Monckton Bloviates

Christopher Monckton — the Clown Prince of Climate Science Denial — has finally released his response to John Abrahams devastating dissection of his Bethel University talk from last October — the one that’s likely identical to the FCPP-sponsored talk he gave here around the same time. (Abraham’s critique can be found here. Some of our Monckton coverage can be found here and here.)

Apparently, it comes in at a whopping 99 pages. Apparently, it’s jam packed with Monckton’s particular brand of bloviation. Apparently, beyond that, it contains little substance.

I say “apparently” because I haven’t read it. No, I have not. And I do not intend to. Not unless someone decides to start paying me to squander more time on Monckton. While I have my reasons for enjoying pointing out that the man is unreliable on any subject and a total nutter besides, I think I’ve waded through enough of his crap and it’s now safe to dismiss his ravings outright and spare myself more tedium.

Instead, I’ll be trusting the analysis of others. Braver, more dedicated souls. Richard Littlemore over at Desmog Blog, for instance, is worth a read. Here’s a good bit that sums things up nicely:

Monckton says something, he offers a vague source to back up his position, but when you check the source, you find that he has said something that is quite incorrect. If you didn’t already know Monckton – which is to say, if you hadn’t come to expect this performance – you might be surprised that someone who is calling someone else a “liar” would be so cavalier with the evidence.

Meanwhile, over at the Guardian, George Monbiot is the most eloquent in tearing Monckton apart. His take:

As far as I can see, he fails to provide a straight or convincing refutation of any of Abraham’s criticisms, and succeeds only in throwing a great deal of dust into the air.

Reading through all this, what’s striking is how confidently Monckton has constructed his web of nit-wittery. In fact, I suspect he’s more than just a cynical opportunist riding the science-denial shortbus to fame and glory. He’s a true believer.

And that reminds me of this bit I just read in the God Delusion where Dawkin’s quotes from Robert Trivers’ Social Evolution:

[Self-deception is] hiding the truth from the conscious mind the better to hide it from others. In our own species we recognize that shifty eyes, sweaty palms and croaky voices may indicate the stress that accompanies conscious knowledge of attempted deception. By becoming unconscious of its deception, the deceiver hides these signs from the observer. He or she can lie without the nervousness that accompanies deception.

Climate Scientists Exonerated, Deniers Looking Like Fools

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit scientists at the heart of the cleverly named “Climategate” scandal have been exonerated once again. Yesterday, a report from the Independent Climate Change Email Review found the CRU scientists acted honestly and their research is reliable.

In other words, it turns out that despite all the crackpot accusations from the denier crowd, the CRU emails do not undermine the foundations of climate science.

This is the fourth investigation into the email scandal that has concluded that the CRU researchers are innocent of scientific wrongdoing. Taken all together, this is a pretty thorough vindication. And yet, if you were to read only the mainstream news coverage, you might come away thinking a cloud still hangs over the field of climate science.

Take for instance yesterday’s Globe and Mail which ran the headline, “‘Climategate’ inquiry mostly vindicates scientists”.

“Mostly”??? Hang on, this report concludes the CRU researchers’ “rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” and goes on to say that their review “did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

How’s that “mostly” vindicated?

Well, the Globe makes much of the fact that the report chides the scientists for not being completely willing to share their data with climate-science critics. Admittedly, the optics of such ungenerous behaviour are not good and the CRU scientists could have saved themselves a lot of hassle if they’d just handed over their data when first asked (forget that the data in question was freely available from other sources so it looks like the climate critics may have only been requesting the information because they’re annoying assholes).

But then again, maybe the CRU’s reputation would be better off if they’d just obediently handed over their work no matter how devious the intentions of the asker, but would climate science?

Continue reading “Climate Scientists Exonerated, Deniers Looking Like Fools”

Monday Mailbag: Nooooooo!!! Save Teh Babies!!!

Here’s a letter we received today addressed to Carle Steel, who made me open it because she thought the thickly-stuffed thing was more likely a subpoena than a bundle of cash. Actually this letter was the surprise behind door number three: a three-page essay dismissing the opinions of people who find the awful, fear-mongering, guilt-tripping anti-abortion ads on Regina buses to be shitty, mean and stupid.

An excerpt:

“The thing that you said in your article was that [Advertising Standards Canada] was interested in TRUTh in advertising. Please explain why, when the TRUTh is spoken or displayed in graphic images, the pro-abortion folks want to discredit, call names, even lie or tell half-truths to try and hide the TRUTh. Why? Why do you want silence in the public square? Why do you want legal silence? Why do you want political silence on this issue?”

That’s a lot of questions for a busy guy with dozens of articles to assign and edit but I’ll take a stab at it.

Continue reading “Monday Mailbag: Nooooooo!!! Save Teh Babies!!!”

Zombie Vs Shark

Normally I don’t like to repost cool videos I’ve found on other people’s blogs — I prefer to greedily hoard them —  but yesterday was Zombie Day on Scienceblogs and PZ Myers of Pharyngula (one of my favourite bloggers) posted this video that is made of so many different sorts of grisly awesome I had to share…

Does anyone know where this clip is from? (Shane…..?)

UPDATE: Whitworth here. Called Shane (our film listings guy who knows everything). Shane says the movie is Zombie. It’s an unofficial Italian sequel to Dawn of the Dead. It’s quite gross say those who’ve seen it. Naturally I know at least two people who own it on DVD.

Here’s the link on the Internet Movie Database.

Lord of Climate Denial’s Epic Fail

It’s been a bad few months for Lord Christopher Monckton, the British viscount who’s become a darling of the Tea Party movement thanks to his denunciations of climate science.

We’ve been following his rise through the ranks of climate denialdom ever since his visit to Regina last year that was sponsored by right-wing think-tank, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. (Read some of our Monckton-related coverage here, here, here, here and here; and Carle wrote a piece about his visit in a late October issue of the paper that isn’t archived on-line yet.)

Among the most-recent challenges to Monckton’s rather fanciful (read: false) take on climate science, there are the “Debunking Lord Monckton” episodes from Climate Denial Crock of the Week (here’s part 1 and part 2) and then there was his debate in Australia with Deltoid blogger, Tim Lambert, whose opening comments included a serious challenge to the integrity of Monckton’s research skills (the fun bits are near the end of this and at the beginning of this).

The latest blow to Monckton’s credibility (which, if we lived in a rational world, would be the decisive one) comes via an 83-minute slide-show presentation made by mechanical engineering professor, John Abraham. In painstaking detail, Abraham takes apart a speech made by Monckton at Bethel University on October 14, 2009, and thoroughly eviscerates all of the viscount’s scientific claims.

A bit of trivia: This Bethel University presentation came just one week after he spoke here. So those of you who attended Monckton’s talk and debate and found him a compelling character should find Abraham’s presentation especially revealing.

Continue reading “Lord of Climate Denial’s Epic Fail”

Space, Bat Bombs And Weaponized Goo

Using my Dog Blog Administrator Powers I’ve learned Rosie is writing his scheduled Thursday Six In The Morning post right now. (If it’s not up soon it’ll have to change to a Four In The Afternoon). While we wait to read… whatever… here’s a link to a cool story in Wired about a solar sail for spaceship propulsion. And if that’s too boring here’s another Wired story about bat bombs and goo canons. Enjoy.

Pick of the Day: Our Body: The Universe Within

Here’s links to articles Carle and I did on this exhibt which opened at the Saskatchewan Science Centre on May 15. As we note, we saw the show as part of a media preview that the Centre arranged. Also invited was a biology class from Sheldon Williams Collegiate that had been studying human anatomy.

In the introduction to the show it’s made abundantly clear that morality, usually of a religious nature, has often interfered with and thwarted the human quest for knowledge. That’s the essential parable of Adam and Eve’s story in the Bible. But other cultures also have cautionary stories and myths about humanity overstepping its bounds and delving into things best left unexplored. Prometheus and Pandora are two examples from ancient Greek culture.

I don’t think knowledge, in and of itself, is ever evil. It’s more a matter of what we do with it once we acquire it that determines whether its a benefit or detriment to us and all other life on Earth. Dissections and autopsies are undoubtedly gruesome procedures, but without that type of rigorous investigation, where would the state of medicine be today?

The point Carle makes about all the subjects being Asian is a valid one. Other exhibits of this type that have been assembled haven’t been restricted to people of Asian ancestry. But it does evoke a certain amount of discomfort as in Western civilization there is a long history of scientists studying and categorizing other cultures. Implicit in this practice is the notion that Western society was more advanced and sophisticated and therefore fully justified in critiquing, measuring and analyzing other cultures.

At the same time we also have strong taboos associated with the handling and disposition of human remains. Part of this was surely driven by necessity, as if care isn’t taken in the disposal of human (and animal) remains the decomposition process that occurs is a dangerous vector for disease. But funeral rituals are also indicative of a desire on our part to properly honour and mourn the dead.

No matter how disappasionate we try to be, when a person is charged under the Criminal Code with committing an indignity against human remains, as a Weyburn woman was recently after disposing of her dead baby by placing it in the garbage, and two Regina boys were last year after they set a friend’s body on fire after he’d been killed accidently, we definitely experience feelings of revulsion. On the other hand, many of us have few qualms about committing indignities against other living beings as we go about our daily lives.

In my mind, that’s a far worse sin than anything in this exhibit where the preserved bodies, limbs and organs are treated with dignity and respect..

Debunking Monckton Live

Over on, the host of Climate Crocks of the Week, Peter Sinclair, will be presenting the second part of a very special Climate Crock, “Debunking Lord Monckton.” And, it will be broadcast live.

That’s right, Monckton has produced so much anti-factual blather that exploding all the half-truths, errors and misinformation requires a two-parter.

For those who missed the first episode, here it is…

The live broadcast begins at 7pm tonight and as I said before, it’s available at On that website you can also find DeSmog Weekly, more episodes of Climate Crock and interviews with people like Gwynne Dyer.

And, just because a certain other Saskatchewan blog was propagating that “it’s the sun, stupid” myth in the last few days, here’s the Climate Crock episode, “Solar Schmolar” in which Sinclair explains why solar forcing does not explain away the globe’s current warming.

Ball Busted By UVic Students

Richard Littlemore over at DeSmog Blog reports on an interesting encounter Tim Ball, Canadian climate-change denier extraordinaire, had at the University of Victoria. Ball, in a lecture put on by the University of Victoria Young Conservatives Club, presumably thought he was speaking before an audience comprised of friendly, credulous Harper fans.

But UVic is where Dr Andrew Weaver teaches. He’s the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis. And what Tim Ball actually encountered was a room full of up-and-coming climatologists.

Here’s how Littlemore describes the scene:

The conversation … went on for two-and-a-half painful hours, with Ball dismissing all climate science as a fiction promulgated by a small group of ideologues and the students – laptops in hand – challenging and dismissing his arguments on the basis of ready information.

And here’s an example of one of the exchanges:

Ball: “You look at the list of forcings [the IPCC has]; it’s only those forcings caused by human activity.”

Student: “You’re saying that volcanoes are caused by humans?”

Ball: “Well exactly. The volcanoes is one and look at the thing I showed you with Milankovich.”

Student: “Yeah, but the IPCC accounts for volcanic activity AND Milankovich cycles.”

Ball: “They identify them, but they do not consider them in their models ….”

Student: “They certainly do ….”

Ball: “No they don’t ….”

Student: “Yes they do. I run models….”

Tim Ball, by the way, is pretty much the gold standard for climate deniers. Well, maybe “gold” is overstating things. “Decent quality but slightly tarnished silver” is probably closer to the mark. Regardless, as a former climatologist out of the University of Winnipeg, he’s one of the first “experts” invited onto talk shows when climate science is to be discussed and his arguments are widely cited within the denialist community.

In other words, this is about the best the climate deniers can do. And as it turns out, as soon as they’re confronted with real climate science, all their tired old canards wither and die.

Anyway, I highly recommend reading the rest of Littlemore’s post. Hopefully, DeSmog Blog will soon have a recording of the entire lecture available for download.

Climate science and the people who deny it

As someone whose education is natural science (biology, ecology), and as someone who worked for a local research group which studies climate change on the prairies (PARC), and as a human being who believes in facts, climate change deniers really irk me.  Like, make-me-twitch-and-send-me-into-a-spiral-of-madness irk me.

It bothers me that childish, unfounded, fear mongering, opinions are pitted against peer-reviewed, data-intensive, scientifically-rigourous, objective, research as though they are comparable… and the only thing that bothers me more are people who blindly believe the lies.

Luckily there are smart and thoughtful people who stand up for what is scientifically accepted as fact, who take up the challenge of debunking the “debunkers”.  Take for example Peter Sinclair who posts his climate “crock of the week” videos challenging the claims made by climate change deniers.

Enjoy this, his latest installment:

Godless Liberals Get The Brains

 So a study apparently says that the average liberal is smarter than the average conservative. From the story in the Toronto Star:

“Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, says it makes sense biologically. In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Kanazawa lays out facts based on U.S. data to support his theory. According to that research, young adults who identify as “not at all religious” had an average IQ of 103 as teens, while those who identified as “very religious” had an average IQ of 97. Similarly, young adults who called themselves “very liberal” had an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as “very conservative” had average IQs of 95.”

For Canadian readers confused by the term, “liberal” basically means “socialist wimp” in the American language.

I wonder if this researcher would get the same results in other countries. Somehow I doubt it. Only in America: where “don’t be smart” is something angry parents say to their kids.