Comments on: Monckton is a hypocrite

By: gravityloss

gravityloss — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:53:57 +0000

Richard, if you want to stop stepping on rakes, perhaps stop stomping around. (Paraphrasing Eli from memory.)

250 year triangular filter. “Present temperatures.”

The graph’s main purpose is to insinuate that even a significant temperature rise leads to a level that is less than some other times in the past during the holocene.

But those are never presented in the context.

And anyway, it’s one measurement spot, with one method.

AFAIK, there are lots of world temperature reconstructions of the holocene (the whole birth of human civilization has happened in the holocene, the period that we are now living).

Glue some global warming projections at the end, and it looks scary. Very scary.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:21:48 +0000

Richard: your words say more about you than I ever could (or would want to).

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:12:22 +0000

I simply reposted the words you edited out, so that my comment made sense. The edit function is provided so that people can correct errors or rephrase their comments. On blogs with no edit function, your original words would have stood.

If you want to defend Monckton, go right ahead. I could do with a laugh…

Your snide comments on Mann cut no ice here. If you want to be rude about respected climate scientists, go and do it on your own blog. I won’t tolerate it here.

As for my being a hypocrite: you can think what you like. I stand by what I write.

By: rtreadgold

rtreadgold — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:06:30 +0000

Now I wonder what you think I said, Gareth. I’m quoted as saying “f” (a random keyboard strike).
You are wrong to say I have defended Monckton. I may yet, but I have not yet so you may not say so yet.
You speak of shared shame among the sceptics; it would be the same, then, among those warmists who continue to idolise Man and his mann-made temperature graphs?
When I said, in panic, since the time for editing had but eight seconds to run, “f”, I was in the midst of reading your over-blown but occasionally humorous parody of Monckton’s perfidy. I had realised there were facts involved not clear from the posting I was asking about and wanted time to reconsider.
But, again, what do you think I said?

Gareth, you have gone too far and shown you are not to be trusted. I explain that I wanted time to reconsider my comments, having started reading your first post on this graph. But I see now that you have suddenly reinstated them! You cretin! You insubstantial worm!

You say: “so that my following comment makes sense.” Be man enough to delete your beautiful prose! Don’t misrepresent what I’ve said, you snivelling coward!

You provide an Edit function, to change one’s comments after submitting them. What right do you have to change my changed mind again?

My comments above stand for themselves, but you, sir, are a hypocrite. Honour your guests’ editing decisions or remove the editing function.

Baa, humbug!

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:52:50 +0000

Richard, look again. Monckton takes a graph from a 1997 paper and manipulates it without using the original data (because the underlying data is not provided in the paper). Stretching the timescale gives the “new” graph unwarranted precision, as does failing to note the use of a 250 year filter. The resulting curve is similar but not the same: look at where he draws the “today’s temperature” line (itself an entirely arbitrary choice). It goes through the first post-ice age peak (pre Younger Dryas), and through a dip in the early Holocene about 8,000BP. The original graph doesn’t do that. Then look at the shape of the curve up to present. Monckton has clearly exaggerated and altered the line. He has also added an upwards tick at the end which is not in the original. Apart from all that, he uses the manipulated data to make claims not in the original paper, and makes it appear that Cuffey & Clow support his claims.

This isn’t “adapted from”, this is manipulation and misrepresentation at its worst — made all the more piquant by Monckton’s insistent harping on about fraud by real climate scientists.

From his Heartland keynote:

The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth remains unalterable.

Unless of course it’s Monckton doing the altering.

Those words were accompanied by the “new” graph. Monckton showed it knowing (because he must have been made aware of his misattribution to correct it) that his manipulation had been noticed. None — none — of the people in attendance called him on it. He got a standing ovation, in fact.

Monckton is established by his own words and actions as a hypocrite and charlatan. He has no vestige of credibility in climate matters. All of those “elite scientists” (Heartland’s phrase, not mine) who stood and applauded him at the conference share his shame. As will you if you defend him further.

By: rtreadgold

rtreadgold — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:27:29 +0000

f
[Treadgold edited this to remove his original comment: I've put his original words back, so that my following comment makes sense. GR]

So the graph you announce as “the original”, the monochrome one with no attribution, is from the 1997 paper? Presumably it’s uncontested. If so, then the graph from Monckton is the same one; it’s abridged to just 17,000 years out of 50,000, the x-axis is reversed and some labels are altered, but what data were changed?

I’m not defending anyone here, just asking. I’m unfamiliar with this squabble, but the crime of which you convict Monckton is unsubstantiated by what I see so far.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:44:12 +0000

Oh, do keep up Richard. This is my second post on the subject. Monckton takes a graph from a 1997 paper, modifies and distorts it, adds stuff, and then pretends that it says something the original paper never claims. If that’s not “shameful tampering with the evidence” (from his Heartland keynote address) then I don’t know what is.

By: rtreadgold

rtreadgold — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:16:21 +0000

Monckton continues to play fast and loose with the facts.

Well, perhaps he does, but how does this graph support that conclusion?

By: Gareth

Gareth — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:17:53 +0000

Sorry gravity, you hit the spam filter for some reason. Given that Monckton felt free to adjust the data to suit his message, I think you should feel free to do the same!

By: gravityloss

gravityloss — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:48:36 +0000

Did my previous comment vanish?
Trying for the third time (if duplicates result the admin can remove):
My sketch is at i43.tinypic.com/2wlsig1.png But it’s not very good, done with MSPaint.

Also, this is the arctic and one place, which means polar amplification and increased variance and other things and isn’t that directly comparable to global averages.