of you specifically, so your excursion into makes of vehicles is even more irrelevant.

    And don’t call me an ass.

    I did not specifically refer to you as an ass. If one parses the grammar of my post one would see that my comment pertains only to those who are unable to be educated about my point that there exists an understanding of physics that contradicts Louis’ claim that “no gas can store energy”. In fact, you are implicitly excluded from this category because you, at least, acknowledged that gases have some capacity for heat, even if you emphasised (irrelevantly, as it happens – again) that it was for a short duration.

    All I did was to hold up a coat. If you chose to stand and claim that it was your size, then that is your issue, not mine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    With a hat-tip to Marco, these links might be of interest to some here…

    http://www.coldsystemsllc.com/co2-refrigeration.html

    http://www.danfoss.com/BusinessAreas/RefrigerationAndAirConditioning/Refrigerants/CO2+in+Industrial+Refrigeration+Applications.htm

    With respect to the second, the subsequent link:

    http://www.danfoss.com/BusinessAreas/RefrigerationAndAirConditioning/Refrigerants/Why+CO2+in+Industrial+Refrigeration+Applications.htm

    explaining “Why CO2 in Industrial Refrigeration Applications?” might be of particular interest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Gosh, this BJ guy has the rhetorical style of a horse’s ass, note that I didn’t specifically refer to BJ as an ass but merely as stylistically similar to the anatomical hindquarters of an equine, if you parse my grammar. It’s all about understanding physics, of course…

    If the coat fits wear it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Have a good weekend one and all:)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Bernar J.

    Are you Luke (alias Yes but)? I am asking because your style, or lack thereof, are strikingly similar.

    Have a good weekend, Matt!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] dat allemaal wat te veel vindt om door te ploegen, kan volstaan met een kort overzicht van Joanne Nova, waaraan ik het volgende ontleen: Monckton replied on June 10th with a 84-page letter and 466 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    Response to editor’s note:

    [Snip. I've removed my comment above, and your reply, to avoid the appearance of an argument.--Editor]

    “Redundant” means superfluous, unneeded, excessive. If the term “redundant” applies to “subjects” with regard to British citizens, then it means that the word “subjects” is superfluous, unneeded, or excessive, and that “citizen” already carries this meaning with it. “Obsolete” is a better choice, but implies that “subject” was once correct. Keep in mind that in Britain, “redundant” is used to mean “unemployed,” but this is not a standard usage, and is probably unfamiliar to most English-speaking people throughout the world.”

    With regard to ““Obsolete” is a better choice, but implies that “subject” was once correct.” This is correct because since the 1981 Act came into force people in the UK are only anachronistically referred to as British subjects. The correct term as per the act is British citizen. With regard to the usage of redundant I accept that my decision to use this word led to some confusion and I apologise.

    Editor’s Note: There is no need to apologize for using a word as is normal within your own country, even if it is a colloquial usage. I apologize to YOU if I caused you any annoyance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    We are all fallible. I should state I have made a mistake. I mistakenly stated that the remaining hereditary peers were required to take a life peerage in order to remain in the House. This is incorrect. The number of hereditary peers was capped at 92, but 10 additional hereditary peers were given life peerages so that they could remain in the house. Note: The 1999 Act was of course a fudge. It was a case of turkeys been pressured into voting for Christmas. The 92 exceptions were a compromise, a stepping stone to further reforms towards something more like a modern democracy.

    The House of Lords Information Office’s reply to a query about Monckton’s status was as follows:

    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.

    Christopher Monkton’s father, the 2nd Viscount Monckton, was a Member of the Lords until 1999. The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic link between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, and the 2nd Lord Monckton ceased to be a member of the House at that point.

    Christopher Monckton is the 3rd Viscount Monckton and inherited the title following his father’s death in 2006. He has never sat in the House.

    Since 1999, 92 hereditary peers have remained as members of the House; these 92 hereditary peers were originally elected by the House in 1999, and any vacancy arising as a result of the death of one of the 92 is now filled by means of a by-election. All hereditary peers who are not members, including Lord Monckton, are entitled to stand as candidates in such by-elections. Since succeeding to his title in 2006, Lord Monckton has stood, unsuccessfully, in three by-elections.

    So far as we are aware it is not in itself an offence to pretend to be a member of the House. The House of Lords has no jurisdiction over non-members, unless they are guilty of a “contempt”, that is to say an action which impedes or obstructs the House in the performance of its functions. There is thus no procedure whereby the House could “censure” Lord Monckton.

    [C]ohenite and, if down-thumbs are any indicator, others it seems, are not persuaded by this argument. But I’ll ask one last question on this matter before disappearing. How many other the several hundred hereditary peers no-longer allowed to sit in the House of Lords describe themselves as “a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote”?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ constitution

    I see now that you do have a valid point regarding peerage. Thank you.

    Now, can we please discuss the more relevant issues.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob

    So… in what sense, exactly, did Abraham “surrender?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    —Standing Room Only.—

    It is perfectly in order, to relinquish one’s seat in the House of Lords, while retaining one’s Title.

    This case today, of more Peers of the Realm resigning their seats, in order to retain their Non-Domiciled tax status further exempilifies the point.

    While socialists have been playing musical chairs with the seats in the chamber, only the Monarch can confer, bestow or remove the Honours.

    That’s how it is, despite how the envious might wish it were otherwise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Constitutional @ 196; my argument about Monckton’s status is what is known as a legal fiction; a typical legal fiction would be the nominal defendent in insurance cases were the defendent is not known so a legal entity is created whose only purpose is to allow the legal system to process the consequences of an accident. Monckton’s status as a ‘non-voting’ member of the HOL is another legal fiction; it is a necessary status for process of new members of the HOL; but until an accident [ie death of a sitting hereditary peer] occurs it has no meaning. Just as the focus of the anti-Monckton venom on that particular aspect of his flamboyance is a diversion. I think you have made your point; I just think it is a redundant point and neither detracts or adds to Monckton’s role in the AGW debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    By now it’s hard to remember that Monkton’s complaint against Abraham is that Abraham claimed that Lord Monkton made statements that Monkton claims he did not make.

    The eventual changing of the hit piece against Monkton, removing some of the material that Monkton complained about is a tacit admission that Monkton is right.

    I said this way up at 136.

    There doesn’t seem to be an end to the argument about Lord vs. not Lord. And it has nothing that I can see to do with the point of this thread. I suppose now I’ll catch it for sure. But really folks isn’t this getting boring?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    189; vintage BJ; as textual and sensual as stepping on a cow pat on a frosty morning. BJ, your links at 190 confirm that CO2 is a magic gas and indespensible to modern civilization; CO2 is not pollution. The wider issue of heating storing properties of materials including gases is dealt with in this paper which confirms my prioritisation of air, earth and ocean:

    http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html

    On a related issue BJ, I would like you to put your considerable intellect and Frank Harris type sense of humour to this question: does atmosperic pressure contribute to the temperature profile of the atmosphere and surface?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Let’s try the British Constitution this way, there is no law passed by Parliament and signed by the sovereign that can be overturned except by Parliament with the assent of the Queen. All British laws including those guaranteeing rights are on an equal plane.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Prof. Boltzmann, of course, disagrees with Lewis Hissick. The energy in an ideal gas is 3/2 nkT, where T is the absolute temperature, k is Boltzmann’s constant and n the number of molecules. Eli is almost as good at mathematics as [snip] Monckton. Of course, you have to modify this a bit for real gases, but that is chemical engineering, books of it.

    The bottom line there is that if you heat a gas, you increase its energy and if you extract energy from it, you will cool it. So, let us take some gas in a metal box, and heat it up.

    We can then place it on one side of a thermoelectric generator, with a colder body on the other side (this is called the ocean maybe). Heat will flow from the hot gas to the cold ocean generating electricity, which is equivalent to work. The heat flowing out of the hot gas will equal the sum of the electrical energy generated (the work) and the heat rejected to the ocean. The hot gas will cool. When the gas is at the same temperature as the ocean, no more electricity is generated.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And so to cohenite.

    You know, Eli is pretty proud of you. You are still wrong, because you are trying to shove physics into your politics, but your argument is much improved from the early G&T days.

    Now, first of all, Eli was pretty innocent in this thread. Said nothing about greenhouse gases heating the surface, just that if you point an IR spectrometer at the sky, you will see emission lines characteristic of CO2 and water vapor not of a plasma.

    However, since you raise the point, the emission from layers near the surface will be absorbed by the surface. OTOH, the surface is emitting. So let’s consider what happens at night. As the sun falls, the temperature of the surface starts to fall, because energy from the sun no longer is absorbed by the surface.

    What would happen if there were no greenhouse gases?

    In the US, Mississippi and Arizona have about the same daytime temperatures. Arizona is sere dry and Mississippi dripping, swamp wet. In Australia this would be the difference between the western and eastern sides of the continent.

    At night, the temperatures in Arizona fall way lower than in Mississippi. Why? Because of the back radiation from water vapor in Mississippi the net amount of radiation emitted from the surface(per unit time in physics speak) will be much smaller than in Arizona.

    You can do amusing things with this effect in Arizona, for example, if you put some water in a dish into the sand, on a clear night, it will freeze.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charlie A

    @ Cal Barndorfer, Post #133: July 16th, 2010 at 11:52 am

    While I’m not interested in going through the entire document in this manner (since this should’ve been Monckton’s work and not my own) here are just a few:
    1) Ques 27, 28: Where is the 2nd graph (the graph on the right) from
    2) Ques 32: Where did the info on the ARGO bathythermographs originate?
    3) Ques 35: Where are the images in that slide from? They are unreadable.
    4) Ques 39: Where does the evidence that polar bear populations have increased substantially come from?
    5) Ques 45: Where is this conclusion of the IPCC stated?
    6) Ques 46: When and how was this “statistical abuse” brought to the attention of the IPCC and EPA?
    7) Ques 48: Where did the “full data” on hurricane activity originate?
    8.) Ques 53: Where did this IPCC table originate?
    9) Ques 55, 56: Where did that IPCC conclusion originate?
    10)Ques 60: Where is the evidence of this real estate purchase?

    Lots and lots of questions. Were these just random, or did you have some reason to suspect a problem with this data. Remember that the context of Monckton’s slides is a lecture or talk, not a formal paper, and it is uncommon for such a talk to have detailed references on each graphic.

    Anyway, I was curious, so I went looking. As best I can tell, ALL of the Monckton slides you questioned are accurate.

    CB Q1: As noted in M Q27, the graph on the right has the same data as the graph on the left. The data is from from the IPCC AR4. It is the CRU global annual temperature history 1850 onwards. Anyone reasonably familiar with climate science would recognize the graph. Do have have any doubts about the Monckton’s graph being a faithful depiction of the CRU global annual average temperature dataset?

    CB Q2. See http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FrArgo_data_and.html for info on availability of the Argo float data.

    CB Q3. I cannot tell you immediately where the three annual arctic sea ice map images were generated. Once can easily find the equivalent images at NASA, NSIDC, and probably at JAXA. Do have have any doubts about the accuracy of those images ?

    CB Q4. Many sources. Do you have any doubts that the polar bear population (now estimated as 20,000 to 25,000 by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group) is greater than the populations in 1950 ?
    If so, I will find some further references. Lord Monckton though, helpfully included in his presentation data from a 2002 World Wildlife Fund report by Norris and Rosenstrator showing this increase.

    CB Q5 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1.html
    I found this simply by going to ipcc.ch, selecting AR4 and searching for the phrase Monckton quoted.
    Do you consider this statistical analysis using multiple trendlines to be valid ?

    CB Q6 In the case of the IPCC, based on other statements by Monckton in his presentation, my assumption is that he submitted review comments. I have no direct knowledge of Monckton’s communications with the EPA, but given sufficient motivation (are you willing to engage in a small wager ?), I will track down comments and regarding the use of such a graph and technique. In an ideal world, the IPCC and the EPA would not have to be told that doing multiple trendlines in such a fashion is not a valid way of estimating the acceleration of a trend.

    CB Q7 — I have not gone to the trouble of locating this slide. Do you question the accuracy ?? There doesn’t seem to be much controversy as to the number of hurricanes each year during the last few decades and Monckton’s graph appears to be consistent with the many peer reviewed papers on this subject (which are mostly based upon figures from organizations like NHC of NOAA). I suggest that you read Roger Pielke Jr’s comments about the erroneous claims that have been made regarding the relationship between climate change and disasters such as hurricanes.

    CB Q8. I have verified that Monckton’s slide shows an accurate copy of Table 5.3, section 5.5.6 of WG1 of AR4. Although you did not request it, perhaps the graph showing the range of estimates on Greenland ice sheet melting could be of interest to you. See
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-4-18.html
    Clearly we have a long ways to go before we can reasonably estimate the CURRENT melt/accumulation rates.

    CB Q9 The statement “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.” can be found in AR4, WG1, the projections section of the Summary for Policy Makers.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

    Did you have some doubt as to the length of time needed to melt the icecaps ? A simple bit of arithmetic on observed and projected melt rates and the total volume of icecaps would give you a rough back-of-the-envelope answer. Similarly, one can look at the total surface area of the ocean and the estimated volumes of melt and do some simple calculations to see that the 20 meter rise projected by Al Gore is a very, very, very long term potential problem — as in thousands of years.

    CB Q10 I do not have a copy of the purchase and sale agreement by Al Gore or his trust. Yep. You really got me on that one.
    On the other hand, is it not reasonable to have a small amount of faith in the multiple public news reports about the 2005 purchase by Al Gore of oceanfront property, specifically the St. Regis in San Francisco? It should be noted that Monckton failed to fully disclose that Al Gore bought a PENTHOUSE and that perhaps Al Gore considered it to be a wise purchase since he would be at the top of a multistory building.

    Cal Barndorfer — do you have any REAL questions ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charlie A

    @Eli Rabett #205

    At night, the temperatures in Arizona fall way lower than in Mississippi. Why? Because of the back radiation from water vapor in Mississippi the net amount of radiation emitted from the surface(per unit time in physics speak) will be much smaller than in Arizona.

    While this effect does indeed happen, I suspect that the even bigger difference is the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor keeps the air temperature from falling below the dewpoint.

    Perhaps someone that actually understands both sets of mechanisms can comment on this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    CharlieA, what eli is talking about is enthalpy and as eli says the total heat content of the air is primarily to do with water levels not CO2. This can be illustrated by reference to the K&T diagram showing radiative fluxes, as I have argued [many times] before:

    http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm

    K&T show a huge amount of backradiation of 323W/m2; the bulk of this is in the 15um wavelength; is it from water or CO2? This is instructive: Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.J.F. Evans & E. Puckrin, American Meteorological Society, 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change (2006). From Evans and Puckrin we see in tables 3a and 3b);

    Winter
    H20 94 to 125 W m/2
    CO2 31 to 35 W m/2

    Summer
    H20 178 to 256 W m/2
    CO2 10.5 W m/2

    Not only did the relative CO2 contribution drop in Summer, but the back radiation value decreased from about 30 Winter to about 10 W/m2 Summer.

    How do these Evans and Puckrin (2006) values compare with and confirm the energy estimates in K&T?

    The back radiation shown in the K&T chart is 323 W/m2.
    Data from Evans and Puckrin suggests that CO2 accounts for at most 10% of K&T, and in Summer, CO2 is only about 3% of the K&T back radiation.
    To get close to the K&T back radiation values, there apparently needs to be a LOT of water in the atmosphere; CO2 would only be relevant if there were no water.

    So, just as on the surface where the ocean can store more energy than the land, in the atmosphere it is the water not CO2 which stores and releases the energy/heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite at #202, 8:49 am 17 July 2010:

    189; vintage BJ; as textual and sensual as stepping on a cow pat on a frosty morning. BJ, your links at 190 confirm that CO2 is a magic gas and indespensible to modern civilization; CO2 is not pollution.

    Cohenite, are you deliberately attempting to demonstrate that you are scientifically non-nuanced? Being a “pollutant” and being industrially useful are not mutually exclusive properties. Consider hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen fluoride, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, ethylene and any number of other “magic gases”.

    Should we be pumping more of each of these into the atmosphere?

    The original question, and the subject that everyone here is skirting out of embarrassment for Louis Hissink, remains… Are gases able to store energy?

    It matters not a whit whether they do not do so “for a great length of time” – the science factors this into the analyses – I am simply asking Louis, and those who support him, do gases store energy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charlie A

    @Cohenite, #208

    You should read Eli’s post #205 again.

    He said

    At night, the temperatures in Arizona fall way lower than in Mississippi. Why? Because of the back radiation from water vapor in Mississippi the net amount of radiation emitted from the surface(per unit time in physics speak) will be much smaller than in Arizona.

    You can do amusing things with this effect in Arizona, for example, if you put some water in a dish into the sand, on a clear night, it will freeze.

    Yet you say

    , what eli is talking about is enthalpy and as eli says the total heat content of the air is primarily to do with water levels not CO2.

    I was the one that brought up the enthalpy and latent heat of vaporization, not Eli. I do not disagree that H2O vapor is a greenhouse gas. I just don’t think it is the dominant process in the examples given.

    For example, how much of the freezing of the water in Arizona is due to evaporative cooling vs. the difference in greenhouse effect cause by less water vapor? Or is the freezing of the water in the bowl due to the reduced back radiation effect highlighted by Eli?

    Charlie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    @Cal Barndorfer
    ‘I understand. That’s why I find it particularly surprising that so many of the claims in this rebuttal are not sourced.’

    Really, are you that derange that you can’t see past your own, well it starts with an s and ends with a y but just let’s call it blindness and be nice, to understand when Lord Monckton makes references to the same stuff that Abrahams criticized and when he write Santer et al, or whom ever frakking et al, as a reference?

    Did you read the original stuff from both even?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Well, ok, Charlie, you brought up the topic of enthalpy; it is still what eli was talking about; the absence of water means it will be colder at night and warmer at day than when it is present. What does that tell you? It tells me that 2 different locations on the same latitude, one with high levels of SH and one with low will differ in temp for this reason; the reason is the water has STORED [are you reading BJ?] more heat than a water free atmosphere can. So even though the temperature at one location will be much hotter during the day the other location will have a higher level of enthalpy; at night the water free location will be colder.

    As for CO2 being a more powerful ghg than CO2; that is simply not true; in a recent thread at Science of Doom this graph was shown:

    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

    SoD’s conclusions were that if you look at the right column you can see it says when the water vapor is taken out it is only a 25% effect. And if CO2 is removed it is a 9% effect.

    Therefore, guessing at the overlap effect, or more accurately, assigning the overlap equally between the two, water vapor has about 2.5 times the effect of CO2.

    Given that the greenhouse temperature is 33C [288 - 255], CO2′s contribution to that 33C is 2.5 times less than H2O’s, or 2/7s = ~9.4C. For increases in CO2 that ratio will decline due to the effect of Beer’s law on the absorption capacity of the extra CO2. That Beer’s Law effect will also be mitigated by negative feedback from increased water.

    For BJ, that stored heat in the WV is very temporary as TOA OLR flux variations show.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cal Barndorfer

    Charlie A:
    July 17th, 2010 at 9:49 am
    @ Cal Barndorfer, Post #133: July 16th, 2010 at 11:52 am

    Lots and lots of questions. Were these just random, or did you have some reason to suspect a problem with this data.

    I listed the first 10 unsourced claims I found beginning at the start of the document, they weren’t random. And I suspect all claims that aren’t sourced. I’d be very surprised if I was alone in that regard.

    Remember that the context of Monckton’s slides is a lecture or talk, not a formal paper, and it is uncommon for such a talk to have detailed references on each graphic.

    I’m not referring to Monckton’s lecture, I’m referring to his rebuttal.

    Anyway, I was curious, so I went looking. As best I can tell, ALL of the Monckton slides you questioned are accurate.

    I have no idea who you are so it doesn’t matter to me a bit what you think is accurate or inaccurate.

    CB Q1: As noted in M Q27, the graph on the right has the same data as the graph on the left. The data is from from the IPCC AR4. It is the CRU global annual temperature history 1850 onwards. Anyone reasonably familiar with climate science would recognize the graph. Do have have any doubts about the Monckton’s graph being a faithful depiction of the CRU global annual average temperature dataset?
    CB Q2. See http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FrArgo_data_and.html for info on availability of the Argo float data.
    CB Q3. I cannot tell you immediately where the three annual arctic sea ice map images were generated. Once can easily find the equivalent images at NASA, NSIDC, and probably at JAXA. Do have have any doubts about the accuracy of those images ?
    CB Q4. Many sources. Do you have any doubts that the polar bear population (now estimated as 20,000 to 25,000 by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group) is greater than the populations in 1950 ?
    If so, I will find some further references. Lord Monckton though, helpfully included in his presentation data from a 2002 World Wildlife Fund report by Norris and Rosenstrator showing this increase.
    CB Q5 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1.html
    I found this simply by going to ipcc.ch, selecting AR4 and searching for the phrase Monckton quoted.
    Do you consider this statistical analysis using multiple trendlines to be valid ?
    CB Q6 In the case of the IPCC, based on other statements by Monckton in his presentation, my assumption is that he submitted review comments. I have no direct knowledge of Monckton’s communications with the EPA, but given sufficient motivation (are you willing to engage in a small wager ?), I will track down comments and regarding the use of such a graph and technique. In an ideal world, the IPCC and the EPA would not have to be told that doing multiple trendlines in such a fashion is not a valid way of estimating the acceleration of a trend.
    CB Q7 — I have not gone to the trouble of locating this slide. Do you question the accuracy ?? There doesn’t seem to be much controversy as to the number of hurricanes each year during the last few decades and Monckton’s graph appears to be consistent with the many peer reviewed papers on this subject (which are mostly based upon figures from organizations like NHC of NOAA). I suggest that you read Roger Pielke Jr’s comments about the erroneous claims that have been made regarding the relationship between climate change and disasters such as hurricanes.
    CB Q8. I have verified that Monckton’s slide shows an accurate copy of Table 5.3, section 5.5.6 of WG1 of AR4. Although you did not request it, perhaps the graph showing the range of estimates on Greenland ice sheet melting could be of interest to you. See
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-4-18.html
    Clearly we have a long ways to go before we can reasonably estimate the CURRENT melt/accumulation rates.
    CB Q9 The statement “If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.” can be found in AR4, WG1, the projections section of the Summary for Policy Makers.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
    Did you have some doubt as to the length of time needed to melt the icecaps ? A simple bit of arithmetic on observed and projected melt rates and the total volume of icecaps would give you a rough back-of-the-envelope answer. Similarly, one can look at the total surface area of the ocean and the estimated volumes of melt and do some simple calculations to see that the 20 meter rise projected by Al Gore is a very, very, very long term potential problem — as in thousands of years.
    CB Q10 I do not have a copy of the purchase and sale agreement by Al Gore or his trust. Yep. You really got me on that one.

    I’m sorry you wasted your time, but I’m interested in Monckton providing his sources, not you providing what you think his sources are or why you think my questions are irrelevant. This is Monckton’s document and the citations should be his own. This is not an unusual request of the author of a scientific document.

    On the other hand, is it not reasonable to have a small amount of faith in the multiple public news reports about the 2005 purchase by Al Gore of oceanfront property, specifically the St. Regis in San Francisco? It should be noted that Monckton failed to fully disclose that Al Gore bought a PENTHOUSE and that perhaps Al Gore considered it to be a wise purchase since he would be at the top of a multistory building.

    You miss the point. I don’t follow Al Gore’s real estate purchases. If someone is writing a scientific document where they decide that Al Gore’s real estate purchases are somehow important to the point they are trying to make then it is up to the author to provide evidence that these purchases actually were made. It’s neither my nor your job to do the author’s work for them. I’m well aware of how to go about researching the validity of Monckton’s claims, but I have neither the time nor the patience to go through his entire document and do his work for him. Perhaps that’s what he was counting on?

    Thanks for trying.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    I’ll take it as read then, cohenite, that you agree that gases are able to store energy, and hence that you disagree with Louis Hissink’s claim that they cannot.

    That will completely change any analysis of the physical processes of atmospheric heat flows that rely on the assumption that gases do not store energy.

    There, that really wasn’t so hard, was it?

    Or was it – will you now explicitly confirm that Louis Hissink’s claim was wrong?

    And note, the idea of retention times with which you persist in predicating your comments is irrelevant: the profound difference in implication simply comes from the fact of whether gases are able to “store” energy, or not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    No BJ, the word “store” is entirely misleading and the retention time is entirely to the point; your eristic nature is once again leading you down a fruitless path to a nugatory conclusion; that is, Louis and I disagree. A CO2 molecule, for instance will reach a collisionally excited and deexcited state at quantum time intervals; what is your definition of “store”; I rather think it means the same as a light bulb ‘storing’ the electric current it is receiving.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Charlie A: #207
    July 17th, 2010 at 9:54 am

    While this effect does indeed happen, I suspect that the even bigger difference is the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor keeps the air temperature from falling below the dewpoint.

    Perhaps someone that actually understands both sets of mechanisms can comment on this.

    This discussion about deserts and wet areas is interesting.
    In fact an essay was written by Slade Barker in 2002 titled “a New Metric to Detect CO2 GreenHouse Effect Applied to some New Mexico Weather data.” LINK HERE

    Abstract:

    “The arid environment of New Mexico is examined in an attempt to correlate increases in atmospheric CO2 with an increase in greenhouse effect. Changes in the greenhouse effect are estimated by using the ratio of the recorded annual high temperatures to the recorded annual low temperatures as a measure of heat retained (i.e. thermal inertia, TI). It is shown that the metric TI increases if a rise in mean temperature is due to heat retention (greenhouse) and decreases if due to heat gain (solar flux). Essentially no correlation was found between the assumed CO2 atmospheric concentrations and the observed greenhouse changes, whereas there was a strong correlation between TI and precipitation. Further it is shown that periods of increase in the mean temperature correspond to heat gain, not heat retention. It is concluded that either the assumed CO2 concentrations are incorrect or that they have no measurable greenhouse effect in these data.

    Conclusions:

    “It has been shown that the metric TI correlates well with the greenhouse effects of water vapor as indicated by precipitation. It was further demonstrated that TI could be used to discriminate between an increase in atmospheric thermal inertia (greenhouse effect) and an increase in input energy. This property was used to demonstrate that the warming trend between 1973 and 1994 was due to increases in input energy and not increases in thermal inertia. There was no significant correlation between the rise in CO2 and the TI metric.

    The lack of correlation between the rise in CO2 and TI, suggest either the rise in CO2 has not appreciably increased any greenhouse effect, or atmospheric CO2 has not been increasing over New Mexico”.

    maybe the above can help in your discussions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    So, cohenite, you are now entering the domain of Schrödinger’s gas, where a gas may simultaneously “store” or not “store” energy, until one finally concede’s one’s view of the matter, whereupon the state of simultaneity collapses into one or the other…

    It must be really bugging you that you can’t just outright say that Louis Hissink was correct at #65 when he said “Further, no gas can store energy”. There ya go… if you can’t answer my repeated question about whether or not a gas can store energy, answer the alternative – was Louis Hissink correct at #65 when he said “Further, no gas can store energy”?

    Oh, and it’s a bit rich of you to say:

    the word “store” is entirely misleading

    when Louis Hissink was the first one on this thread to use it in that context, and especially when I myself implicitly acknowledged the looseness of the usage by including quotation marks around it in my post at #214.

    Further, if you confabulate a gas “storing” energy with a light bulb “storing” electric current, then once again that is your problem. Of course, you could have referred to capicitors or to batteries, rather than to a light bulb – these would have been more comparable metaphors – but then your “point” would have been explicitly spurious…

    Nevertheless, as this matter of what “storage” is confounds you so, I will refer you to the generally accepted term ‘potential’ energy, where (in the context of a gas) the ‘potential’ may be chemical, electrical, magnetic, nuclear, or gravitational. It does not stop there however, because if one considers ‘kinetic’ energy, one will see that thermal, motion (inertial), and sound forms thereof apply to gases.

    Take your pick cohenite…

    Are gases able to “store” energy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Quid pro quo BJ; since I have answered your question, though not to your satisfaction, which, like the Yellow Brick Road, is a journey to nowhere, you answer mine; does pressure contribute to atmospheric temperature? It should be easy since you have listed the range of ‘potentials’ which apply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    lol 3 thumbs down for saying “have a nice weekend”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    cohenite:

    No BJ, the word “store” is entirely misleading and the retention time is entirely to the point; your eristic nature is once again leading you down a fruitless path to a nugatory conclusion; that is, Louis and I disagree. A CO2 molecule, for instance will reach a collisionally excited and deexcited state at quantum time intervals; what is your definition of “store”; I rather think it means the same as a light bulb ’storing’ the electric current it is receiving

    Quid pro quo BJ; since I have answered your question, though not to your satisfaction, which, like the Yellow Brick Road, is a journey to nowhere, you answer mine; does pressure contribute to atmospheric temperature? It should be easy since you have listed the range of ‘potentials’ which apply.

    well done cohenite – game over

    BJ can go back to his fridge and ford internal combustion engine and keep chasing his tail and still be folowing a religious cult.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Scott; I wish; BJ is a Terminator; he’ll “be back”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    yep he will, raising another tangent without discussing the real issue at hand. He is most likely busy googling stuff now or getting his mum to find stuff out for him or change his nappys.

    It is funny watching him try to be clever only to watch him catch himself out with frivolous rubbish

    Keep up the great work cohenite


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Matt @ 219
    Have a great weekend yourself. Those thumby things are a load of bollocks, I never touch them. I am constantly amazed at how many idiotic and asinine comments get a thumbs up (including my own) but I put it down to Spartacus syndrome.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Connor

    I can’t believe you people waste your last pathetic shreds of dignity and credibility on defending this sad clown :D


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite (#218 4:24 pm 17 July 2010):

    Quid pro quo BJ; since I have answered your question, though not to your satisfaction, which, like the Yellow Brick Road, is a journey to nowhere, you answer mine; does pressure contribute to atmospheric temperature?

    Ah, but you did not answer my questions cohenite, you merely responded to them in a dissembling and incoherent fashion. Remember, the questions were:

    1) do gases “store” energy?

    and

    2) was Louis Hissink correct to say that gases do not store energy?

    Two questions, each requiring a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer.

    You have certainly not answered either to any rational person’s satisfaction.

    Nevertheless, I will afford you the courtesy of a response to your question, although I will follow your lead and not respond directly. I will, however, attempt to elicit a thought process from you, to see just what analytical processes you are able to exhibit.

    Atmospheric pressure is a function of gravity. So, when does gravity perform work in the context of pressure, and when does it not perform work in the context of pressure?

    And what does the difference between the two scenarios imply for pressure-heating of a gas?

    To make your response easier, I will ask you to describe what happens when one ambles down to one’s local dive shop to fill one’s SCUBA tank. The tank is filled – what is occurring with respect to the gas in the tank, in terms of temperature and pressure?

    The tank is then left in the back of a ute for two weeks before being used… The day before the tank is strapped to one’s back, what is the state of the gas inside, in terms of temperature and pressure?

    What is the difference between the two scenarios? More interestingly, how do they illustrate the effect that gravity (in its ‘pressure’ incarnations) has on an atmosphere?

    Oo – I said “incarnations“! For bonus points, can you describe why I did so?

    Note, if the above is too difficult to respond to, you are always welcome to prove a “yes” or “no” answer to:

    1) do gases “store” energy?

    2) was Louis Hissink correct to say that gases do not store energy?

    And Scott (#222) – I think that you are engaging in what Eddy Aruda would refer to as ad hominem. Just so that you understand…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “Bonus points”; you’re insufferable BJ; according to Priestly and Swinback the flux of heat is in the direction from high to low potential temperature, and this normally involves the flux being from low to high actual temperature. So is the gas in the aqualung isothermic or is there a temperature gradient? Can I also assume that the gas in the aqualung is a vertical gas column containing a finite and constant specific energy level that is isolated from its surroundings (no input/output of energy or mass) but which is in a gravitational field?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, let’s move on a bit.

    cohenite is referring to the dry adiabatic lapse rate which is the rate that the atmosphere cools with altitude from the surface up…well ok, to the tropopause.

    The rate is simply calculated by considering the change in potential energy with height.

    OTOH, to find the actual temperature at any altitude you have to start at the surface, and the surface temperature is set by the greenhouse effect and solar insolation. So we can write a simple equation, you know, one of those heavily mathematical things Christopher Monckton is so good at.

    T(z) = To – L x z

    where T(z) is the temperature at altitude z in km, To the surface temperature set by the greenhouse effect and the solar insolation, and L the lapse rate in K/km.

    In this equation, valid to first approximation (we have left out a bunch of stuff such as the vaporization of water, etc.)

    1. The temperature of the atmosphere at any altitude depends on the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect helps to determine To.

    To = Ts + Tg where Ts ~255K and Tg ~33K are the contributions from solar heating of the surface (Ts) and the greenhouse effect (Tg)
    2. The lapse rate, or change in temperature with altitude, is determined by gravity for the most part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    My impression reading Louis Hissink #65 is that he was referring to the heat capacity of a gas (on a volume basis) being so low as to be negligible. We seem to have wasted a lot of effort arguing a very pedantic point because many things in physics and engineering work by ignoring sufficiently small effects

    For example, the presumption of CO2 delivering a given constant of power per doubling is merely a curve-fit against laboratory samples of gas, there is no intrinsic logarithmic equation, and the logarithmic curve-fit only works over a limited region of the function anyway. Thus, any time someone says, “per doubling” in the context of atmospheric CO2 they are making a bunch of presumptions that are literally wrong.

    Strange, that – how then does your refrigerator manage to cool your beers?

    I’ve always understood that commercial refrigerators work by latent heat, rather than specific heat; although at bicycle pump will get hot near the compressed side of the valve (if you work at it hard enough) so yes the principle of a refrigerator can work using ordinary air without any phase change — at an efficiency that is practically zero.

    By the way, speaking of refrigerator efficiency… has anyone worked out how much extra Carbon gets burned every year thanks to the ban of high efficiency CFC refrigerants?

    I notice that ozone hole research has gone really quiet lately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Thanks Tel; good point.

    Eli; that is the usual greenhouse explanantion for the temperature profile of the [an] atmosphere with ghgs, leavin no room for a pressure contribution.

    No doubt you have been reading the SoD debate between Arthur Smith and Leonard Weinstein with various other, obviously, specialist contributors. One of those is William C Gilbert, a chemical engineer.

    Leonard’s view is that heating of the surface occurs top down via a lapse rate with the greenhouse effect determining the top of the lapse rate and final emission layer.

    Arthur has used Zeroth’s law to argue against this; as you know Zeroth’s law is based on isothermality or uniform temp throughout a gas body such that downward heating via lapse rate could not occur and any temp gradient must occur through upward radiative heating, as you argue.

    Getting back to William; his comments on the pressure/gravitational effect or contribution to temp gradient in a gas body/atmosphere differ from yours; he postulates “a vertical gas column containing a finite and constant specific energy level (U, J/kg), that is isolated from its surroundings (no input/output of energy or mass) but which is in a gravitational field. The column will in time reach equilibrium with respect to internal specific energy but the temperature will NOT BE UNIFORM. At static equilibrium (adiabatic equilibrium
    where no macro motion exists), internal specific energy (U) is composed of both thermal
    energy (the energy due to molecular motion) and potential energy (the energy due to
    position). The latter has to exist in a gravitational field. Thus, according to the first and second law of thermodynamics, the specific internal energy (U) for any mass parcel in the air column has to be constant and can be expressed as a sum of the thermal and potential energies. This law (expressed as specific energies) can be written:

    U = CpT + gh or upon differentiation dU = CpdT + gdh (1)

    where “CpT” is the enthalpy (or thermal energy) per mass unit, “g” is the gravitational
    acceleration, “h” is the vertical height and “gh” is the potential energy per mass unit.
    At static equilibrium dU = 0 and equation (1) becomes;

    CpdT + gdh = 0 (2)

    Thus, according to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, for any given difference in
    altitude (height) the increase in specific potential energy (gdh) must be offset by a
    corresponding decrease in thermal energy (CpdT) and a corresponding decrease in
    temperature. Thus in a gravitational field an atmosphere in equilibrium must have a nonisothermal
    decreasing temperature distribution with altitude. This is true in an isolated
    air column and this basic physical phenomenon exists independent of any input/output of
    other energy sources such as ground temperature, convection, radiation, convection, etc.
    And of course equation (2) can be rewritten as:

    dT/dh= -g/CpT = -9.8 K/km

    which is a temperature profile often observed in our atmosphere on a daily basis. This static
    temperature lapse rate (in this model atmosphere) is identical to the dry adiabatic lapse rate
    theoretically derived in Meteorology for a convective adiabatic air parcel. In both situations it
    is solely a function of the magnitude of the gravitational field and the heat capacity of the
    atmospheric gas, and nothing else.”

    The difference is a fine but crucial one; and I’m in no position to defintively judge.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    @Bernad J

    ‘So, cohenite, you are now entering the domain of Schrödinger’s gas, where a gas may simultaneously “store” or not “store” energy, until one finally concede’s one’s view of the matter, whereupon the state of simultaneity collapses into one or the other…’

    How on earth do you work that logic like you want it to be like magic? Of course a something can retain energy or not at the same frakking time, it’s not the same as schrödingers cat you dumbass!

    Oh wait you think all energy is of the same frequency? 0_o Bwahaha


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jodyaberdein

    Can I ask why you have not included these letters, as they are germane?

    1:

    June 23, 2010
    Dear Mr. Monckton

    I am replying to your letter of June 10 2010, on behalf of myself and, at his request, Fr. Dennis Dease, President of the University of St. Thomas. I stand by my original position. Point and counterpoitn are the standard in academic discourse.

    Regards,

    Dr. John Abraham
    Associate Professor
    School of Engineering
    University of St. Thomas

    2:Text: June 25, 2010
    Via Electronic Mail to monckton@mail.com
    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
    Carie, Rannoch, Scotland, PH17 2QJ

    Re: University of St. Thomas

    Dear Lord Monckton

    Our firm represents the University of St. Thomas. I am writing concerning your recent communications with University President Father Dease, Professor John Abraham and other University personnel relating to Prof. Abraham’s talk entitled “But Chris Monckton Said . . .”

    It is the University’s position that Professor Abraham has done nothing improper or illegal in expressing his ideas and opinions on this matter and that Professor Abraham has not engaged in any academic or professional misconduct. Accordingly, the University will not investigate Professor Abraham’s conduct in this matter as you requested, nor will the University issue a retraction or apology for Professor Abraham’s talk, comply with any of your other demands, or respond to any further communications from you on this matter.

    Further, the University is appalled by your disparaging, outrageous and defamatory comments, regarding the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease and Professor John Abraham, especially the comments you made during a television interview on June 24, 2010. On behalf of the University of St. Thomas, we demand that you immediately cease and desist making any further disparaging or defamatory comments about the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease, Professor Abraham, the Archdioceses of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, or anyone else associated with the University. If your inappropriate conduct does not cease immediately, the University of St. Thomas will have no choice but to take appropriate legal action.

    Very truly yours,

    MOORE, COSTELLO & HAR, P.L.L.P
    By Phyllis Karasov

    and furthermore whether you support Christopher Monckton in his assertions made on the Alex Jones show?

    From the Alex Jones show, 24 June 2010 part 5/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQdKDeDjqI):

    “…that, on its own, would be an offense for which he would be dismissed from a real university, but then he only belongs this half-assed Catholic Bible college” (1:10)

    “…but apparently in this Bible college, lying is part of what they regard as their Christian mission…” (2:45)

    “…I want you to email this creep of a President, Father Dennis J. Dease…”(08:30)

    Yours

    J


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JCornelius

    Further to insulting remarks made on the Alex Jones Show, Monckton does himself no favors when he tries to lecture the Catholic University’s legal representatives on Canon Law. In his correspondence he says:

    I should be most grateful if, within seven days, your firm would be kind enough to clarify whether it acts for Father Dease, for the Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis (note that in canon law there is no such thing as an “Arch”diocese, though there is such a creature as an Archbishop) and for Professor Abraham, insofar as their interests and those of your clients the University of St. Thomas may diverge.

    An archdiocese is the diocese of an archbishop. See the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on archdiocese. Monckton’s resistance to referring to the archdiocese in its proper form is simply contrariness. Monckton’s insistence that he knows better than the real experts extends beyond science it seems.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    jodyaberdein: #231
    July 18th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Jody have you clicked the “see the correspondence here” link provided in red in the article? That’s where you’ll find them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jodyaberdein

    Baa

    Doh! Many thanks. Should have checked, they are both there.

    J


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thickslab

    What do you do when someone speaks against your faith, sounds authoritative, well informed, and backs everything up with lots of evidence? If you’re sane, you change your mind.

    If you’re Monckton, you try to censor that person and try to get his employer to discipline him.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    cohenite, Why is it cooler on a hot day under an umbrella? After you figure that one out, why is it even cooler under a light colored umbrella?

    Think about that and the penny LW is trying to push up the hill. OTOH, have you thought about how if LW was correct (which he is not), that means that a large number of your former favorites are wrong, wrong, wrong (which they are anyhow)

    Best


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “wrong, wrong, wrong”. Nasty stutter you’ve got there eli; so I’m wrong whether Leonard is wrong or right; and while I’m trying to figure that out and go scuba diving with BJ I’ve also got to prance around with different coloured umbrellas. This is the inscrutable school of AGW penance no doubt.

    I’ve got a better idea eli; you go and talk to Leonard here;

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-4403

    Oh, I see you have; good for you; Leonard seems very obliging; let’s see how he answers the riddle of the umbrellas. I prefer clouds; same point, I suppose. I wonder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    Eli Rabett says “Why is it cooler on a hot day under an umbrella?” Answer:because it blocks the sun fool!
    Eli Rabett says “After you figure that one out, why is it even cooler under a light colored umbrella?”
    Answer:Duuh does it have something to do with albedo?
    When you’re done displaying such intellectual genius explaining this to me, I’ll then explain
    to you why you’re completely wrong and in reality why a white umbrella provides no more
    cooling than a black one does. Oh and don’t forget to throw in a little “radiation” for good
    measure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Rabett @ 205

    “In the US, Mississippi and Arizona have about the same daytime temperatures…”

    Bzzzzt. Wrong. Arizona is much warmer in the summer than Mississippi because the extra water vapour in Mississippi forms clouds and rain, thus cooling occurs. Likewise Arizona is much cooler in the winter because it lacks the back radiation from water vapour. Water in the atmosphere has both warming and cooling feedback effects.

    Arizona is severely dry and Mississippi dripping, swamp wet…At night, the temperatures in Arizona fall way lower than in Mississippi. Why? Because of the back radiation from water vapor in Mississippi the net amount of radiation emitted from the surface(per unit time in physics speak) will be much smaller than in Arizona.

    It’s nice to see Rabbet showing that water vapour’s interaction with energy from the sun is far and away the primary forcing agent upon the Earth’s climate.

    My obviously naive (but pertinent) question for Rabbett… How is an extra ~150 molecules of “carbon pollution” for every 1,000,000 others going to disrupt the water vapour homeostasis, triggering a positive feedback loop towards warming which will result in catastrophically rapid climate change?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite.

    1) do gases “store” energy?

    2) was Louis Hissink correct to say that gases do not store energy?

    3) when does gravity do work, and when does it not do work?

    (Vale Stephen Schneider)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    BJ; before you get in your usual ‘voice of authority from high’ about gravity you better have a look at this;

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    As to whether gases store energy, I once again direct you to the difference between excitation and deexcitation rates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite.

    Why not give simple, straight answers to simple, straight questions?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    OK BJ; gases store energy to the extent of the difference between their excitation and deexcitation.

    Now, does atmospheric pressure contribute to atmospheric temperature? And if you rabbit on about aqua-lungs, ford cars or umbrellas you can buzz off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Cohenite:

    You rightly say at #243:

    gases store energy to the extent of the difference between their excitation and deexcitation.

    but you do not point out that this does NOT change their temperature.

    The temperature of a gas is determined by the average velocity of its molecules, and the energy stored inside each molecule does not change their velocities.

    A GHG molecule is said to be ‘excited’ when it has absorbed a photon of IR and, therefore, has a higher energy state. It has to lose this energy before it can absorb another photon.
    And this where nitrogen and oxygen are important.

    An excited GHG molecule can lose its energy of excitation by
    (1) emitting another photon
    or
    (2) colliding with another molecule and giving its energy to that other molecule.
    The lower atmosphere is very dense and has high pressure (i.e. it has many molecules per unit volume and they collide a lot). So, almost all the excitation energy is transferred by collisions in the lower atmosphere. There are thousands of de-excitations by collisions for each de-excitation by emission of radiation from GHG molecules in the lower atmosphere. And it is this frequency of collisional de-excitation that leads to the fact that almost all the IR from the Earth’s surface that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in the lowest 100 m (i.e. ~300 feet) of the atmosphere.

    An excited GHG molecule cannot absorb another IR photon until it has been de-excited. And the frequency of collisions between molecules in the lower atmosphere provides rapid de-excitation which enables frequent excitation.

    But the molecules that collide with the GHGs are almost all nitrogen and oxygen atoms because the air is almost all nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). These molecules cannot absorb energy rotationally or vibrationally like GHG molecules can, so the energy they absorb accelerates them (i.e. they move faster). And the temperature of a gas is determined by the average velocity of its molecules, so collision with the GHG molecules heats the N2 and O2 molecules. Thus, the atmosphere is warmed.

    But ‘hot air rises’ so the warmed air moves up by convection. The resulting effect is an alteration to the lapse rate.

    However, the point to note is how very little of the energy absorbed by GHGs in the lower atmosphere is emitted as thermal radiation from the GHGs. It is almost all lost to N2 and O2 by collisions. And only half of that small amount of radiation FROM the GHGs can return to the Earth’s surface to cause the surface warming known as the radiative greenhouse effect.

    Much of the warming of the surface from GHGs will be by conduction from N2 and O2 molecules that have been heated by the GHGs (just as the ground is heated by the air when a warm front moves in).

    So,
    (a) almost all the absorbtion of IR by CO2 that can occur in the air occurs in the lowest 100 m of the air,
    (b) a tiny part of that energy absorbed by GHGs is returned towards the Earth’s surface as IR,
    (c) because the air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen.

    Hence, although some anthropogenic global warming (AGW) could result from the slight change to lapse rate, catastrophic AGW is a physical impossibility because almost all the absorbtion of IR by CO2 that can occur in the air occurs in the lowest 100 m of the air and more than all cannot be absorbed.

    Increase the CO2 in the air and the difference to what happens is almost nothing. More than all of anything cannot be absorbed.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Howard C

    W

    e’ve seen these tactics before. Tim Lambert (aka Deltoid) did a similar thing when he ambushed Monckton with quotes from Pinker that he arranged with emails he still hasn’t revealed.

    To the best of my knowledge and reading comments around the web, Lambert had his wife make the recording to give the appearance it was Pinker doing the talking.

    It seems he’s now even getting his partner to play tricks and act dishonestly in public thereby turning it into a family hobby.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    Bernard J, cohenite

    On the subject of whether gases can store energy or not. If you heat a contained volume of gas from say an ambient(room) temperature of 75oF to say 120oF. Then remove the source of heating and start a stopwatch at the same time. When the volume cools back down to ambient stop. This is your retention time. Gases do retain heat BUT not for very long. For small volumes say a 1 litre size bottle, it can take 5 – 10 minutes to cool. Add more water vapor and retention time rises. Store is a tricky word. Obviously nature has no concept of it. The real question is “can I practically use a heated volume of air that retains heat for only 10mins?” OR Can I tap that energy for my own personal use whenever I want. No I can’t. It would be a completely different situation if say that same volume of air could retain a temperature near combustion and do it for a month. TECHNICALLY any retention time qualifies as storage but for gases this time is so short that it is IMPRACTICAL. Gases dissipate energy quickly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cal Barndorfer

    Eddy Aruda:
    July 16th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Great work, Carl! I will bring this up tomorrow when I speak with Chris Monckton!

    How did your conversation with Monckton go?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite:

    OK BJ; gases store energy to the extent of the difference between their excitation and deexcitation.

    is a bizarre sitting on the fence, and Richard S Courtney seems wont to impale himself along with you.

    I am simply trying to acertain whether you, Louis Hissink, Richard S Courtney and others acknowledge that gases can “store” energy, where “store” is a loose term that indicates that energy may reside within the substance of the gas for a non-zero quantity of time.

    This includes the addition of kinetic energy to a gas’s particles – as long as a gas has greater kinetic energy than it may have had prior to aquiring the extra quanta, surely it is “storing” more energy?

    I really don’t understand why this simple concept sticks in your craw so: it is not a sin for a gas to “store” energy.

    Now, does atmospheric pressure contribute to atmospheric temperature?

    Once again I will follow your example and phrase my answer in a roundabout way: yes, atmospheric pressure (as a manifestation of gravity) may contribute to atmospheric temperature – where it does work. If pressure does not do work, it will not directly contribute to temperature.

    It’s now up to you to explain to your fellow physicists on this thread what I mean – and you may use the gas bottle metaphor if you desire. I care not a whit what you do with your umbrella, as that was Eli’s point, not mine.

    Of course, if you’re insinuating that it is only pressure that causes Venus’ particularly high temperature, and not its greenhouse gas-rich atmosphere, I suggest that you take your conversation to RealClimate and educate the real (but ill-informed) scientists. Or you could take your discourse to the literature – if you’re sceptical about the honesty of peer-review, there’s always Envergy and Environment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Brian W, at #246:

    Gases dissipate energy quickly.

    Most certainly they do, but one of the main reasons for this is that gases are tenuous.

    However, a polyatomic gas can have about 75% of the per atom heat capacity of a solid. Yes, really. When one is speaking about something as massive as an atmosphere, this is not an inconsequential fact…

    It also completely changes how one determines heat flows, compared with assuming that gases have no capacity for energy “storage”. For something as large as an atmosphere, tenuity and retention times have a different significance entirely…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    BJ, I don’t understand this: “If pressure does not do work, it will not directly contribute to temperature.” Pressure is a product of force and must perforce be a measure of work; any gas body will be subject to gravity condensing and pressuring the gas body and an opposing, expansionary force created by the increased kinetic energy in response to the gravitational effect. The more gas and/or gravity the greater those 2 forces will be; since pressure is a conjugate to volume, if volume is decreased, as would happen with an increase in gravity force due to an increase in the gas mass near the surface, then the kinetic energy of the gas body will increase according to PV = nRT; this will vary with the height of the gas mass and the thermal parameters of temperature and entropy will decrease with height as a result of the decrease in pressure. The heat storage effect, therefore, that you are talking about is nothing more than a measure of the kinetic state of the gas body which in turn is determined by the gravitionally determined and stratified mass of the gas column. This will occur in any atmosphere which is not in thermal equilibrium so that Zeroth’s law does not apply. As Richard has explained above the radiative process does not increase the temperature of the gas unless there is an increase in the gas mass and an increase in available radiation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Berbnard J:

    At #249 you assert:

    Richard S Courtney seems wont to impale himself along with you.

    Say what!
    My post at #244 explained why your question is both irrelevant and pointless.

    I understand that you are not capable of answering my explanation, but your assertion that I have “impailed” myself is plain daft.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite.

    I don’t understand this: “If pressure does not do work, it will not directly contribute to temperature.” Pressure is a product of force and must perforce be a measure of work;

    OK, consider a mouse trap, set and placed in the back of your pantry. The catch is experiencing a force exerted by the spring.

    Is the mouse trap doing work, in the physics definition of the word?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    Bernard J

    The main reason gases dissipate energy quickly is because of their very, very low density. Each molecule in a gas is free to move about easily transferring energy to surrounding molecules via physical contact. Molecules in solids form into a much tighter, covalently bonded matrix restricting movement. This means that the individual space around each gas molecule is much greater and variable as in our atmosphere. All of this means that each individual molecule within a gas volume is able to dissipate its heat rapidly instead of being chained by a million others as in a solid. Tenuous is a hazy word when applied to gases. Density is the correct one.
    Polyatomic is just a naming convention, even ions of two atoms are commonly referred to as polyatomic(wiki). N2 and O2 qualify and so do metals.Your substitution of polyatomic instead of Co2 was clever. Applying a technical name with the word “atomic” in it. Co2 is tri-atomic.

    Then you say “However, a polyatomic gas can have about 75% of the per atom heat capacity of a solid. Yes, really. When one is speaking about something as massive as an atmosphere, this is not an inconsequential fact…”
    Now just exactly what is that statement supposed to imply anyway? That each individual Co2 molecule is a heat absorbing monster multiplied by the mass of the earth’s atmosphere and is a truly herculean force to be reckoned with? My you ARE clever! You are also completely WRONG! First off Co2 has a specific heat slightly less than aluminum. Aluminum as we all know dissipates heat quickly and is used for HEATSINKS. So C02 shares this property of rapid heat dissipation. This directly contradicts the statement that Co2 is an overall strong absorber of IR. On top of this you completely ignore the fact that there are only 4 Co2 molecules out of 10,000 in our atmosphere. This in fact represents a TEENY TINY mass of the atmosphere. For those 4 molecules to sensibly affect the other 10,000 N2 and O2 molecules they WOULD have to be atomic in nature. Maybe Co2 is really URANIUM in DISGUISE.

    YOU THEN go on to say “It also completely changes how one determines heat flows, compared with assuming that gases have no capacity for energy “storage”. For something as large as an atmosphere, tenuity and retention times have a different significance entirely…”

    Really now just how does it completely change how one determines heat flows? You tell me? Tenuity is not a replacement for the word density it is a foggy notion and an incorrect application of the word tenuous! Retention time is directly related to the type of gas, the volume considered and the density of the gas. Simply put the larger the volume of gas the longer it retains heat. A volume of 50 cu ft of air will retain energy longer than a 1cu ft volume and we haven’t even considered water vapor which can transport 160 times more heat than Co2 can under similar conditions.

    Your statements are scientific implications and are essentially meaningless except to convey the impression that CO2 is a real concern. Are you a warmer wolf in sheeps clothing? The only thing tenuous is the warmers ability to understand real physics and their tenuity is very high. Oh and tell me, just WHY is it cooler on a hot day under an umbrella? Clever indeed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    Bernard J

    Is the mousetrap doing work while sitting in the back of the pantry loaded? Real physics says no. Real physics says that the mousetrap does work when the unfortunate rodent goes for the cheese and gets its neck or spine broken! Real physics says that this is an excellent example of STORED MECHANICAL ENERGY. The force of the pin on the catch is irrelevant. And your point IS?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Thank you Brian W; BJ is not a “warmer wolf in sheeps clothing”; he is a Saint Bernard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Brian W, having a a conniption at #253, said:

    “Your substitution of polyatomic instead of Co2 [sic] was clever.”

    except that I did not substitute “polyatomic” for CO2…

    I used the term to refer to the (generic) gases that Louis Hissink says “do not store energy”. As monatomic (noble) gases are usually not considered by anyone, physicists and denialists alike, I did not include them in my comment. However for completeness, I will note that a monatomic gas has about half of the per atom heat capacity of a solid. I’ll leave it to you to figure out the practical difference for our atmosphere.

    It’s your confabulation, Brian W, that was an attempt at “cleverness”.

    You then ask:

    …just how does it completely change how one determines heat flows?

    Brian W, it’s not rocket science.

    If gases do not store energy, then no amount of atmosphere will alter the way that ratiation from the sun, or heat from a planet’s interior, moves to or from the planet. Zero capacity for energy storage times any number is still zero. If, however, gases are able to store energy, even though they might be tenuous (and believe me, the term is not fuzzy for a physicist), then the overall atmospheric capacity for storage is a function of the size of the atmopshere. And here’s an easy question for you – how much atmospheric mass is there over a square meter of our planet?

    My statements have geniune and extremely relevant scientific implications that are essential for a proper understanding of the physics of the atmosphere. It is obvious to me that many here are not demonstrating that understanding.

    And on the matter of the mouse trap:

    Is the mousetrap doing work while sitting in the back of the pantry loaded? Real physics says no. Real physics says that the mousetrap does work when the unfortunate rodent goes for the cheese and gets its neck or spine broken! Real physics says that this is an excellent example of STORED MECHANICAL ENERGY. The force of the pin on the catch is irrelevant. And your point IS?

    My point is, when does the same circumstance apply to atmospheric presure, and when does it not, in terms of the atmosphere’s pressure generating heat? The answer to this question will go a long way to explaining how much of the heat in any atmosphere is a direct result of the pressure exerted by that atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    BJ, if the temperature of a gas is determined by its kinetic energy or the average velocity of its molecules then will gravity based on atmospheric mass or [solar] radiation play a bigger part in heating the surface to an extent beyond what its temperature would be without an atmospheric mass?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Cohenite.

    Did you actually think that last one through before posting it? And how about actually trying to understand the implications of my nudges about atmospheric pressure and work?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    Bernard J

    You could have simply said Co2 but used a more impressive and complex term. Much of AGW is based on suttle psychological manipulation. Recently I have been seeing a lot of this in our own leftist media.I am just pointing this out and using you as an example. I dislike lies(who doesn’t) but I really dislike those who shovel unscientific poppycock on the masses. I prefer the term snake-oil salesman because it is the closest to superstition.

    Whether gases store energy or not has already been settled. TECHNICALLY they DO but it is IMPRACTICAL for us human beans. Both sides of the argument get their way. Don’t worry, be happy.See my first post. Screw Louis Hissink. Your monatomic babbling gives it away. There is only one true monatomic gas, and that is HYDROGEN. WE are NOT in the mean considering any other gases except for N2, O2, and Co2. For your information these are diatomic and triatomic. Hydrogen is irrelevant to the topic. And your point IS?
    Then you say ” I’ll leave it to you to figure out the practical difference for our atmosphere”. Oh no you don’t, you’re not turning “nuthin’ round on me”. YOU are the one making baseless statements so YOU are the one who needs to explain himself. So go ahead. Confabulation, not at all, I have studied the mindsets of J. Shore, AP Smith, etc. and they all work the same way high on selective claims, statements and a “know it all” attitude but woefully short on real proof.
    You say its not rocket science but fail to answer the question. Since it appears you like a good thrashing I’ll be only to happy to give you one. You say, “If gases do not store energy” but technically they DO its called time of retention(cooling to ambient), “then no amount of atmosphere” (a vacuous statement) and you have conveniently forgotten about water vapor, “Zero capacity for energy storage times any number is still zero.” – another meaningless and more importantly POINTLESS statement, “even though they might be tenuous(and believe me, the term is not fuzzy for a physicist)” tenuous – give it up. It’s called the density of a gas not the tenuity(LOL) of a gas. Say what you mean and mean what you say, “And here’s an easy question for you – how much atmospheric mass is there over a square meter of our planet? Not so easy, latitude, longitude and more importantly elevation please(not to mention possible seasonal variations)(local concentrations of Co2). Again what is your point?
    And now the doozy, you say “My statements have geniune and extremely relevant scientific implications that are essential for a proper understanding of the physics of the atmosphere. It is obvious to me that many here are not demonstrating that understanding.” Your (Unique, maybe, genuine, doubtful) not so relevant science only demonstrates YOUR misunderstanding of it.
    FINALLY we get to it. Your last statement “My point is, when does the same circumstance apply to atmospheric presure, and when does it not, in terms of the atmosphere’s pressure generating heat? The answer to this question will go a long way to explaining how much of the heat in any atmosphere is a direct result of the pressure exerted by that atmosphere. The mechanical method of storing energy in a mousetrap is through the use of a pair of springs, which by the user loading the trap supplies the energy that is stored in SPRING COMPRESSION. There is no analogy to a spring in the atmosphere. The lapse rate as far as it is observed is stable and fixed. It does not have wildly different values from day to day. A fixed lapse rate cannot generate heat! The same circumstance will never apply! It is the OVERALL change in pressure not the gradient itself and humans have no way to continually add and remove weight to the air column(silly notion anyway). The atmosphere is not a spring that can be wound. I can only conclude that you have wasted enough of my time. Good luck with your pseudoscience.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernard J.

    Brian W.

    There is only one true monatomic gas, and that is HYDROGEN. WE are NOT in the mean considering any other gases except for N2, O2, and Co2. For your information these are diatomic and triatomic. Hydrogen is irrelevant to the topic. And your point IS?

    Let me break this to you gently…

    Hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure is a diatomic gas. Moreover, there is most certainly more than one monatomic gas – as I indicated in post #256, the noble gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon) are monatomic gases.

    The rest of your post is similarly filled with nonsense. The fact remains that the atmosphere has a heat capacity, and it has the capacity to either radiate, convect, or otherwise transfer garnered heat to the earth, and to space. If one does not understand the actual physics involved in the modes of storage and of transfer, one is comletely non-equipped to model the movement of heat in the atmosphere. And I reiterate my point that although a gas is a tenuous physical state, on the scale of an entire atmosphere the capcity to store heat is most definitely non-zero. As all of the kerfuffle about warming is about a few degrees celcius/kelvin, the heat capacity of an entire atmsophere, even though tenuous, is a significant factor indeed.

    It is sad to see that the analogy between a mouse trap and a static atmosphere escapes you entirely. It is more sad to see that you misunderstand the significance of a lapse rate… tell me, and the other readers here, what would happen to the temperature profile of the atmosphere if there were no incoming solar radiation, nor any internally-generated planetary radioactive decay heat?

    I can only conclude that you are wasting your own time, because you do not have the basic understanding of the physics to be able to participate at all in a discussion of atmospheric heat flows. This is most explicitly confirmed by your statement that you:

    …have studied the mindsets of J. Shore, AP Smith, etc. and they all work the same way high on selective claims, statements and a “know it all” attitude but woefully short on real proof.

    If you are a better physicist than are they, where are your detailed, point-by-point rebuttals of their work? Where is your demonstrated capacity to refute the work of centuries of research by thousands of physicists? It doesn’t exist, does it?

    The reason – you are not competent in this field.

    Good luck with your pseudoscience.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “what would happen to the temperature profile of the atmosphere if there were no incoming solar radiation, nor any internally-generated planetary radioactive decay heat?”

    Very good BJ; we have an inert planet with no insolation. Ignoring CR, the only active force is gravity; assume an atmosphere; would the temperature profile of the atmosphere be higher with ghgs or, for example, the noble gases?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    So, if I can summarise so far:

    – We are encouraged to question Abraham’s claim to be a “Professor”, even though it is correct.
    – We must not question Monckton’s claim to be a member of the House of Lords, even though that is incorrect.
    – Steam Engines are a figment of our collective imaginations because they can’t possibly work because gases don’t carry energy.
    – gases under pressure spontaneously generate heat.

    Don’t bother rushing down to the patent office – I’ve already patented the last as the technique underpinning my all-new perpetual motion machine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Oh, and most importantly:

    Abraham has “surrendered” so abjectly that:
    – he hasn’t removed his original presentation debunking Monckton
    – he has added a second presentation debunking Monckton
    – he got his lawyers to tell Monckton to go away and not bother the Uni again or suffer legal action


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bernard J:

    At #256 you say:

    My point is, when does the same circumstance apply to atmospheric presure, and when does it not, in terms of the atmosphere’s pressure generating heat?

    Aha! Now I understand why you keep pushing this irrelevant nonsense concerning gases storing heat.

    You do not know that temperature and heat are not the same thing!

    As Cohenite keeps pointing out, the Ideal Gas Equation defines that the pressure gradient of an atmosphere in a gravity field ensures there will be a temperature gradient up through the atmosphere when there is no energy input and output.
    This requires NO generation of heat:
    it is a distribution of heat per unit mass that is imposed by
    PV/T=k
    because P (i.e. pressure) changes with altitude.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Vince Whirlwind:

    I have read your posts at #262 and #263 and, as a result, I have a question.

    What have you been smoking? It seems to provide an interesting distortion to perception of reality and I would like to try it.

    You provide several points; viz.

    – We are encouraged to question Abraham’s claim to be a “Professor”, even though it is correct.

    No. We are asked to note that he is not a full Professor (which he is not).

    – We must not question Monckton’s claim to be a member of the House of Lords, even though that is incorrect.

    Monckton is a Member of the House of Lords with full privileges to attend the House and to use its facilities (e.g. bars, dining halls, etc.) but with no right to sit and vote in the House.

    – Steam Engines are a figment of our collective imaginations because they can’t possibly work because gases don’t carry energy.

    Say what!? Where did you get that daft idea?

    – gases under pressure spontaneously generate heat.

    Again, where did you get that daft idea?

    – he hasn’t removed his original presentation debunking Monckton

    And your point is?

    – he has added a second presentation debunking Monckton

    No! He has provided an amended form of his original presentation that has removed some of his more blatant falsehoods from the unamended version. This provides a fall-back position if/when Monckton sues him and his Uni..

    – he got his lawyers to tell Monckton to go away and not bother the Uni again or suffer legal action

    No! He got his Uni.’s lawyers to respond on his behalf because the damp stain in his trousers told him that Monckton’s complaint could result in his being sued.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    Monckton really isn’t the kind of person we should be paying attention to. T

    [snip A baseless ad hom from a paseur skeptic....]

    [snip since Lonny says he hasn't read Moncktons reply and uses fallacies to reason he doesn't meet the base standards to comment here ]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Abraham is the one coming out of this looking like a sane reasonable individual. Monckton, on the other hand, comes across as someone who has lost the plot and is ranting and raving.

    Then it is ok for associate professors to put into Mockton’s mouth words he never uttered in the presentation Andrew is complaining about.

    It is obvious that you have not read of the Viscounts complaints about Andrews attacks on him.The very fact that Andrew made a few deductions from his attacking presentation,and not post ANY counterpoints against the Viscounts complaints,is revealing.

    How come you missed that?

    Why are you operating on bias and prejudice against the Viscount?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    You’re right I haven’t read any of Monckton’s 86 pages of bilge.

    [yes, snip... insults from a man who hasn't even read it. -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lonny why are you so determined to embarrass yourself?

    You just revealed that you never read ANY of the Viscounts complaints,thus supporting my statement that you are a prejudiced and biased person.

    I read it and find his complaints revealing about how Andrew attacked him in a manner that is revealing of his dishonesty.It is too bad that people like you will not read on how Andrew was exposed as making up things,irrationally whining about sources and being an all around distorter with possible libelious intent.

    I think you need to purge your stated bias against those who are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Constitutional

    @ Richard S Courtney:

    Richard says:

    “Monckton is a Member of the House of Lords with full privileges to attend the House and to use its facilities (e.g. bars, dining halls, etc.) but with no right to sit and vote in the House.

    This statement is demonstrably false.

    Firstly, as I have already stated above (using an excerpt from the 1999 Act and a quote from the House of Lords Information Office), Monkcton is not a member of the House of Lords. He has NEVER been a member of the House of Lords as the 1999 Act came in to force before the death of his father. Further to my previous statements regarding his membership it should be noted that while the right to sit in the House of Lords was (before the Act came in to force) automatic for hereditary peers it was not receipt of the letters patent that granted that right to sit but but recepit of a writ of summons. An hereditary peer was entitled to receive a writ of summons upon request. This privilege has been withdrawn. The Explanatory Notes to the 1999 Act states the following:

    5. The main provision of the Act restricts membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. No present or future holders of a hereditary peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland 1 , Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or their heirs, have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords by virtue of that peerage, or to sit and vote in committees of the House, or to speak in the House, or to receive a writ of summons, unless they are excepted from this general exclusion by section 2 of the Act.

    Secondly with regard to the privileges of the House, again this is made clear in the Explanatory notes of the Act.

    7. The Act deprives excluded hereditary peers of all the privileges of membership of the House of Lords, including the privileges they enjoyed as members of Parliament. Parliamentary privileges cover various matters, many of which relate to the House of Lords as a whole (such as punishing improper conduct within the House itself), but include some that are personal to individual peers. One of the most important personal privileges is that no action can be taken against a peer for what he or she may say in Parliament. Hereditary peers excluded by the Act also lose the right to be paid allowances and to use the facilities of the House that are available to members, such as its library, research and restaurant facilities. The removal of these rights does not prevent the House from deciding to grant some rights to use the facilities of the House to a hereditary peer under the exercise of its own authority.

    In short Monckton has not right to sit OR use the facilities of the house, there is no such thing as a non-voting or non-sitting or honorary member of the House of Lords. For further information please see the text of Explanatory Notes and the text of the Act itself.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    Sunsettomy, You’re the one embarassing himself, because you seriously have faith in what an unqualified amateur has to say on the subject of climate change.

    [see nearly every comment starts with an ad hom ...JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    What is it about Monckton that has people believing his every word, like he’s some kind of infallible messiah? he’s not the messiah …[snip we never said he was, we are discussing the debating tactics, not the man.]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Lonny Eachus:

    Pease read Monckton’s complaints.

    Until you have done that then your ignorant assertions are a waste of space.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Constitutional:

    You are wrong, but so what? The issue you keep trying to assert is trivial and is a (deliberate?) distraction from Monckton’s real and justified complaints.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cornelius

    @Richard S Courtney:

    “You are wrong”

    If this is the case then perhaps you can point out the flaw in the argument presented above.

    “but so what? The issue you keep trying to assert is trivial”

    Is it trivial as you say? [snip... this is not a legal blog and the legality of peers has zip all to do with climate science. Discuss the errors of the science, not the ad homs. --JN ]

    No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”

    – somehow does not apply to Monckton, you still cannot justify the following claim –

    … with full privileges to attend the House and to use its facilities (e.g. bars, dining halls, etc.) …

    I’ll just quote the relevant part of the Act’s explanatory notes -

    Hereditary peers excluded by the Act also lose the right to be paid allowances and to use the facilities of the House that are available to members, such as its library, research and restaurant facilities.

    It cannot be any plainer. As an excluded peer Monckton does NOT have “full privileges to attend the House and to use its facilities”. Your statement, just by including this untrue clause remains FALSE! Furthermore I am curious to know what source you consulted before making this claim about Monckton’s ability to utilise facilities of the House.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Regarding Monkton’s being unqualified to speak on science issues: I wonder what the Emperor had to say about the one little kid along his parade route who saw the truth and said, “Look mommy, the Emperor has no cloths on.”

    A rained out parade is a rained out parade. What caused the rain is irrelevant in the real world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Cornelius:

    The issue of Monckton’s being a Member of the House of Lord’s is a clear distraction from the real issue that Abraham slandered Monckton repeatedly in Abraham’s false and erroneous presentation.

    The fact that you and others want to press this distraction instead of discussing the real issue tells all that needs to be known concerning the inability of Abraham’s apologists to defend Abraham’s actions.

    And in #275 you say to me:

    I am curious to know what source you consulted before making this claim about Monckton’s ability to utilise facilities of the House.

    I answer that it was an attendant in the House of Lords whom I asked while attending a Dinner there some months ago. I asked because of the smears of Monckton that the likes of you have been spreading across the web.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Lonny Eachus,

    So Monkton is irrelevant, blah, blah, blah and blather, blather, blather.

    So in exactly what is Monkton wrong? You’ve made an accusation amounting to character assassination or close to it. And now it’s time for you to back it up. What say you? In what way is he wrong? Just that he isn’t a scientist isn’t a sufficient argument on your part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cornelius/Constitutional

    Richard.

    I am not a scientist. There are others on here who are more capable of discussion that subject. The issue at hand is Monckton’s credibility, and here were are dealing with representation or misrepresentation easily verifiable facts. I am sure that you are aware that there several other issues that call Monckton’s credibility into question that have been raised here and elsewhere.

    By the way, with regards his credibility I can’t help but find myself amused by this excerpt from Monckton’s list of questions:

    108: … a medieval stained-glass window at Amiens Cathedral in Northern France shows wine-grapes being grown in the region, a feat that is impossible today because it is too cold; …

    I find it hard to believe that the Viscount is unaware of the many notable wines which are grown not far from Amiens in the Champagne region. Indeed Lord Monckton should come here to East Sussex in England (somewhat further north than Amiens) where not 10 miles from my home some excellent wines are now produced.

    The following facts remain:
    — Monckton is not a member of House of Lords despite his protestations to the contrary. The 1999 Act is very clear. I cannot fathom how you can dispute it.
    — Monckton, as per the Act is NOT entitled to use the privileges of the House of Lords as a true member would be.

    I note that you have not responded to -

    “If this is the case then perhaps you can point out the flaw in the argument presented above.”

    Forgive me for forgetting to use a question mark, but it was intended as a question.

    As the text of the Act clearly indicates your attendant friend is incorrect, and therefore so are you, but you seem to have some trouble conceding the point. I might surmise that it is possible that Monckton has on one or more occasions found himself invited to the House as a guest of one of the genuine members and perhaps this has led to the confusion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Cornelius/Constitutional:

    At #279 you accurately say to me:

    I note that you have not responded to -

    “If this is the case then perhaps you can point out the flaw in the argument presented above.”

    True. And there are an infinite number of other totally irrelevant subjects you could raise that I would also ignore.

    As I said at #277:

    The issue of Monckton’s being a Member of the House of Lord’s is a clear distraction from the real issue that Abraham slandered Monckton repeatedly in Abraham’s false and erroneous presentation.

    The fact that you and others want to press this distraction instead of discussing the real issue tells all that needs to be known concerning the inability of Abraham’s apologists to defend Abraham’s actions.

    Clearly, the subject of this thread is not a matter that you want discussed. And the reason is obvious.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    Dude, Monckton is not a scientist.

    [snip... an endless ad hom. No reasoning. No references. Just one repetitive insult... JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Lonny Eachus,

    So your true colors show — just another loquacious jerk happy to point fingers, carry on the fine tradition of character assassination but not back up what you say.

    Who is Lindzen that I should think him so grand? He’s a skeptic to be sure but seems to be afraid to openly butt heads with the people Joanne challenges here every day, publically, high profile. The people most in need of the hard medicine aren’t the scientists but the politicians, the IPCC, the UN and the worthless mainstream press. If all you can do is worry about maintaining your high academic standards of behavior on the other side of the fence you do no one any good.

    Whatever Monkton’s faults he’s not afraid to stand up and argue the cause with anyone. Where have you been doing the same lately? I’ve not seen your name on the hit list of anyone we fight back against.

    You’ve just demonstrated all the fine character traits of every other fool who comes along. By the way, had I been you I would have ignored me or made a much more measured response, recognizing that it was an attempt to get under your skin and see what you’re made of. So I found what I was looking for when you just went off on me like a bomb.

    PS:

    I know nothing of whether you’re a proper climate scientist or not. You’ve neither presented credentials nor explained your background. Remember, you came knocking on our door, not we on yours. So there’s a duty to back up what you say that does fall squarely on you. And if you’re angry with Monkton I’d say that Christopher Monkton is the best man to take that up with, not anyone here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Regarding Monkton’s being unqualified to speak on science issues: I wonder what the Emperor had to say about the one little kid along his parade route who saw the truth and said, “Look mommy, the Emperor has no cloths on.”

    He said, “Put a spear through that annoying kid and tell the people they jolly well better start cheering about it.”

    And the moral of this story is you don’t get to be emperor by taking shit from whingers. And the moral of the moral is, we don’t have an emperor any more and we would like to keep it that way — for very good reason.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lonnie says:

    Sunsettomy, You’re the one embarassing himself, because you seriously have faith in what an unqualified amateur has to say on the subject of climate change. What Monckton says about climate science is irrelevant, unless you happen to be one of those gullible glassy eyed conspiracy schmucks like Orly Taitz.
    Now if you want to trawl through Monckton’s hypocritical crap that’s your business. But don’t try to kid yourself that it is in any way relevant to convincing any rational people of climate skeptic arguments, or that Monckton is in any way a scientist.
    I think you need to purge your fawning acceptance of unqualified cranks like Monckton, and start listening to some climate skeptic scientists. Or are you prejudiced against rationality?

    While I exposed you for being irrationally prejudiced against the Viscount.Admitted by YOU,

    You’re right I haven’t read any of Monckton’s 86 pages of bilge. Monckton is a nutter and a liar, and more crucially NOT A SCIENTIST. Monckton is irrelevant to rational climate skepticism, which seems in short supply amongst some parts of the climate skeptic community.

    ROFLMAO!

    You continue to rant like a child.When are you ever going to go beyond the “I hate Monckton” crap and start telling us what you think is wrong about his complaints about Abraham.

    The problem YOU have is that you chose to be ignorant about this controversy and run on prejudice instead.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Moderators,

    Why is Lonnie allowed to troll so easily,while at the same time he avoids telling us why he thinks the Viscount is wrong regarding what Abraham said about him?

    I have lately been told elsewhere that this comment section in your blog is getting tedious,because it is getting polluted with lots of trolling comments,that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    I recently saw a skeptic forum die for this very reason.It will be gone August 1st.Because the Moderators let a few AGW believers run all over it with dishonest postings.

    I know all this because I have been in communication with the owner of the blog/forum.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Sunsettommy #285

    Have to say I agree.

    One thing for the other side to visit with a relevant discussion, quite another to come here with only a bottle of vitriol in hand.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    [still no single point that relates to something Monckton or Abrahams actually said. ...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    [vexacious repetition... yawn JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lonny Eachus

    Waaah! Why are you questioning my infallible messiah? At least my unqualified crank gets up and consistently makes a fool of himself!
    If you don’t think that we shouldn’t be represented by scientists then that is the problem here. Joanne is quick to label AGW supporters as being practitioners of a faith.


    [That's the point Loony. We don't have scientific gods. we don't care about qualifications and degrees, we are impressed by people who can reason. You can't. No more ad homs from you. --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo and moderators,

    I have to agree with Sunsettommy at post 285 and not just about Lonny Eachus but several others generally. It’s one thing to let them have their say if they want to and quite another when they go on and on using up time and energy heading for the same nowhere they started out for. It drags down the quality of discussion, sometimes right down to the gutter. And frankly, it is off-putting. Who wants to come here to see childish name calling, playground level fighting and from one person, obscene taunts thrown around?

    As a child I lived through those things as we all have and said all those words myself (and regretted it later) but at some point I had to grow up. The general level of participation here has been good adult quality since I started following this blog. And Jo, you can’t afford to let that slip away.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sunsettommy, Roy, Mark, yes you are right (sorry I’ve been out). The idea of letting someone comment who hadn’t even read the document we were discussing was a waste of airtime from the start. The endless ad homs, insults, and not one substantiated point pretty much ensure Loony is in the sin-bin ad infinitum.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Lonny Eachus @289

    Just three things:

    1. I have sufficient respect for others to address you by the same name you use here on this blog. That you do not have that respect tells me volumes about you and your character. You shame the cause you say you represent.

    2. I do not rely on Christopher Monkton or any other single individual for what I believe. That is pure folly and I’m wise enough to know it. I do not defend Christopher Monkton either. That job belongs to him if he thinks he needs defending. My complaint is entirely with you and your demeanor on this blog. The plain and obvious fact is that when someone speaks the truth it trumps titles and high position along with every degree and highfalutin credential in the world — something you need to keep a firm grip on. And I don’t believe the moral of the emperor’s invisible cloths fable is lost on you either — you simply choose to ignore actual wisdom. You refuse to address a real issue, the Monkton-Abraham dispute. Are you going to keep it up? You’ve already proven me and others to be correct in our judgment of you.

    3. I will stipulate that Monkton has made mistakes so you need not go there again. Otherwise, let him among us who is without sin cast the first stone. We all know your opinion of the man now so it’s time to move on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Roy #292

    Further to your comment, Monckton himself has stated that nobody should take his word for anything, people should do their own research and not rely on “experts”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cornelius/Constitutional

    A part of one of my earlier posts has been censored. The text was valid commentary in the context of the rest of the post concerning the credibility of Monckton and his repeated and false claims of his membership of the House of Lords. The reason given was that it is nothing to do with Climate Science and because it contained ad homs. It it not a fallacy to call into question the credibility of someone who falsely claims membership of a body of which they are not legally a member.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark,

    Yes, I had forgotten that. It tends to shoot down the outrageous claims made against him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cornelius/Constitutional

    JoNova says:

    “Sunsettommy, Roy, Mark, yes you are right (sorry I’ve been out). The idea of letting someone comment who hadn’t even read the document we were discussing was a waste of airtime from the start.”

    My impression is that a number of the commentators on this post have not listened to Abraham’s presentation. Indeed given the title of this thread “Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths” I suspect that JoNova has almost certainly not listened to both presentations, because I see no “surrender” at all. Perhaps JoNova could point to some specific points that have been surrendered? Can you point to anything that was in the first presentation that is absent in the second one that might constitute surrender?

    Given that The lawyers representing the University of St. Thomas have indicated that they will entertain no further correspondence from Monckton, in regards to his demands, and that further derogatory comments made towards the Abraham, the University and the President of the College (such as calling Fr. Dease a “creep” on the Alex Jones Show) might result in legal action, I detect no signs of surrender whatsoever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    Vince Whirlwind: @July 23rd, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    A good summary. We should also note that we are encouraged to believe that Abraham has surrendered to Monckton, and that any of Monckton’s points are in any way relevant to Abraham’s presentation.

    What Abraham has shown, clearly, and without any noticeable hostility to Monckton, is that Monckton’s presentation contains a great many errors of fact and that his interpretations differ substantially from the conclusions of the very scientists whom he quotes.

    Monckton’s so called rebuttal does not address any of the questions raised. It is an attempt at smear and bullying. I encourage Monckton to take this to court. If he does, there is no chance of a win, as there is nothing libellous in the Abraham presentation. Monckton himself probably would be in a poor situation if some of his actions over this issue were taken to court.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hi Jo – not really on topic of this thread, but I noticed this blog entry at WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/ and I thought it may generate some interesting debate on this site given the wide range of opinions expressed on the issue by various posters on the skeptical side of things on this site. I’m interested to see who thinks Pielke Sr is wrong, and why.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Thanks Michael.
    I’m left wondering if many of the commenters here haven’t bothered to view the presentation AND haven’t even bothered reading Monckton’s response.

    These three questions, for example, are puzzling, to say the least:

    “17: Please provide a full academic resume. Though you have described yourself as a “professor”
    more than once in this presentation, are you in fact an associate professor?”

    Monckton, of course, is not only not a “professor”, he doesn’t even have an undergraduate degree in any kind of science, so this question is just pointless.

    “18: Please explain which (if any) of the scientific topics covered in my talk fall within your particular field of scientific expertise, and, for each such topic, why your expertise is relevant.”

    Another own-goal, Monckton being an ex-journalist with no scientific expertise.

    “19: Please provide a full list, with references, of all peer-reviewed papers you have published on the science of climate change, including those specifically having a bearing on the scientific topics covered in my talk.”

    Gee whiz, I’m willing to bet Abraham has *at least as many* as Monckton does. Seeing as Monckton has none himself. What a pointless question.

    But anyway, quite apart from the huge number of argumentative “questions” of Monckton’s which have no bearing on the science, what about questions of actual fact?

    “30: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that “Sea levels are not rising at all”? Did I display, during my talk, a slide showing sea-level rise since 1993? Hint: the slide is below.”

    Yes, and the slide says in big letters “SO SEA LEVEL HAS NOT RISEN FOR FOUR YEARS” which is misleading and a false statement. It begs the question – Why did Monckton, working in late 2009, exclude the data for 2008?

    Here is a factual graph (up-to-date for 2009, as well):
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

    It’s almost impossible to find even a 12-month period where no sea level rise occurs.

    Is Monckton going to contact all the people who attended his talks to warn them that this particular slide mis-led them?
    Obviously not if he’s trying to argue that Abraham was wrong to call this slide misleading.

    Just one more:

    35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area “is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007”? Hint: The slide is below.

    The slide says “Arctic summer sea-ice area is just fine: it is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007″.

    This is two false statements – Arctic summer sea-ice is not “just fine”, and it certainly isn’t showing any sign of recovering at the moment.
    Here is the facts:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
    As you can see, 2010 is flirting with breaking the 2007 record.

    I can’t say I’ve checked every single one of Monckton’s 466 questions, but I’ve tried and failed to find even one which addresses any actual mistake made by Abraham.

    If Monckton’s worried about his reputation, he would do better to revise his presentations so that they accurately reflect the facts, rather than embarking on ranting attacks on harmless inoffensive academics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Vince Whirlwind:

    At #299 you conclude:

    If Monckton’s worried about his reputation, he would do better to revise his presentations so that they accurately reflect the facts, rather than embarking on ranting attacks on harmless inoffensive academics.

    Well, we can agree that Abraham is “harmless” because his attempt at a savage attack on Monckton has had all the effect of an assault by a dead sheep.

    However, “inoffensive” he is not. Abraham made an unsolicited, untruthful, and libelous attack on Monckton. By any standards, that is grossly offensive.

    Monckton’s response filled 86 pages and consisted of 466 specific questions that provided hundreds of complaints against the attack from Abraham.

    There could be expected to be a range of points from weak to strong in so complete a rebuttal as that from Monckton. And supporters of Abraham (i.e. AGW-advocates) with more than a modicum of intelligence could be expected to dispute the weak points.

    But the initial response (here and elsewhere) from AGW-advocates was to support Abraham by providing ad homs. against Monckton and to try to dispute Monckton’s inheritance (e.g. his title and Membership of the House of Lords).

    Clearly, even the strongest supporters of Abraham have difficulties finding fault in Monckton’s complaints at Abraham’s falsehoods.

    You raise four issues.

    The first three of the issues you mention are requests for Abraham to demonstrate that he has superior expertise in climate science to Monckton. This is pertinent because Abraham has less expertise in the subject than Monckton but claimed his presentation demonstrated Monckton’s lack of expertise.

    Abraham’s attack attempted to demean Monckton’s expertise in analysis of climate science. Your defence of Abraham is very, very weak if the best you can find wrong with Monckton’s complaint is that Monckton asked Abraham’s to justify that Abraham knows anything about climate science.

    Your fourth issue is plain daft. As you say, Monckton was right and Abraham lied. The proof of this is your words: i.e.

    Just one more:

    35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area “is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007”? Hint: The slide is below.
    The slide says “Arctic summer sea-ice area is just fine: it is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007″.

    This is two false statements – Arctic summer sea-ice is not “just fine”, and it certainly isn’t showing any sign of recovering at the moment.
    Here is the facts:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
    As you can see, 2010 is flirting with breaking the 2007 record.

    Clearly, Arctic summer sea-ice is “just fine” according to the data you cite yourself. Also, the Arctic ice cover is now similar to its 30 year average. Ice loss from July 1 through July 23 has been the slowest on record in the JAXA database:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/sea-ice-news-15/
    Ice loss during July has been about one half that of 2007.

    Consider the difference between 2010 and 2007 melt: 2010 started the month half a million km² behind 2007, and is now half a million km² ahead of 2007.
    Now that is recovery!

    And you say:

    I can’t say I’ve checked every single one of Monckton’s 466 questions, but I’ve tried and failed to find even one which addresses any actual mistake made by Abraham.

    Well, I give you A-plus for effort and D-minus for achievement. Either you are being deliberately obtuse because you are saying Abraham’s lies are not “actual mistakes” (which is logically true) or you have reading difficulties. For example, as your own words demonstrate, Abraham asserted that Monckton said;

    “Sea levels are not rising at all”?

    But Monckton never said any such thing!
    There are hundreds of other lies from Abraham that Monckton has refuted. If you did read Monckton’s rebuttal then you have read them and their rebuttals.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard – have you really read Monckton’s questions? My god you’ve just made me do it AGAIN.

    So for your benefit.

    Starting from 1, there are not actually any actual questions (note many are not questions in the sense of questioning scince, but like a lawyer may set a scene, so many answers are just “yes” or “no” and there would be no debate over the answer… a bit like “Is this blog called jo nova?”

    So the 1st real question I can find comes in Q27-28… where Monckton talks about Abraham’s claim that the world’s not warming… and is very specific about a slide plastered with “THE LIE NAILED”… so firstly one could take from that that Monckton is calling the temp record a lie…. however there is also a slide in Monckton’s presentation that shows a cooling trend over the past 8-10 years… so consistent with a message that “The world’s not warming” as alleged.

    Q30 “What evidence do you have that I said or lislead “the sea level is not rising at all”… Monckton cites a slide he uses that shows sea level rise since 1993…. HOWEVER that slide clearly has a red arrow at the top right that has a horizontal line showing sea level rise has stopped recently… with a heading “so lea level has not risen for 4 years”. The accusaion “sea level is not rising at all” is in present tense and matches the red arrow and heading of monckton’s graph.

    Now Richard, please excuse me for only getting to say question 36 out of the hundreds, but I do hope that you agree that of these first 36 questions only two are actual questions relating to content of the presentation by Abraham, and even slight examination of the accusation and defence shows that Abraham has accurately represented Monckton’s presentation.

    you say “Clearly, even the strongest supporters of Abraham have difficulties finding fault in Monckton’s complaints at Abraham’s falsehoods.”

    well there you go I’ve started from scratch and the 1st two of Monckton’s complaints are not substantiated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry early on there I’d meant “Starting from 1, there are not actually MANY actual questions”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Also, the Arctic ice cover is now similar to its 30 year average.”

    Pardon Richard???? Pardon????
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    It is well under 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average (which itself is higher than the 30 year average).

    just another basic everyday FACT that will no doubt be ignored.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    Thankyou for addressing the real issues in your posts at #301, #302 and #303. I will try to answer them to your satisfaction (although I doubt that is possible).

    I shall not address your slur stated in #303 that says;

    just another basic everyday FACT that will no doubt be ignored.

    I always address “facts”: the record shows that ignoring them is your forte and not mine (others can check this for themselves which is why I am not addressing it).

    You assert:

    Starting from 1, there are not actually any actual questions (note many are not questions in the sense of questioning scince, but like a lawyer may set a scene, so many answers are just “yes” or “no” and there would be no debate over the answer… a bit like “Is this blog called jo nova?”

    And

    Now Richard, please excuse me for only getting to say question 36 out of the hundreds, but I do hope that you agree that of these first 36 questions only two are actual questions relating to content of the presentation by Abraham, and even slight examination of the accusation and defence shows that Abraham has accurately represented Monckton’s presentation.

    No!
    Your error derives from the fact – which you state – that you only read questions 1 to 36 out of 664 questions. Most of the questions that you mention are Monckton’s requests to Abraham for confirmation that Monckton’s statements of what he understands to be Abraham’s points are correct. This is not being “like a lawyer” but is a clear demonstration that Monckton seeks to refute what Abraham intended and not merely what Monckton thought Abraham intended.

    Indeed, the overarching issue is stated by Monckton as being one such question that he heads to Abraham as:
    ‘Your General Allegations’

    And it is this:

    26: Please confirm that I have quoted accurately the general allegations that you make at (2) about some of the main points you say I said or, by implication, misled my audience about in my Minnesota talk:

    “Chris Monckton gave a presentation last October at Bethel University in Minnesota, and, while his presentation was held in one of their auditoriums it was actually sponsored by a Minnesota free trade organization, a business organization. And Chris Monckton is a great speaker: he’s got a British accent, which lends great credibility to the things he says. Also, he has a good demeanor, he’s a compelling speaker. And if you listen to what he said, you would come to the conclusion that the following things are true:
    “The world’s not warming.”
    “Sea levels are not rising at all.”
    “Ice is not melting.”
    “Polar bears aren’t threatened.”
    “The ocean isn’t heating.”
    “There’s no such thing as ocean acidification.”
    “Scientists are lying.”
    “There’s a conspiracy.” (2)

    And, Matt, in your posts #301, #302 and #303, your only substantive point is as follows:

    Q30 “What evidence do you have that I said or lislead “the sea level is not rising at all”… Monckton cites a slide he uses that shows sea level rise since 1993…. HOWEVER that slide clearly has a red arrow at the top right that has a horizontal line showing sea level rise has stopped recently… with a heading “so lea level has not risen for 4 years”. The accusaion “sea level is not rising at all” is in present tense and matches the red arrow and heading of monckton’s graph.

    Aha! So, the point is semantic and not factual!

    Monckton specifically debunks Abraham on the facts of these matters in his points numbered 51 to 61 and in his points at 238 to 248. Importantly, Monckton asks Abraham:

    246: Is it not clear to you, even from the most cursory examination of the CSIRO slide, that the rate of sealevel rise over the last two decades of the record is no steeper than, and perhaps even rather less than, the rate of sea-level rise from 1930-1950 and again from 1970-1990?

    But you did not read any of that. Instead, you stopped at Monckton’s point 36 and asserted that Monckton had not refuted Abraham’s lie.

    And you conclude by asserting:

    well there you go I’ve started from scratch and the 1st two of Monckton’s complaints are not substantiated.

    First “two”? You only addressed one, and Monckton demolished Abraham on that completely and irrefutably as you would have known if you had read what Monckton wrote.

    A classic fail, Matt. Absolutely classic.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    Oops! I apologise.

    I think you did intend to mention two points and not one. And I think I have probably misunderstood your intention. Sorry.

    If I have misunderstood then your second point was on #303 and challenged me, not Monckton.

    Clearly, I should have pointed to what Monckton said on the matter.

    Monckton deals with the sea ice issue in his points numbered 34 to 37 that say;

    34: What evidence do you have for your assertion that I said or misled my audience into believing that “Ice is not melting” (2)?

    35: Did I display, during my talk, a slide stating that Arctic summer sea-ice area “is recovering from a 30-year low in 2007”? Hint: The slide is below.

    36: Is it not evident from that slide that I did not say “Ice is not melting” (2), but that instead I stated that Arctic sea-ice had reached a 30-year low in 2007, from which it is recovering?

    37: Given the plain wording of this slide, are you now prepared to retract your assertion that I had led my audience to believe that “Ice is not melting” (2)?

    We can debate the interpretation that the ice is “recovering” but the point of this thread is the dispute between Monckton and Abraham, and on this issue of “Ice is not melting” there can be no doubt concerning the fact that Abraham lied.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hi Richard, I did address two points in my post. Monckton’s 27/28 is about world warming. Q30 is about sea levels rising… but both have very similar answers so no worries.

    My comment in 303 was not targeting you, more a general exasperation in the direction of most skeptics around these parts.

    Lol “Abraham lied”… if he lied in the same way that I do about the $5000 bet then I guess that is just a “lie in the mind of Richard” so that’s ok I’ll agree, in that he didn’t lie.

    This “recovering” arctic sea ice is a classic example. it clearly gives the impression that arctic sea ice is increasing, in complete contrast to the actual trend. The word “recovering” clearly suggests things will improve further. If A doctor makes it so I will die in 1 hour not 10 minutes I hope no one thinks my condition is “improving”, at least not in any notable way.

    It is all tricks and wordplay I’m afraid Richard.

    You tell me MOnckton deals with this and that here and there. I have read it all before, but today after your post I thought I’d start from scratch… and much as you “may” be right about other points, I started at the beginning and by question 36 I find a lot of Monckton prattle, and two points that can be argued and on both of them Monckton is caught short.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Aha! So, the point is semantic and not factual!”

    EXACTLY – Monckton’s entire piece is semantic and non-factual at last we agree on something.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    You admit that you have not read Monckton’s complaints but assert Monckton is wrong.

    You refer to the bet you offered but failed to honour when you lost it, then call your refusal to admit your dishonorable behaviour “semantic”.

    You say that Monckton’s complaints at similar lies to yours are similarly “semantic” (and I agree they are).

    You say that one of Monckton’s graphs “Gives an impression” so Abraham is right to accuse Monckton of saying “Sea levels are not rising at all” despite the remainder of Monckton’s graphs showing – and explaining – recent sea level rise shows no acceleration from its rate over recent millenia.

    If your daft attempt at defence of Abraham is fooling anybody then it can only be fooling you.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Richard, you bring up Monckton’s question:

    246: Is it not clear to you, even from the most cursory examination of the CSIRO slide, that the rate of sealevel rise over the last two decades of the record is no steeper than, and perhaps even rather less than, the rate of sea-level rise from 1930-1950 and again from 1970-1990?

    Now, CSIRO disagrees with Monckton over the take Monckton tries to spin over CSIRO’s data:

    This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century.

    This is in fact a perfect example of the maino point Abraham has made throughout his presentation: Monckton quotes the experts, and then mis-represents their position.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “You admit that you have not read Monckton’s complaints”

    Imagine if Abraham had said similar about Monckton… There would be a 446 question response.

    I have read every single one of them, my point above is that I;ve then summarised the first 36, two of which are useful, and both of which are wrong. Must I go through the entire 446 point by point… the judge would already have dismissed the case by now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Vince Whirlwind:

    At #309 you assert:

    Monckton quotes the experts, and then mis-represents their position.

    No!
    As the illustration you cite demnstrates, Monckton presents the data provided by those whom you call “the experts” and he clearly states his interpretation of that data.

    Abraham does not dispute Monckton’s interpretation.
    Abraham asserts Monckton said something he did not.

    (Incidentally, you should know that accepting the spin “the experts” – whomever they may be – put on their data is the antithesis of science.)

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    At #310 you say:

    my point above is that I;ve then summarised the first 36, two of which are useful, and both of which are wrong.

    Well, if that is your point then it is both wrong and silly: see my posts at #304, #305 and #308.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’ll have to take your word for it Richard, after all you are an IPCC expert reviewer and an Atmospheric Scientist…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Vince:

    I wouldn’t necessarily be quoting the CSIRO these days. The new boss is a former merchant banker and we all know what they want, don’t we?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    At #313 you say to me:

    I’ll have to take your word for it Richard, after all you are an IPCC expert reviewer and an Atmospheric Scientist…

    No! You do not “have to take [my] word for it”.
    Nobody has to “take the word” of you, me or anybody else.

    Any statement needs to be assessed for its accuracy and relevance regardless of its source.

    And this principle goes to the heart of what this thread is about.

    Some – including you – assert that Monckton must be wrong because you do not like what he says, and that Abraham must be right because he attacks Monckton.

    But rational people read what Monckton and Abrahaham have written and can see that Abraham lied about what Monckton has said and written.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Some – including you – assert that Monckton must be wrong because you do not like what he says, and that Abraham must be right because he attacks Monckton.”

    Again Richard I’d be taking you to court if I was Monckton with outrageous claims like that. Can you show me where I have said that, and if not please see fit to post an apology/retraction and make a $5000 payment to Men of the Trees.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    You really are getting desperate: changing the subject, flying kites, posing straw men, and now denying your own words.

    At #316 I wrote:

    “Some – including you – assert that Monckton must be wrong because you do not like what he says, and that Abraham must be right because he attacks Monckton.”

    And at #317 you have replied:

    Can you show me where I have said that

    Of course I can.
    At # 301 you wrote:

    Now Richard, please excuse me for only getting to say question 36 out of the hundreds, but I do hope that you agree that of these first 36 questions only two are actual questions relating to content of the presentation by Abraham, and even slight examination of the accusation and defence shows that Abraham has accurately represented Monckton’s presentation.

    So, you say you only read the first 36 points and – as I showed – Monckton’s later points demolish any suggestion that “Abraham has accurately represented Monckton’s presentation” of the matters covered in those 36 points.

    Only bothering to read the first 36 points then pontificating that Abraham “accurately represented Monckton’s presentation ” clearly demonstrates that you think “Monckton must be wrong because you do not like what he says, and that Abraham must be right because he attacks Monckton”.

    You later said you had read all Monckton’s points, but that was after I pointed out that that your failure to bother reading most of Monckton’s rebuttal clearly demonstrates your attitude to Abraham’s lies and Monckton’s rebuttal of them.

    Keep trying, Matt. Your continued nonsense does more to support the validity of Monckton’s complaint than anything I could write.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    villabolo

    Richard S Courtney says:

    “Only bothering to read the first 36 points then pontificating that Abraham “accurately represented Monckton’s presentation ” clearly demonstrates that you think “Monckton must be wrong because you do not like what he says, and that Abraham must be right because he attacks Monckton”.”
    **********************************************
    Richard and company. If you have an acquaintance that has made, let’s say, 50 statements of importance to you and you find out that 5 of them are damn lies what would you think of the rest?

    Would you seriously think that one is obligated to investigate the other 45 statements before making a judgment?

    No. Intuition, which in this case would be a form of a instinctive statistical analysis, would tell you that what you have just learned, about a fraction of those statements being false, is representative of the remaining statements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Richard said:

    We can debate the interpretation that the ice is “recovering” but the point of this thread is the dispute between Monckton and Abraham, and on this issue of “Ice is not melting” there can be no doubt concerning the fact that Abraham lied.

    You are wrong, and I shall explain why:

    Logically, ice cannot be both “recovering” and “melting” at the same time. It can “recover” OR it can “melt”.

    Therefore, Monckton’s statement “ice is recovering” clearly conveys the same meaning as “ice has stopped melting”, which is a false statement in the context of the ongoing record of ice extent or ice volume.

    In conclusion, Abraham was correct in identifying Monckton’s statement about ice as being intended to convey the meaning that the “ice has stopped melting” and Abraham was correct to expose this as a false statement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    villabolo

    Christopher: A man of many talents

    Friday, 4th June 2010

    UKIP’s new joint Deputy Leader, Christopher Monckton, 58, is a true polymath with a range of knowledge and interests extending across medicine, finance, journalism and science.

    **********

    2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no
    side-effects. Tests continue.

    http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents

    The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. Matthew 12:42 New International Version


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis,

    Graves’ Disease and MS are not infectious diseases. So this fits with the usual Monckton pseudo science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cornelius/Constitutional

    Mockton told by the Lords to stop calling himself a member of the House of Lords (because he isn’t).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne

    Just curious, when exactly will he start proceedings. Can’t wait.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne

    By ‘he’ I of course mean Lord Monckton. When will he take John Abrahams to court?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] in glee at an attack on Viscount Monckton.  Now the attacker has been forced to admit the truth, retract most of his accusations and generally grovel to avoid being sued out of existence.  What do the celebrating hippies have [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Groper

    To date, all Monckton has given is a muddled response to Abrahams. What worrying is that all the sources referenced by Monckton have written back refuting how Monckton has presented their work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Groper

    Apparently Gore said he invented the internet, but Monckton claims he found the cure for AIDS and flu, won the Falklands war, Thatcher’s science advisor, and a member of the House of Lords.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Groping for another ad hom eh?

    Shame you don’t have any evidence…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gropers attempt to appear intelligent:

    To date, all Monckton has given is a muddled response to Abrahams. What worrying is that all the sources referenced by Monckton have written back refuting how Monckton has presented their work.

    and,

    Apparently Gore said he invented the internet, but Monckton claims he found the cure for AIDS and flu, won the Falklands war, Thatcher’s science advisor, and a member of the House of Lords.

    My reply:


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    I’ve got Abraham’s Presentation (http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) and Monckton’s deliberate response (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf) (as opposed to his hasty response (http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/).) So I’m trying to go through them point by point.

    So Monckton has this paragraph under the heading “Malice” on page V, that begins with:

    “Abraham’s talk says that, though he is ‘a scientist’ (at his slide 2) with ‘a background in the area of
    energy, heat and fluids, which is germane to the topic of climate change’ (his slide 3)…”

    Neither the phrase, “a scientist” nor the phrase, “a background in the area of energy, heat and fluids, which is germane to the topic of climate change” appears on slides 2 through 4 of Abraham’s presentations.

    I also checked the slides towards the end where Abraham discusses credibility, and I don’t see these phrases there either.

    Am I looking in the right place?

    Thanks


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kristian

    Obviously Jo Nova did not read Moncktons response to Professor John Abrahams debunking of Monckton. She claims that Monckton responded “in a polite list of mistakes, errors, and misquotes”. Here are some ofthe actual vitriolic and hatefilled words Monckton used:
    “So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn)”.
    “Here’s the thing. All of the sciences are becoming increasingly specialized. So most scientists — the snake-like 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”

    If Jo Nova can only see this as “polite” then she is just as wacko as the Mad Monck.

    [You seem to be the proverbial POT-KETTLE] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Kristian, tis you who hasn’t read the reply. There is no instance of the word “prawn” or “snake” in the 466 page document. I seem to recall that Monckton did unwisely use the first term in a speech, and then apologized.

    We’re still waiting for Abrahams to correct all his errors and apologize too.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It is inexcusable to anyone at that academic level to use that kind of language. In an era when personal Image is everything, its a shame to see such lowly behavior. More then that, these two professors are probably idols for a few hundred (or more, or less) students. What about them? Are they still going to look up to them?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnomish

    time for some follow up?
    did monckton sue or was it all bluff?
    did bulldust give jo $20?

    i think monckton should have sued – he could have got the very first trophy and broken the long chain of impunity.
    sure wouldn’t mind hearing from mr. monckton bring us up to date on this…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    I can’t believe this issue is still being discussed. Monckton tried to bully Abraham, and failed. He was comprehensively exposed as the fraud he is, and his list of questions and response to Abraham showed him to be unable to engage in a civilised debate.

    The fact is that Abraham, and his University are perfectly happy to stand up to Monckton, because all he has is bluster, that wouldn’t impress a court, or a real scientist.

    Abraham is doing well, as shown by his involvement in crticising Spencer’s recent paper. BTW: The editor of the remote sensing journal that published Spencer’s paper has resigned due to the failure of the pear review to pick up the fact that Spencer’s assertions had already been refuted:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper


    Report this

    00

  • #

    bwahahahahahahaha!!!

    Another suck up for Abraham has appeared.Even when Abraham backpedaled in his reply to the Viscount’s detailed response.

    Did you even bother to read the posted article at the top?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    Abraham backpedalled? I don’t think so.

    The fact is the article posted at the top cites no instance where Abraham has retracted anything he says, apart from claiming that a second version of presentation was tamer.

    What Abraham clearly demonstrated was how Lord Monckton has comprehensively misquoted from, and misrepresented the science. Monckton’s presentations are fraudulent, and Abraham’s presentation proves that to any reasonable person.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    BTW: Gore never said he invented the internet, though Monckton has *discovered* cures for AIDS, and MS.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Michael Webster – go find a quote where Monckton says he’s cured AIDS and MS – and don’t edit it to leave out the parts where he says he’s waiting on results from the clinical trials which are underway – and can’t confirm anything until those results are in.

    If you can’t find a quote, you can apologize for being a foolish patsy of the anti-Monckton hate campaign.

    Abrahams had no reply to Moncktons caning rebuttal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael Webster

    It takes a few seconds to find his quotes – but because they are cited by other people, but this one is pretty unequivocal:

    BTW: I assume that when he says he’s cured people of MS and HIV, it means he has a cure.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Michael Webster

    Whoops, that didn’t come out right:

    Video: See around 3:00…


    Report this

    01