Comments on: Monckton’s Artful Graph.

By: The Blackboard » Godwin’s Law Alert: Monckton cries “Goebbelian”

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:15:05 +0000

[...] are 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9 and 10. Readers familiar with some of previous blog posts about Monckton (1, 2, 3 and what the heck things tagged ‘monckton’) will no doubt know that my favorite [...]

By: Debunking Lord Monckton, Part Two « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

Debunking Lord Monckton, Part Two « Climate Denial Crock of the Week — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 20:50:23 +0000

[...] Monckton’s Artful Graph, by lucia, Jan 2009 [...]

By: Monckton’s silly graph: Part 4 » Mind of Dan

Monckton’s silly graph: Part 4 » Mind of Dan — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:20:08 +0000

[...] chronicled a few of Monckon’s dishonest silly graphs, and more so because he was called out on a similar error just a couple of months [...]

By: Reflections on Continuuing Monckton Kerfuffle. | The Blackboard

Reflections on Continuuing Monckton Kerfuffle. | The Blackboard — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:04:45 +0000

[...] my first post, responding to a reader who asked me if Monckton’s representation of the IPCC projections was [...]

By: TrueSceptic

TrueSceptic — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:55:36 +0000

Lucia,

I don’t see the problem with asking Monckton to justify his “artful” graph. You need only make it clear that you are trying to ascertain the truth and that you are impartial on the matter. If his reply (or post, as the case may be) does not adequately satisfy your objections then you must say so. That is what any real sceptic must do.

By: RSS agregator » Blog Archive » Potty Peer’s Piss-Poor Propaganda

RSS agregator » Blog Archive » Potty Peer’s Piss-Poor Propaganda — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:01:57 +0000

[...] it is a "sceptic" site that has questioned his "artful" graph. Kudos to Lucia at ‘The Blackboard’ for actually being [...]

By: hal9000

hal9000 — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:40:53 +0000

“And I should have added, that the only way one can get to +3.0C by the year 2100 (starting at +0.65C in the year 2000) is for that (close to) linear trend to be increasing at 0.27C per decade.”

3.0 – 0.65 = 2.35.

2.35 / 10 = 0.235

Where does 0.27 come from?

By: Monckton & the case of the missing Curry — Hot Topic

Monckton & the case of the missing Curry — Hot Topic — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:23:12 +0000

[...] at The Blackboard has discovered others. [...]

By: lucia

lucia — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:56:20 +0000

Chris–
Your suggesting is interesting, but it would present difficulties for me.

Hosting a guest post by Monckton would be dicey. It puts me in an odd position if I utterly disagree with what he posts. It’s equally difficult to invite a post, having him go to a lot of effort and then refuse to post it if I disagree.

For those of use who would like easier access to Monckton, it might be nice if he blogged. However, he doesn’t. Monckton does write up his ideas regularly and posts pdfs at his site. These get picked up at IceCap. Based on his degrees, background, writing skills etc, he is obviously both intelligent. and politically savvy. Presumably, he has thought about his choice of publication forums, and he prefers them.

So, all in all, I think Monckton probably would not accept an offer of a guest post. If he did accept it, that might cause me difficulties.

Or… maybe I’m wrong and it would be fun.

By: Chris Schoneveld

Chris Schoneveld — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:24:50 +0000

Lucia,
If you already have Monckton’s e-mail wouldn’t it be a great idea to ask him for a guest post addressing the above?

By: Chuck L

Chuck L — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:36:33 +0000

Lucia: Your steadfastness in determing scientific and statistical accuracy of claims from both sides of the AGW debate is admirable. While I personally feel that man’s part in global warming is minimal compared to natural processes, it is important that neither side engages in exaggeration, hyperbole or scientific inaccuracy.

Keep up the great work!

By: lucia

lucia — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:22:30 +0000

Lindsay H,
Thank you, but I already had Monckton’s email. Of course, anyone would like him to clarify is free to email him. (I will now delete his email to protect it from spam.)

By: Lindsay H

Lindsay H — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:19:47 +0000

Monctons email is
email deleted.

I delete emails to protect from spam harvesters. – Lucia

By: Chris Schoneveld

Chris Schoneveld — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:27:59 +0000

Lucia,
Why don’t you ask Monckton for clarification? He is very good in responding to questions/challenges. I don’t have his e-mail address but I am sure that Ferguson of SPPI – email deleted — will send your e-mail to Monckton.

By: lucia

lucia — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:14:59 +0000

Lindsay H–
The graph specifically labels that “IPCC projections”. That is consistent with his narrative.

Monckton published in a public forum. So did I. I suspect someone has already shown him this. If he feels any need to clarify; he will.

By: Lindsay H

Lindsay H — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:47:19 +0000

If yoou are querying Moncktons figures I suggest you email him with the query, I had a question that confused me some time ago and got a promt and usefull reply. I suspect the .35 deg/decade figure may relate to arguments he raised on the issue of climate sensativity to co2 doubling

By: lucia

lucia — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:38:17 +0000

VG—
If not rebuttal, at least a clarification of what he means might be helpful.

Monckton publishes pdfs rather than blog posts. That choice of publishing method makest a bit difficult for us to get clarification if and when what he writes is ambiguous. I write a blog, so I post at a blog. People can ask questions. (They might still disagree with me– but comments are pretty much open. I don’t even have the troll plugin running right now as the target of that plugin promised to behave.

By: VG

VG — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:26:52 +0000

and more problems with GISS
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009.....-giss.html

By: VG

VG — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:13:57 +0000

A rebuttal/comment by C Monckton would be nice

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:59:47 +0000

Nick, Andrew, PaulM – Don’t try to excuse Monckton for “spinning” or being “artful” just because you perceive that the IPCC does the same. (Actually, I am not so sure that the IPCC spins although clearly many of its supporters seem to.). Lucia is right to point out that Monckton is at best being artful. It is necessary to point out bad/weak arguments or positions regardless of which “side” of the debate the protagonist is on.M

So come on, where can we get the numbers for the IPCC predictions shown in their graphs.

Unless they publish the numbers, we’re free to take the numbers off the graph and use those as the prediction.

The IPCC doesn’t want testable predictions because it blows the argument.

That’s why Lucia is doing a good job. It’s putting the testing of those predictions on a sound statistical basis. The fact that its not a IPCC member doing it is the shocking part. The fact that they have to interpret graphs to get the numbers equally bad.

The statistical basis of the test is important. Otherwise, and its common, the alarmists keep extending the period you need to observe. 10 years. Then when it fails on ten years and the trend is down, its 20 years and so on. The statistical test shows that if the temperatures are far enough, and for long enough, diverging from the prediction, then the IPCC is wrong.

The other big part missing, is that the claim for AGW is two fold.

The first part, temperature is consistent with AGW, but the omited part is that temperature is not consistent with natural climate change.

ie. We know even from the IPCC that natural is around +-1.0C. An anomaly of 0.4 is perfectly natural

I can here you saying, ah, but its too rapid. Well, just look at how rapidly the temperatures dropped post 1998, because that drop is all natural. It’s not CO2 driven is it.

Nick