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.

Author: Paul Dechene

Paul Dechene is 5'10'' tall and he was born in a place. He's not there now. He's sitting in front of his computer writing his bio for this blog. He has a song stuck in his head. It's "Girl From Ipanema", thanks for asking. You can follow Paul on Twitter at @pauldechene and get live updates during city council meetings and other city events at @PDcityhall.

3 thoughts on “Monckton Bloviates”

  1. Paul: Monckton is not a scientists but he is right that CO2 did not cause warming. The so-called AGW scientists used “Play Station” science not real science. See below fax I just sent to Ed Markey, Congressman form Massachusetts who has been mislead like you!

    The Greatest Scam Ever – CO2 Causing Global Warming! (Graph and table wouldn’t copy correctly but you can see article i wrote that was published on Energy Pulse,

    You may have been misled by the IPCC “so-called” scientists, but they were altering data to show a pseudo-anthropogenic warming trend even though we were in a cooling trend from 1998 to 2008. The Hadley CRU database shows a pile of emails exchanged by the AGW junk scientists, including Michael Mann, who started the whole scam with his now-debunked “hockey stick” graph. Wake up and stop the warming legislation nonsense and put the charlatans behind bars. The U. S. EPA suppressed a “real” science report they developed that refutes CO2 causing warming and now this! This is a worldwide scam that dwarfs Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. US EPA Director – Lisa Jackson, US Science Czar – John Holdren, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC are all implicated in this scam and an investigation needs to be initiated immediately. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, explains in detail (video) how our own government agencies fudged the data.

    If we had removed all anthropogenic CO2 emissions in January 2008, we would have gone back to the level we had in January 2003. Oh yes, it was warmer then than it is now. CO2 causing warming is politically/financially/and control the people based – no science to it! CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does not cause warming!

    Kindest Regards,

    Bob Ashworth
    Chemical Engineer (BSCHE WVU 1960)
    Member of American Geophysical Union
    Phone 281-343-5561

  2. Bob, thanks for taking the time to comment on our blog.

    Have you downloaded and filled out a copy of our Global Warming Skeptic’s Declaration? You should! Send it in to us and we’ll keep it on file. You can find the Declaration here…

    As for what you wrote above, first of all, you cannot look at ten years of temperature data and deduce a trend from that.

    Second, we are not in a cooling trend. You can only make that claim because 1998 was the warmest year on record. Meanwhile, the last 10 years has been the warmest decade on record. In other words, we are currently sitting atop a lofty temperature plateau looking down at a much cooler rest of the 20th century.

    Third, Mann’s “hockey stick” graph has not been debunked. It has been repeatedly confirmed by other scientists.


    Bob. You should know all this. This is elementary stuff.

    Oh, before I forget, there is no world government conspiracy. But sadly, I don’t think I can disabuse of that notion. So instead, I’ll direct you to a media outlet that would LOVE to hear about your political theories….

  3. This is part of an email I sent to Paul directly (tables and graphs wouldn’t copy): Can I put my own reasons for being a climate realist, not a pseudo-scientist using “Play Station” science and calling it real? If we eliminated, worldwide, all man-made CO2, the CO2 in the atmosphere would only reduce by 11-12 ppmv taking us back to the 2003 level when it was warmer than 2008. If we removed almost twice that amount (20 ppmv) we would go back to the 1998 level. It was warmer in 1998 than in 2008 (~0.6 C). I sent Paul tables and graphs to back this up)

    I am an old chemical engineer who has analyzed data most of my working career. CO2 warming the earth is bogus.

    Using first principles, if we doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, you would see a slight cooling effect. The ones saying forced radiation is real must have never completed any mass and energy balances around any process. If the atmosphere is more dense, more radiation from the sun will be reflected to outer space during sunlight hours, at night, the earth will not cool off as fast, more insulation. The overall effect will always be cooling because there is much more radiation from the sun coming to the earth than there is radiation from the earth to the sky at night. This my friend is what is elementary.

    If you say ten years is not enough time, look at the graph developed by Russian scientists for the last 415,000 years (Vostok ice core data), long enough for you? SLIDE 43
    It was a lot warmer during various periods back in time than now.

    However, unlike most climate skeptics, I have proved that CFC Destruction of Ozone (man-made) caused abnormal warming from the mid sixties to 1998 when the Montreal Protocol that banned CFCs in developed countries kicked in. The polar areas warmed more than the rest of the earth as you will see in my paper that is attached, because ozone destruction is exacerbated in those cold climes. Neither the warmers nor the skeptics want to hear this. Look at the history of the ozone hole. This year the production is to be banned in developing countries like Mexico and China. Read my paper:

    Portions of the paper were also published in Hydrocarbon Processing in two issues last year).

    Lastly, since there is no science associating CO2 with warming the earth there has to be other major reasons. Lehman Brothers was supporting carbon taxes as well as many other financial houses. The reason they want carbon taxes is to increase the cost of the use of low cost fossil fuels so they can push currently higher cost green technologies which is a misnomer because there is nothing green about windmills, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear. The only green energy technologies are fossil fuel based.

Comments are closed.