Old Rocks
Diamond Member
http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-high-priest-of-climate-sceptics-tells-lies-on-tv-nz/
One of his themes for this tour seems to be that the UNs climate panel has exaggerated the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 by six or seven times. Asked about this on Breakfast, he said (my transcription starts about 1 minute into the interview):
The scientists have indeed got their sums wrong, because there are only perhaps 40 or 50 scientists involved in calculating that one central quality, which is known as climate sensitivity, how much warming will you get. Its a very narrow, very specialist field in which I have actually published work in the [slight pause] reviewed literature, and theres not many people who have done that. Very few people people have actually done work in this field, and unfortunately what they have done is they have preferred at the UNs climate panel to rely on computer models which are in effect a form of guesswork.
You could describe this whole statement as a big lie, because it contains so many constituent falsehoods. For instance, the assertion that the IPCC has preferred to rely on computer models for estimates of climate sensitivity is simply not true, as a quick glance at AR4 WG1 Chapter Nine, section 9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity shows. But the really outrageous falsehood is his claim to have published a paper in the reviewed literature. He has done no such thing. He wrote a paper which appeared in the July 2008 American Physical Society Physics & Society newsletter (here). Moncktons employers at the Science and Public Policy Institute (an organisation with close ties to the Scaife funded Frontiers for Freedom Institute) sent out a press release claiming it to be peer-reviewed, prompting the APS to add this to the start of the article:
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.
The only peer who reviewed Moncktons piece appears to have been himself. That may go some way to explain why it contains so many mistakes. Arthur Smith catalogued 125 errors, and Tim Lambert at Deltoid provided a nice (and much shorter) overview of Moncktons sleight of hand with the numbers here. Bottom line? Monckton is quite wrong.
One of his themes for this tour seems to be that the UNs climate panel has exaggerated the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 by six or seven times. Asked about this on Breakfast, he said (my transcription starts about 1 minute into the interview):
The scientists have indeed got their sums wrong, because there are only perhaps 40 or 50 scientists involved in calculating that one central quality, which is known as climate sensitivity, how much warming will you get. Its a very narrow, very specialist field in which I have actually published work in the [slight pause] reviewed literature, and theres not many people who have done that. Very few people people have actually done work in this field, and unfortunately what they have done is they have preferred at the UNs climate panel to rely on computer models which are in effect a form of guesswork.
You could describe this whole statement as a big lie, because it contains so many constituent falsehoods. For instance, the assertion that the IPCC has preferred to rely on computer models for estimates of climate sensitivity is simply not true, as a quick glance at AR4 WG1 Chapter Nine, section 9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity shows. But the really outrageous falsehood is his claim to have published a paper in the reviewed literature. He has done no such thing. He wrote a paper which appeared in the July 2008 American Physical Society Physics & Society newsletter (here). Moncktons employers at the Science and Public Policy Institute (an organisation with close ties to the Scaife funded Frontiers for Freedom Institute) sent out a press release claiming it to be peer-reviewed, prompting the APS to add this to the start of the article:
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.
The only peer who reviewed Moncktons piece appears to have been himself. That may go some way to explain why it contains so many mistakes. Arthur Smith catalogued 125 errors, and Tim Lambert at Deltoid provided a nice (and much shorter) overview of Moncktons sleight of hand with the numbers here. Bottom line? Monckton is quite wrong.
