Monckton responds to Abraham in the predictable way

After reading this story I was shocked at the fact that Monckton lacks credentials (he has Degrees in classics and journalism) to be in the position he is in (chief policy advisor for the science and public policy institute) and to make the statements he has made. It sounds to me like he is pushing personal beliefs which lack scientific proof.

With Dr. John Abraham challenging his beliefs Monckton has resorted to threats against St Thomas University in an attempt to get the presentation, that does an excellent job of challenging his statements, removed.

This is another case where individuals are attempting to cover true science by twisting words and using other underhanded techniques. I hope St Thomas University does the right thing and keeps the presentation posted. There is a support John Abraham page where you can show your support.

Monckton responds to Abraham in the predictable way

John Abraham from St Thomas University recently presented an extraordinarily detailed rebuttal of a sample of Christopher Monckton’s arguments. After his initial response a few weeks ago, Monckton has not only asked Prof. Abraham to answer 446 questions about his presentation, but has now appealed to readers of Watts Up With That to pressure his university for the removal of the presentation, and to “instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct”.

A page has been created where you can show your support for John Abraham by commenting in the thread. More details over at Skeptical Science and Deltoid.

I recommend viewing the rebuttal linked in the article.

whoa........got thru 6 of the slides (will go back to it this weekend) and it's quite interesting to see Abraham knock down Monckton.......way to go Abraham!!! .....don't they do background checks and experience checks on new hires??? especially a position with such notoriety!

It is sometimes a cold and lonely road we follow in pursuit of the truth

+1

Dispicable. We have "scientists" like that here that work for the Ski resorts. Their only job is to say that ski resort development has no impact on wildlife, which is completely unsupported by any evidence (because they didn't bother to collect any). The University researches tend to find that development causes local declines and sometimes extinctions. Sadly the non-scientists get paid several hundred thousand dollars a year to create false reports, and the actual scientists get around 40-50K.

I hope Monchton is stripped of his position. In Thailand you get 20 years in prison for creating false science like that, wish we had here.

Don't let the name fool you, the SPPI is a think tank built around global warming denial. Their hiring of Monckton was no accident. Their staff reads like a who's-who of denialists. There's also Bob Carter, Joe D'Aleo, and Craig Idso (who previously worked for the "Greening Earth Society," which was a front-group for the Western Fuels Association).

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levelsStudy claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

• Read the full story of the hacked climate emails
• Jeffrey Sachs: Sceptics recycle anti-tobacco control arguments
(2883)Tweet this (800)Comments (670) David Adam guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT Article history
The Maldives is likely to become submerged if the current pace of climate change continues to raise sea levels. Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Originally Posted by greenbean36191

Don't let the name fool you, the SPPI is a think tank built around global warming denial. Their hiring of Monckton was no accident. Their staff reads like a who's-who of denialists. There's also Bob Carter, Joe D'Aleo, and Craig Idso (who previously worked for the "Greening Earth Society," which was a front-group for the Western Fuels Association).

figured as much .... still holds true: it's the contacts that carry you

It would seem logical that scientific proof would be the final word on an issue such as global warming. In actuality it is public opinion, which is relatively easy to sway, which is the deciding factor. Have an official sounding organization make claims contradicting the proof and claim that the proof is fabricated now you have the general public changing their minds.

There was a great opinion piece in the Yale environment 360 titled Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt that talked about this very issue.

One part of the article that really fits in here is this:

The recent shift in the community of global warming deniers from merely attacking mainstream climate scientists to alleging their involvement in criminal activity is an unsurprising but alarming development in the long campaign to discredit the established scientific fact that burning fossil fuels is causing the world to warm. This latest escalation fits seamlessly into a decades-old pattern of attempts to deny the reality of environmental ills — smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion, and global warming. Similar or even identical claims have been promoted for decades by other free-market think-tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and, most persistently, the George C. Marshall Institute. These think tanks all have two things in common: They promote free-market solutions to environmental problems, and all have long been active in challenging the scientific evidence of those problems.

Sadly the issue is also, at least in part, being turned into a political issue. The effects of global warming doesn't care if you lean to the left or right. The global community need to listen to the scientific proof and act in a responsible manner toward the environment.

In the case of global warming, there is strong evidence that this contrarian campaign is enjoying success, with recent polls showing that more than half of Americans are not particularly worried about the issue and that fully 40 percent believe there is major disagreement among scientists about whether climate change is even occurring. This confusion is no doubt due, at least in part, to the persistent campaigns of obfuscation by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other global warming deniers who use right-wing talk radio, the Internet, and television programs such as Fox News to propagate their message of doubt.

The article goes into some history of similar cases of science being attacked and then concludes with this piece:

Meanwhile, the contrarians’ campaigns continue, and with significant success: Many Americans accept the deniers’ allegations as true, or at least are confused by them, and therefore do not know what to think or whom to trust. Science has been effectively undermined, which has eroded public support for the decisive action needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

It is my belief that we as informed citizens should be sure to help eliminate the confusion and let the scientific proof set a course for a better healthier planet in which our future generations have a chance.

Ahh yes the Skeptics are backed by big fuel garbage....HMMMM seems CRU has been sponsored by BIG OIL but the AWG folks don't want to talk about that....That argument is so 1999 dude.

The problem is the "science" isn't about finding truth but pushing agendas for more funding and political viewpoints of their pay masters. Are there issues we need to discuss and research? Yes, but not with predetermined outcomes....Notice every paper has words like "maybe, could, might, possiable, or even if the paper doesn't have much to do with AGW it some how finds away into it? Why? Because they need funding and grants, none of them cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of it will happen and never will till it does it's all speculation based on computer models that is being fed information from those that have a bias to begin with, but they still have to have funding to keep their jobs so it gets worse, they commit collusion,hijacking of the term peer review, if not out right fraud.

Also ever notice how each research paper that comes out "it's gonna be worse then we thought" every scenario is far more dire then the last, the shrill is loader and loader? The AWG crowd likes to throw the word Denier, denialist, much the same way people throw the same word for those that deny the holocaust around. But yet they don't expect skeptics to get pissed about it and it's connotation? But it's the skeptics that are rash and harsh and evil...right?

Where is the research that shows positives of a warming world? It can't be 100% destruction can it? There has to be some positives of higher C02 right? where is it why does that not get published or talked about? Just saying.

But look at the language of those on the side of AWG, actually take a look at it, and how they talk about skeptics and those that question them. Does it sound like rational people willing and open to discuss? Or does it sound hateful, critical, cynical but yet they are supposed to be the thoughtful, rational, civil ones.
Just cause they are scientist don't mean they should just be given your trust no one should be given that, absolutely no one I don't care what side your on. "Consensus" is a joke and should never be used when discussing science, but it has been used as a tool to pull the wool over the populace into thinking that everything is figured out so don't worry about it, we "know" more then you so just trust us were scientist...Kinda sounds like the politicians we elect every 4 years don't it, the same ones that hold the purse stings to funding.

The fist thing you need to do is research those that started the Green movement, and how it has been hijacked by political elitist that want a Global government pushed by AWG, and corrupt banksters and oligarchs.

Look at those that have been pushing AWG and their investments like Al gore, Maurice Strong, George Soros, and many others including some of the very scientist that are doing the very research pushing the agenda...Even take Obama and others with the CCX, if you think this whole thing is about saving the planet you are a fool. If it was about "saving" the planet these people wouldn't be whoring themselves for money and grants, they wouldn't be pushing agendas that read like cult religions, they wouldn't be doing it with the hopes that the populace will support this garbage so they can extract tens of trillions of dollars of which we as "the little people" will never see a positive outcome from the money that has been stolen from us. While in the same breath with this agenda, killing millions of people that have no advocates because they are in absolute poverty, cannot get out of poverty due to over regulations of energy and energy control held by a few that will dictate who and what gets the energy and how it is to be used and what methods and types. How in the world due you expect millions of Africans, Asians and others to come out of absolute poverty under these regulations and controls on energy and the use there of.

I'm not saying we shouldn't stop polluting our planet we should or it will kill all of us it only makes sense to, I am not saying we shouldn't find renewable energy sources, we should because it's cleaner, and will be cheaper in the long run and benefit everyone. But we sure in the hell shouldn't do it so the oligarchs can have control over every aspect of our lives and rule us like self appointed dictators which happens to be the same ones that make the law and apply it, usually not on themselves but those that "they speak for".....

I am not saying skeptics are absolutly correct or those that are on the side of AWG. What I am saying is all of these people, all of them need to be looked at with skeptisium and espeically those that have their hands out for money.

I know it sounds conspiracy and that is fine think what you will about it or what I have said or me even, but I will guarantee if you start to do the research and find the information that is out there you will be awaken to this sham that is being played out on us. It's all out there you just have to look, before they get control over the Internet as well as some want to. Once you do I am sure you will look at not just AWG differant, but those that have control and make law will change.

Remember ,,,,if the glove dont fit ya cant comit??


It has been proven with out a shadow of doubt that higher concentrations of CO2 actualy lag the charts of climate change or global warming , not lead it , that MEANS that CO2 is the result , not the cause.


There is a great deal of work to do in this field , all they are doing so far is redocumenting what the earth has all ready documented.


30,000 global scientist are now sueing Al , Margret and the dooms dayer crowd.


That speaks volume , no where in time has that much credability cried out in a legal uproar over false documentations.

Again I would go back to what I have said in previous posts. There is wide spread agreement that there is a warming trend though the cause is debated (normal cycle, man induced, or a mix of the two). What is the benefit to denying it? You feel better about your daily actions? Frankly I don't much care what the root cause is I only care about human contribution to this and other environmental issues.

Our actions have an impact on the environment and we must be aware of that. As inhabitants of this planet we are responsible for the impact our actions have and being conscious of those actions and the impact they have is only common sense. Rather than see it this way people look at a big hot topic issue and say "it's a scam" so I am just going to continue doing what I have always done. If your actions do not contribute to global warming, no matter what its root cause, they will contribute to other environmental ills.

I would encourage people to stop playing politics and work toward bettering our planet. Ignore global warming as a topic and work toward making the issues being related to it better no matter what the cause.

In the end I don't care if global warming was some kind of scheme. I care about whether future generations will be able to see all the species that we are able to see and whether they can enjoy nature as I have been able to. Isn't that what's important?

The articles I post are generally chosen to raise awareness of the bigger picture and I hope to drive some to action. If there is a case in which I feel an individual is being treated unfairly, such as Dr. Abraham, I post to show my support. You won't hear me arguing the cause of global warming only that evidence shows there is warming and that we should do our part as we all have to share this planet.

Double post

Originally Posted by techguy

Again I would go back to what I have said in previous posts. There is wide spread agreement that there is a warming trend though the cause is debated (normal cycle, man induced, or a mix of the two). What is the benefit to denying it? You feel better about your daily actions? Frankly I don't much care what the root cause is I only care about human contribution to this and other environmental issues.

Our actions have an impact on the environment and we must be aware of that. As inhabitants of this planet we are responsible for the impact our actions have and being conscious of those actions and the impact they have is only common sense. Rather than see it this way people look at a big hot topic issue and say "it's a scam" so I am just going to continue doing what I have always done. If your actions do not contribute to global warming, no matter what its root cause, they will contribute to other environmental ills.

I would encourage people to stop playing politics and work toward bettering our planet. Ignore global warming as a topic and work toward making the issues being related to it better no matter what the cause.

In the end I don't care if global warming was some kind of scheme. I care about whether future generations will be able to see all the species that we are able to see and whether they can enjoy nature as I have been able to. Isn't that what's important?

The articles I post are generally chosen to raise awareness of the bigger picture and I hope to drive some to action. If there is a case in which I feel an individual is being treated unfairly, such as Dr. Abraham, I post to show my support. You won't hear me arguing the cause of global warming only that evidence shows there is warming and that we should do our part as we all have to share this planet.

============================

+1

Not to cause a ruckas buit there is a study that says over 100 animals have gone extinct every day since time began.

It would be nice if nothng died but then again think about the ramifications on that issue as well.
Can you imagine having sabor tooth tigers still roaming around , or stagasaorus { sp} or even worse.

I guess I am a believer in things happen for a reason.

I agree with you though polution has a direct efect on us .


The first thing we shoud do is shut down all air trafic and ocean vessles that do not use wind power.
All rockets should be baned from space.
And all transport trains should be shut down.

Any travle should be done on foot .
And all neuclear power shoud be stoped imediatly,, It is a disater waiting to happen just like the gulf oil rig.


But I dont think that is going to happen because every one in the major cities would starve .

Remember the 50's and every one had a bomb shelter?

Apparnetly moderation and doing what you can is a bit beyond reason for you. I don't recall ever saying we must stop using anything powered by fossil fuels. I understand evolution and natural selection...that's a little different from a handful of species being killed due to a man made oil spill.

I believe you missed where I said look at the big picture and do what YOU can.

Argument for the sake of argument is not something I am interested in.

If you can sleep at night then cheers to you

I will continue to do what I can to minimize my impact. Notice I use moderation and don't bound to absurd conclusions. I can minimize my impact and don't have delusions that I can eliminate them.

Originally Posted by inlander

============================

+1

Not to cause a ruckas buit there is a study that says over 100 animals have gone extinct every day since time began.

It would be nice if nothng died but then again think about the ramifications on that issue as well.
Can you imagine having sabor tooth tigers still roaming around , or stagasaorus { sp} or even worse.

I guess I am a believer in things happen for a reason.

I agree with you though polution has a direct efect on us .


The first thing we shoud do is shut down all air trafic and ocean vessles that do not use wind power.
All rockets should be baned from space.
And all transport trains should be shut down.

Any travle should be done on foot .
And all neuclear power shoud be stoped imediatly,, It is a disater waiting to happen just like the gulf oil rig.


But I dont think that is going to happen because every one in the major cities would starve .

Remember the 50's and every one had a bomb shelter?

These kind of comments always crack me up.

Trying to move to greener power and transportation dosent mean halt everything right now. It means let start looking and investing in more environmentally friendly ways to accomplish these same things. Fossil fuels are going to run out. If we dont start moving to greener solutions right now, when they do run out all the things you listed will then come to a crashing halt.

Weve been burning the black mud and rock from the ground for a couple of hundred years now. We started doing this way before people thought anything about what it did to us and the environment. Now we know how bad it is but there are still groups that want to keep doing it. They want to keep doing it because there is still money to be made. Funny thing is that the people that still want to make this money are the ones that scream about scientist getting grant money to do research on global warming. Yet these same groups and the companies that are behind them apply and receive federal grant money for oil exploration. Isnt this the pot calling the kettle black?

I dont know!

I guess I agree and disagree .

I was in a filed that was and is being hit hard with all this ,,,and,,,, maybe,,,,, I have been one who was efected the most , maybe it is folks like us that the world is truning their backs on , maybe not.


At any rate this isnt going to stop with transportation,that was the field I was in , we use far less fuel in transportation then we do any where else ,what about painters who use thinners , that is a fossile based product,this is realy huge ,,,,, neuclear power is more dangerous then oil or coal and is not aplicable for the transportation sector of our economy .

Batteries will slow down productivity and in some cases people will die just because of time involved to transport health care and medical needs.

You wont transport a heart acros the country in a plane that has to stop and change batteries 2 times during the trip.


Like I was saying I will be happy to agree to disagree on this issue and produce as much documented information regarding the issue as well as keep a open mind to it all.

On a realy persnaly note to those who are all up in this ,,,,here is a sugestion , that is what happend in my life and untold millions of others ,,, Go home and tell your family the government is forcing you out of busines unless you spend 150 thousand dollars for a vehicle by 2014that still uses the same fuel as the one you allready have,,.

A filter is just that ,that is the ongoing program with new trucks , they have better filters, they still burn fossile fuels and they still have to have the filters replaced and more often , that means even more fuel , it takes fuel to make these filters and it takes fuel to transport these filters to locations where they can be instaled , no where in this system have we stoped using fossile fuels ,,,and that was my understanding of our goals??

Try to understand our position here , how can we help you if you dont help us?

They have not given any realistic options that stop the use of buring fossile fuel.



Science is supposed to help the populations , not perform government agendas .

Show me a vehicle that will perform the task as to what I was trained for and I invested my life in and I will be more then Happy to buy one,, there isnt one on the market that doesnt burn anything but fossile fuels.


When others actualy practice what they preach and walk to work then I will agree with them and support them .


Sorry for the rant but this is a verry persoanl mater for literaly billions of people who are now waiting on all this change.

IMO a slow change should have been started years ago like Chris said , I admit technology has been stifled ,,we should also proceed with the use of every renewable fuel known to man .


Do we realy need a reason to change or is it some sort of authority kick?

You folks are right about what ya said , so practice what ya preach, go solar,, stop using the internet for business , it uses power that uses coal and neuclear energy .


Back in the 60's tere was a lot of stuff going on , protest and volience around neuclear energy, that has some how goten lost in our history lessons.

I wish I had a better penman ship on this subject,,, but the bottom line is still the fact that a rise in atmospheric CO2 follows global warming , it does not lead it.

Your own scientis have proven this countless times.

I shut down my company , when the rest of these pople crying do the same then and only then will we be on equal terms and then and only then do they need to preach to me.

Thanks and sorry if this topic has morphed into something it shouldnt have ,other then being on the grid and still owning a gassoline vehicle I am practicing what you preach, are you?

And I was being sarcastic above on the other post, because I know even if we did do all the necessary things as described we will never eliminate fossile fuels or their products.

JMO

Science should not be personal , it should be shared .

Global climate change affects far more than losing a few species. Most of Southeast Asia gets their water from glaciers, which are rapidly melting. When those glaciers disappear, there will be about 1 billion people without water. I guess you shouldn't care though because that's not us. Fortunately the US (except Alaska) is predicted to have moderate temperature increases and increased precipitation. We probably will be fine, it's the rest of the world, those poor undeveloped nations you talked about that will lose water, crops and coral reefs because of the behaviors of people they have no control over.

Is there a batery or a batery powerd vehicle that is capable of SAFELY carying the same payload over the Rockies and Cascades and deserts and across the oceans as my parked diesel powerd truck and trailer or a diesel powerd ship??

Can it do this with out using ,,,any,,, sorce of oil or fossile fuels for power,,, or for its creation??


I would love to buy one??

Have you ever spilt gassoline on you??

How about battery acid??

What one would you rather deal with.


Look elsewhere into the future for a minute.

What about dead bateries and all that acid,,what if you have yopur window down enjoying the fresh air and a batery from the car ahead of you gets a hole in it and acid gets all over you while you are driving down the road ?,or your new born baby ,,.,,,and then what do we do with the materials needed for the cores , how do we deal with that in the future ??

I am willing to listen ?



I am left with one option at this time , that is ignore you and keep working , and support those you hate ,,,,or replace my eq,,,what do I replace it with,, one way or another doing nothing doesn't work for me.




I regret your feeling that any one will be left out in the cold or deprived in the next 1000 years but the same people you mention are just as responcible for global warming as the rest of us,,,, IF,,, this is truely caused by man then lets work together and do something about it..

I surely have no idea how to stop the oceans from rising,,, even in the case this ISNT caused by man then we wont stop it ..

I see your frustration and I reconise the needs to do something now,,, IF ,,, we can.


At this time there are no optons .



If you are going to condem everyone here for living and not take any responcability for yourself and your past life as well then you should at least give a option as to how to change .

JMO

By the way , I watched a documentary tonight on discovery chanel ,, it dealt with the renewables , verry good show.

Learnt alot that I never knew about the new technology.


Paint that can conduct electricity, Led lights in curtains with power strips on the back side??

Hope they are fire resistant but they were realy neat!!

Then again when ya pull the curtains in the day time ya realy dont want any light!!

I think it is stil on right now.

Powering the world or something like that.

Today I dug out 2 small solar panels and I have 2 heavey duty deep cycle bateries from the big truck, a small inverter ,, I am going to SAFELY put this to use on a 55 gallon tank and I will see just how reliable this stuff is for myself.

Batteries are not something I want inside my home ,,,,,,Period.

They can give off toxic gass and are a major hazard.

The batteries being used in modern electric vehicles are not the acid based variety. Modern Lithium ion batteries are much safer than traditional car batteries, and newer types of Li-ion batteries are constantly being developed that resist overheating (the only safety concern for low grade litium ion batteries).

And I agree, there really isn't a good alternative at the moment for commercial transportaion. However, there are plenty for regular, everyday use. The typical commuting motorist isn't crossing the Rocky Mountains with several tons of cargo on a regular basis. There are also safer, cheaper alternatives for power plants than the standard coal fired ones. Getting mercury poisoning from fish wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for coal fired power plants releasing so much mercury into the air.

Verry well said and I agree totaly.


I would love one of those testlers or teslas or what ever they are called.


You mentioned those bateries, I have a brother inlaw that is realy into rc vehicles , infact he runs a track that is listed on the national tour . he was telling me about the bateries they use and how dangerous they are, something about if you over charge them or under charge them they can basicly become a potiential disaster.

Scary they are used in kids toys.

Then there is the batery powerd motorcycle that has the new national world speed record. KillaCycle - World’s Quickest Electric Motorcycle

There is a video on the page.

Said it is like riding a electric drill , full throttle is instant!!

Awsome bike .