Open Parachute

• RSS
• Latest Posts
• Archive
• About
• Contact

Don’t trust Monckton! Ken Perrott Jun 01

12 Comments

This post is syndicated from Open Parachute » SciBlogs – Original Post

This is a great presentation which needs wider coverage. In it Professor John Abraham from the School of Engineering (University of St Thomas, Minnesota) does an excellent job of dissecting Lord Christopher Monckton’s deceit on climate change. Not a single one of Monckton’s claims stand up to scrutiny (see Abraham presentation or click on image).

Many of the claims and presentations made by those opposing the science of climate change could be similarly debunked. Unfortunately, this takes time. It’s quicker to lie or make wild claims than it is to do a critical assessment of evidence.

The great thing is that Abraham has put in the time for us. He critiques of presentation made by Monckton last October. Abraham has chased up the references. Emailed the scientists who did the work. His presentation is balanced, unemotional and authoritative. But very telling.

After watching this if you are honest you would never take any of Monckton’s claims seriously again. He has been thoroughly discredited.

It’s over an hour long – but well worth the effort and time of watching.

UPDATE: Abraham’s presentation has now been made available on YouTube as videos which can be downloaded. There is also a complete list of his source on Planet Climate.

2nd UPDATE: Monckton has now attempted to refute Abraham’s analysis (see A Preliminary Response to John Abraham — the extremists join the climate debate at last!). Bit of a tirade, I’m afraid.

Permalink

Similar articles

 Print This Post

• Post Tags:
• anthropogenic global warming
• climate change
• global warming
• Lord Christopher Monckton
• politics
• SciBlogs

12 Comments Leave a comment

1. 
   joefone 101 days ago

   Ahem! Do you guys ever get the nasty feeling you’ve backed the wrong donkey? Your colleagues in the UK appear to be backing away from the AGW scam/myth.

   “Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change skepticism” Times Online | 28 May 2010

   “Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

   The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.”

   See here for the full story: http://tinyurl.com/268nrac

   Interesting that there’s been no mention of that by the RSNZ!

2. 
   Ken Perrott 101 days ago

   And joefone – isn’t this a bit desperate?

   Every time an organisation reviews and updates its policy statements do you hope against hell that they are going to come out against science??

   Watch Abraham’s presentation. It may give you an idea of how good the science is and how people like Monckton have been lying through their teeth.

   It’s an excellent presentation.

3. 
   joefone 101 days ago

   Yeah right. That must be why he won the Oxford Union Debate:

   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/

4. 
   Ken Perrott 101 days ago

   joefone – truth is based on reality, not debates or subjective assessments of them.

   What is it exactly that makes you commit to Monckton? Why do you say “we”?

5. 
   joefone 101 days ago

   Ken Perrott: “truth is based on reality, not debates or subjective assessments of them”

   Like the IPCC’s computer models? Yeah right, plenty of “reality” there and no “subjective assessments”.

   Tui billboard anyone?

6. 
   Ken Perrott 101 days ago

   So joefone, nothing sensible to say then? Nothing soecific to deal with?

   Not a very good position to be in, is it? You are rxpressinff a prejudice, not participating in a discussion.

   Pity, not realy worth the effort.

7. 
   joefone 101 days ago

   Funny how AGW alarmists always try that line when the shoe is on the other foot and felt a raw nerve hit: “Nothing soecific (sic) to deal with”. Presumably you meant ’scientific’? (or did you mean siccific, as in ‘causing dryness’? just kidding).

   Anyway, the point is I could have said the same thing to you when you said “Monckton lies through his teeth”. How does that fit into your criteria? That’s a very subjective remark easily applied to a host of alarmists. Like ahhm Michael Mann for instance. Or any number of the ‘climategate’ emailers, not to mention funny man Al Gore.

8. 
   Ken Perrott 101 days ago

   Specific – nothing specific (iPod makes typing difficult).

   Still nothing from you!

   My claim that Monckton lies through his teeth is supported by the evidence in Abraham’s presentation. Well supported. Lots of evidence. Really damning. Only s fool would support Monckton after watching that.

   Have a look at it then tell us what you think. Not beforehand. Otherwise you aren’t saying anything worthwhile – just silly spamming.

9. 
   joefone 101 days ago

   Fair enough. I’ll watch that tonight.

   However that doesn’t negate what I said… when the shoe is on the other foot, alarmists simply dismiss the opposing argument as not valid, using such statements as yours. I find that reaction comes after you’ve hit a raw nerve. Either that or they dismiss the critic(s) outright, regardless of their credentials as recently done magnificently by Renowden. It was brilliant… he roundly dismissed every single name I listed – highly qualified sceptical scientists who thought you were all barking up the wrong tree. I had a good laugh at that. The moment you meet that kind of narrow-minded reaction there’s simply no point proceeding. It’s like telling a staunch Catholic there are errors of logic in his religion. You’re hitting your head against a brick wall. Flogging a dead horse.

   And of course your dismissive attitude to my comment on the IPCC’s computer models is no different, especially after your statement concerning subjectivism. There’s nothing more subjective and disconnected from reality than the IPCC’s computer modelling habit! But for some reason that kind of subjective analysis based on conjecture is fine.

   Go figure.

10. 
    Ken Perrott 101 days ago

    OK watch tonight and get back with your specific comments tomorrow.

    I’ll ignore the rest of your comments ad you are talking about “alarmist” which certainly doesn’t apply to me.

    Have a go at Ian Wishart who is a classical alarmist. A conspiracy theorist who is predicting the end of civilisation, a return to the stone ages, if humanity takes any measures to deal with greehouse gas emmisions.

    Talk about Chicken Little and the boy who cried wolf – that’s Ian for you.

    So I suggest you go and spam him and his alarmism – don’t expect any sense though.

    And why do you deniers always hide behind fictional names?

11. 
    drmike 101 days ago

    Thanks for the link Ken, it will be interesting to see a balanced and unemotional counter to Monckton’s arguments. All too often emotions seem to take over in the climate change debate instead of discussing the science.
    It’s interesting how both sides of the arguments often assume the “other side” is driven by baser motives than their own, when in fact (in my opinion) much of the time there is genuine belief on either side. Perhaps if people would be less combative, dismissive and insulting with each other and spent a little more time patiently examining the evidence, we would get a bit closer to a better understanding of climate change.

12. 
    drmike 101 days ago

    Joe, the Oxford debate link was quite interesting, however as was discovered with the “antismacking referendum” any referendum or vote is only as good as the question which was posed. In the case of the Oxford debate it was ““That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” which is not the same as claiming that climate change does not exist.