Littlemore vs Monckton: Except with Facts This Time

Thu, 2008-08-21 06:25Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Littlemore vs Monckton: Except with Facts This Time

Below, courtesy of James Taylor at the Heartland Institute, is a transcript of the debate between Christopher Walter (or Viscount Monckton, as he prefers to be known) and me on Roy Green’s phone-in radio show last Sunday. I have taken the liberty of annotating lightly (and in capitals) to point out my own mistakes and to offer contradictory evidence in the several cases were Monckton says things that are at wide variance with the truth.

Green

Richard, in layman’s terminology, make the case for the IPCC human-induced climate change position.


Littlemore

I’ll give you the brief spiel. After a long peace and period of climate stability, the Earth’s climate has started to change, and change quickly. In an effort to answer why, the Earth’s great scientists have gathered all the best research in a report by the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s last report says that there is a 90-plus percent certainty that humans are causing the problem, mostly by burning fossil fuels.

The governments of Stephen Harper in Canada, George Bush in the United States, the governments of Britain, France, Germany, China, India, and 137 other countries all signed off on that report. It’s not some like weird socialist thing. Everybody signed it.

Are there still scientific uncertainties? You bet. Real scientists are arguing all the time in labs and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, not in newsletters. Are we going to argue serious science today in 22 minutes in a debate between two guys, neither of whom has a degree in any scientific field or is doing any scientific research? I don’t think so.

The public debate about climate change is not about science, it’s about public relations. That’s what we do at DeSmog Blog, which is a climate change Web site. We do research on the credentials and the funding of people who argue that climate change isn’t happening, that it doesn’t matter, or that it can’t be stopped. Then we publish the results, and I can tell you it’s all about public relations.


Green

Let me have Lord Christopher respond to that.


Monckton

Well let’s first of all begin on this question of funding, and let us talk about the funding for DeSmog Blog. Now DeSmog Blog was founded with $300,000 of money from a man called John Lefebvre who is an Internet gaming fraudster convicted last year of making hundreds of millions of dollars – a large chunk of which he is now being made to pay back to the U.S. government – by unlawfully laundering money to do with unlawful Internet gaming.

He is the person who got into bed with Mr. Littlemore’s boss at a PR [public relations] company, a Mr. James Haugen(LOVELY IMAGERY HERE, VISCOUNT; JOHN AND JIM WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL TOGETHER), and they took up the DeSmog Blog, whose job of course is not to debate the science of climate, but to inaccurately misrepresent the alleged or supposed or imagined funding of anyone who dares to challenge the supposed consensus on the climate (INACCURATELY MISREPRESENT THE ALLEGED OR SUPPOSED OR IMAGINED FUNDING??? YET MONCKTON DOESN’T DENY HIS OWN CONNECTION TO A SPPINSTITUTE CREATED BY EXXON MOBIL. NICE.). So let’s get that thing clear first of all. DeSmog Blog was founded, is funded, and is run by a convicted and self-confessed crook, and furthermore that crook is now in the business of running a solar energy corporation (I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF J. LEFEBVRE’S SOLAR INVESTMENTS, BUT TIM LAMBERT AT THE SCIENCE BLOG DELTOID REPORTS HERE THAT MONCKTON IS TALKING ABOUT THE WRONG JOHN LEFEBVRE) and therefore has a direct vested interest in peddling the climate change scare.

I would start by making it clear that Mr. Littlemore is a public relations executive working for a convicted Internet fraudster.


Green

Lord Christopher, let me just jump in here if I may. I appreciate you saying this, and I want Richard to respond, because I have the stories and the news stories as well. But I really want to get to the climate change issue because that is what our listeners want to hear most about from each of you. So Richard, respond to that and then let’s get to the issue of climate.


Littlemore

John Lefebvre hasn’t been convicted of anything (THIS IS A TERRIBLE ANSWER, AND TECHNICALLY CORRECT, BUT OVERLY DEFENSIVE . JOHN HAS SUBMITTED A GUILTY PLEA IN A DEAL WITH U.S. OFFICIALS THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN RESOLVED). He had a legitimate Internet banking company that was registered in your country because it wouldn’t have been legal if it was registered in the United States (MORE CLEARLY, HE RAN A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS THAT WAS LEGALLY REGISTERED AND TRADED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE. IT SURPRISES ME THAT THE LIBERTARIANS AT SO DELIGHTED TO SEE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY HIS MONEY. AND IT’S DISAPPOINTING, GIVEN THAT JOHN HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT, OTHERWISE, HE WAS GOING TO GIVE THE LION’S SHARE OF IT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER WORTHY CAUSES). Yeah, he gave us our money. I didn’t start off by saying that you’re the senior policy advisor for the ‘SPPInstitute,’ for an organization whose Web site is the ‘SPPIstitute,’ which was started with $100,000 that the Frontiers of Freedom spun off from ExxonMobil to begin the Science and Public Policy Institute. I told you this wasn’t going to be about science, so this is about public relations in every aspect.


Green

Let me turn it around then. Let me ask you each a question. I have one question. We’ll start with this, and then we’ll take a break, and you’ll think about the question and then we’ll come back and we’ll debate it and see where it goes from there.

The question I have is this: I have done a lot of research on this issue as well. Have global temperatures – and please listen to the question carefully – have global overall temperatures increased in the past 50 years – not the past 100 years – because we know the temperatures globally rose after the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s, and that global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Celsius in the past 100 years. But have global temperatures risen in the past 50 or 60 years, or have global temperatures been stable during that period?

And remember warming temperatures globally swung upward – at least my information tells me this – in the first half of the twentieth century before World War II and the post-war industrial boom – and the second half of the century, with all of the industrial activity, didn’t global temperatures remain fairly static?


[BREAK]


Green

My question is, did it [global temperature] go up 1 degree in the last 100 years or did it go up 1 degree in the first half of the twentieth century with very little increase in temperature in the second half of the twentieth century? Lord Christopher, perhaps you first.


Monckton

Just to clear up one thing, Mr. Littlemore said that his paymaster, the crook Lefebvre had not been convicted. He was in fact convicted by a U.S. court in July 2007. So you are not going to get straight facts from him, but you will get them from me.

Now the temperature record is like this; the temperature went up very fast between about 1906 and 1940. Indeed in the 1920s and 1930s it went up very fast indeed. From 1940 until about 1975, it fell a little. From 1975 until 1998 it went up quite a lot – about 0.5 Celsius overall over the 50 years you are asking about. And that is of course preceded by a 0.5 degree Celsius increase long before humankind could have had anything to do with it in the first 50 years of the twentieth century. (WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? ASIDE FROM LITTLE PROJECTS LIKE THE DEFORESTATION OF EUROPE, HUMANS BEGAN RELEASING CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE BIGTIME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, SAY AROUND 1780.)

So yes there has been an increase, however that increase has been going on at a rate on average of about 0.5 Celsius per century for 300 years, during 250 of which we could not possibly have had anything to do with it (FOR A “MATHEMATICIAN,” CHRIS SEEMS BADLY OUT OF HIS DEPTH HERE. 2008 MIINUS 1780 IS 228., THAT LEAVES 72 YEARS OUT OF 300, NOT COUNTING THINGS LIKE THE EARLIER DEVASTATION OF THE IRAQI BREADBASKET THROUGH OVERIRRIGATION). And now that temperatures have been falling for the last seven years and falling at a rate of about 0.4 degrees Celsius per century according to the Hadley Center’s records, HADLEY CENTRE RECORDSor per decade I should say, the overall effect is that there has been no increase in the long-run warming rate over the past 300 years. (AGAIN, FOR A MATHEMATICIAN, CHRIS SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, BUT NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH DATA MANIPULATION. IF YOU PICK THE ANOMALOUS HIGH POINT OF 1998 AND TRACK ONLY FOR EIGHT YEARS, TEMPERATURE IS FLAT OR BARELY FALLING. IF YOU PICK ROY GREEN’S DATE OF 50 YEARS AGO ….) There has been no particular change in the second half of the twentieth century. (….THEN THIS STATEMENT IS A BAREFACED LIE.)


Green

Richard Littlemore, respond to that please.


Littlemore

I don’t know where you’re getting a lot of this. But if your listeners would like to Google climate or um, global warming, um, or go to Wikipedia and look up global warming, they can get a nice graph the U.S. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration – a pretty reputable organization – that will show you some of the ups and downs that have been mooted here. But from 1950 until now, if you put a ruler on the curve it goes up at about a 45 degree angle. Eleven of the hottest years in recorded history occurred in the last 13 years. How that can be characterized as anything other than a considerable increase. … I mean it’s not just 11 of the hottest years in recorded history. According to some very good climate reconstructions going back at least 1,000 years, we’re talking about the hottest decade in 1,000 years at least )


noaa GRAPHGreen

Lord Christopher?


Monckton

Well no, we’re not. The ‘hockey stick’ graph that is purported to abolish the Medieval Warm Period was based on bristlecone pine reconstructions from tree rings using a process which the UN climate panel had itself said ought not to be used. If you take out the bristlecone pine record and use all the other datasets you find that, just as history confirms, there was a Medieval Warm Period during which temperatures were considerably higher than they are now (THIS, TOO, IS PUREST FICTION. THE ONLYEVIDENCEMONCKTON COULD PRODUCE OF AN MWP WITH TEMPERATURES “considerably higher” THAN NOW WOULD BE A HAND DRAWN MAP BY TIM BALL). In the 10,000 years of the present interglacial period between ice ages, the temperature has been warmer than today about two-thirds of the time. (HIS ABILITY TO SAY THIS WITHOUT CHOKING IS A GREAT ASSET TO EXXON.) And in each of the previous four or five interglacial periods, which occur every 125,000 years, the temperature has been up to 5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, and humankind cannot have had anything to do with it.

NHS Jouzel: JOUZEL (THIS GRAPH GOES WITH A PAPER IN THE JOURNAL SCIENCE. IT SHOWS TEMPERATURE RECORDS TEASED OUT OF ANTARCTIC ICE CORES. IT FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE LAST TIME TEMPERATURES WERE AS HIGH AS THEY ARE NOW WAS ABOUT 125,000 YEARS AGO.)

What is more, the Sun has been more active and for longer over the last 70 years than at almost any previous similar period over the past 11,400 years since the end of the last ice age. (A PERIOD OF HIGH ACTIVITY THAT ENDED ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO .)


Green

Make your point, Richard.


Littlemore

I’m sorry that we’re not on television instead of radio, no offense. If you go to DeSmogBlog.com, or if you just Google this is not a hockey stick, you will find that the story that has just been told to you about the hockey stick debunking is flagrantly incorrect, um not to say false, um, well and to say false. The bristlecone records which are featured in the hockey stick, and this gets really, this is why we shouldn’t be talking about science on the radio. But anyway, the bristlecone record is corroborated by ocean sediments, by lake sediments, by glaciers. I’ve got eight other graphs on the DeSmog Blog, none of which has been questioned in the least, all showing a hockey stick shape in the temperature from 1,000 years ago to today, and all of them showing a pretty similar – the idea that there was a Medieval Warming Period during which the temperature was higher than it is now is, that is like, flagrantly incorrect is the nicest way that I can say it. 9AGAIN AND AGAIN, THE PHRASE THAT DANCED ON MY TONGUE WASABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.”)


Green

Well wasn’t it called the Medieval Climactic Optimum – optimum meaning the best?


Littlemore

[laughter]


Monckton

Yes it was. And of course, the IPCC’s report in1990 shows the graph which illustrates the existence of the Medieval Warm Period very clearly. I can produce 30 graphs from different scientific papers from all around the world from ocean sediments, from Lake Vikal, from the Alps, from all over the place establishing that the Medieval Warm Period was real and it existed. (THIS IS VERY NICELY PUT. I CAN ONLY AGREE THAT THE MWP “was real and it existed” AND I HAVE NO DOUBTS MONCKTON CAN PRODUCE GRAPHS TO PROVE IT SO. BUT HE HAS ARGUED, ONLY A MOMENT AGO, THAT IT WAS WARMER THAN TODAY, A CONTENTION FOR WHICH HE HAS NO PROOF WHATEVER.)

That’s when the great cathedrals of Europe were built. That’s when civilization began to flower because of the warmer weather. We know this perfectly well. If you go to Valsay in Greenland, where the archaeologists have been digging recently, they have found the burial site where the major Viking settlement there used to exist. That burial site was not under permafrost when people were buried there because they wouldn’t have been able to dig into it. It is under permafrost still today. Why? Because Greenland is cooler today than it was in the Medieval Warm Period.

Records from all over the world show, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – paper after paper after paper – that the Medieval Warm Period was real.


Green

Richard, when I said Medieval Climactic Optimum – optimum meaning the best – you laughed.


Littlemore

Yeah, it gets to the question of ‘Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if it was warmer.’


Green

Well, many people are saying that. Many people are arguing that if the planet is getting warmer, it is not necessarily a bad thing. (IT’S ABOUT HERE WHEN ROY GREENTHE MODERATORGIVES IN TO THE TEMPTATION TO JOIN THE DARK SIDE.)


Littlemore

Many people don’t live in Bangladesh, which if the oceans go up a meter 60 million people are in danger of losing their home. You know, whether somebody in Whitehorse thinks that there is going to be a slight advantage to having climate change, doesn’t address the significant risks that tend to – climate change at a pace that could be faster than at any time in the last [unintelligible]. … (I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT I SAID, EITHER, BUT I HAVE TO SAY, AGAIN, THAT THE HEARTLAND HAS DONE A CREDITABLE JOB ON THE TRANSCRIPTION.)


Green

Over how long a period of time does the IPCC suggest the oceans will rise? And are we talking all the oceans or just some of them by a meter?


Littlemore

It’s a moving target. The IPCC – Andrew Weaver, who is like the best climate modeler in Canada or one of the best, said you know, meter, two meters at the outside is all that he can show in models in this century. So you know, everybody can build dikes or can perhaps build dikes and not worry about it.

[BREAK]


Green

Can we address this whole issue of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter influencing Earth and other planets? Triton, Neptune’s moon, is experiencing melting of its surface of frozen nitrogen. Pluto has warmed some 3 degrees. The Red Spot has a mass I understand of more than 300,000 times greater than Earth, with a temperature of roughly 20 million degrees Celsius at its core. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the Red Spot may be responsible for any modest increase in global temperatures? (HERE I AM THINKING: IS THIS A SET-UP?) Lord Christopher, first to you. (AND HERE I’M THINKING: YUP!)


Monckton

Well, I don’t think it would cause any increase in global temperatures. But certainly what I think is happening is there is a giant, bright object at the middle of the solar system, from which the solar system gets its name, that has indeed been becoming more active recently, as I was saying earlier. And it is that which is probably causing the simultaneous warming that has been observed over recent years on many of the planetary bodies in the solar system.

But to just very quickly go back on the sea level rise point, Mr. Littlemore didn’t answer your question about what the IPCC said. What it said is that a 43 centimeter – that’s 1 foot, 5 [inches] – is their projected sea level rise for the next century. That’s their best estimate. They have reduced their top end estimate down from 3 feet down to less than 2 feet. So we are looking at really quite a small sea level rise which is really not going to threaten anybody very much. And there’s no real expectation that there is going to be any more than that.

Indeed, I was consulting [unintelligible] the other day, who is the world’s greatest expert on sea level, and has written several papers on it, and he said he is not expecting it to rise very much more than the eight inches we saw in the last century, and that in itself is only about a fifth of the 4 feet per century which has been the average sea level rise per century over the last 10,000 years, with sea level rising over 400 feet in that time.


Green

Let’s go to Richard Littlemore for a response to that, and then a question for you both.


Littlemore

Well I’m not sure what I’m responding to. The bamboozling on science. … We’re looking at the most serious collapse of Arctic ice in all of recorded history.(BY THIS POINT, I HAVE COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN MY RESOLVE NOT TO GET CAUGHT UP IN ARGUING ABOUT SCIENCE, WHICH, AS I POINTED OUT IN MY INTRODUCTIN, IS not MY FIELD. I SAY, “RECORDED HISTORYWHERE I SHOULD BE SAYING, “SINCE WE BEGAN TAKING SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS.) This is the third year in a row when the Northwest Passage is navigable and this could be as bad as last year, which was the biggest melt in history. You know when the ice melts the sea level rises. (AS SEVERAL DELIGHTED COMMENTERS HAVE POINTED OUT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, WHEN FLOATINGDEFENDING THE IPCC.) It’s melting way faster than anybody anticipated that it would. So it stands to reason that the sea levels might rise a little more quickly. ICE MELTS, IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO SEA LEVEL - EXCEPT THAT IT NO LONGER HOLDS THE CONTINENTAL ICE IN PLACE AND, SUDDENLY, GREENLAND ICE IS SLIPPING INTO THE SEA AT RATES FAR ABOVE WHAT THE IPCC HAS BEEN EXPECTING. SO, CHRIS AND ROY NOW HAVE ME IN THE POSITION OF WANTING TO SAY THAT THOSE GUYS AT THE IPCC HAVE LIKELY MISSED THEIR GUESS ON THIS COUNT, AND I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE


Green

[Asks about extent of Arctic ice decline.]


Littlemore

The last two years have seen a catastrophic decline. If you go back to three weeks ago and look at what the Canadian ice service was saying, they were saying, ‘Hey, big recovery after last year. This is great news. We had a good cold winter and there looks like really a fabulous recovery.’ Last week they said, ‘Oops, just kidding. It’s got quite stormy up there. All that ice is broken up. It’s looking now like we’re on track to have again one of the Earth’s worst years ever.’

On the solar thing, the idea that the Sun – I mean it’s – there are all these side issues but first of all, all the people who say, ‘Ooh, it’s solar forcing, not CO2 forcing, they bring out these charts and graphs, and the charts and graphs all end sort of in 1980 (OR 1990 ).

And the reason they all end in 1980 is that the Sun’s activity graph and the global average temperature graph track almost perfectly until 1980. And then, oops, the Sun’s activity goes straight into the dumpster and the temperature goes straight up. So you get a guy like Tim Patterson from the University of Ottawa (MY MISTAKE: CARLETON UNIVERSITY) who does speeches about this all over town, his graph always ends at 1980, like there’s something really unsavory about that. If as well, you were to think that so much additional energy is coming from the Sun that it’s lighting fire to Jupiter, if that much energy is getting to Jupiter to be creating that spot, if there isn’t some other function happening out there, then we would all be toast like.


Green

On that point, Lord Christopher, how do you want to wrap this up? (WHICH IS TO SAY: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE LAST WORD?)


Monckton

Very quickly, let’s deal with the Arctic ice which is a little bit nearer to home. The fact is that there has been far less Arctic ice around than there is now. In the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries, when sailing ships had been able to sail through the Northwest Passage. (WELL, ONE SAILING SHIP, CAPTAINED BY ROALD AMUNDSEN, WHO TOOK THREE YEARS TO MAKE THE TRIP.) It was free again in 1945, (ACTUALLY, 1940 AND 1944, FOR THE ICE-FORTIFIED SCHOONER, THE ST. ROCH) it’s free again now. These things come and go.

In any case, even if the entire Arctic ice cap was melted, it is floating and therefore doesn’t add a single millimeter to sea level rise.

In any case, all his point about the fact that the Arctic has been showing some signs of warming was disposed of very thoroughly by NASA last year in a paper saying that most of that warming is attributable to changes in the great ocean currents as they push more warmer water up to the Arctic and this has nothing to do with global warming. (IF MEMORY SERVES, THE RESEARCH ACTUALLY SUGGESTS THAT THE CHANGES IN OCEAN CURRENTS ARE, ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING.)

The point is that merely because you see a phenomenon of warming somewhere doesn’t mean the whole planet is warming. It doesn’t mean that the cause of the warming has anything to do with us. There is more Antarctic ice than ever there was (NOT TRUE: RESEARCHERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL REPORTED THIS YEAR THAT OVERALL ICE LOSS IN ANTARCTICA HAS INCREASED ABOUT 75 PER CENT OVER THE 10 YEAR PERIOD FROM 1996-2006 AND THAT MODELS PREDICTING AN INCREASE IN ICE MASS ARE NOT BEARING OUT: IT’S DECLINING EVERYWHERE.)and the overall ice mass of the planet – if you take the Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic together – has shown no trend whatsoever, up or down in the last 50 years since we have been keeping detailed records. There has been no change.


Green

I thank you both very much. All the best to you both.

GREEN THEN WENT TO 15 MINUTES OF PHONE-IN COMMENTS IN WHICH EVERYONE AGREED THAT THERE HAD, INDEED, BEEN A REASONABLE DEBATE ABOUT SCIENCE AND THATTHAT LEFT-WING GUYHAD BEEN ROUNDLY THRASHED BY THE NOBLE HERO, VERY NICE.


 

Previous Comments

And RealClimate needs to stop censoring comments. I’ve had so many censored I stop posting. The Oil Drum banned me completely for posting AGW skeptical comments. Yep, the desire to find the true – NOT!

I’m at the point now where I believe nothing from either side. It’s just politics and spin and money flying around.

Both sides fail.

The very fact that you’re saying this shows that you’ve bought into garbage from one side. (Alternatively, you’re a shill.)

I’ve bought into garbage from both sides. And both sides have a lot of garbage - just read this thread and you know that much.

Actually, I think the policy at real climate is to stop you from posting a lie that isn’t supported by the scientific evidence.

There are a few points here and there in the global warming debate that are murky, and open to debate. Real climate accepts comments posing legitimate questions that present contradictory evidence - as long as the science is sound.

But every point you are making on Desmog is a distortion. You believe that global warming is some form of left-wing conspiracy (despite the incredibly number of Conservative leaders who are leading the fight against carbon dioxide emissions), so it doesn’t matter how often or how loud we say it.

Find peer-reviewed studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals to support your points, or stop wasting the electrons and bandwidth.

RealClimate “censors” comments? Again, I’d like to point out that the Heartland web site doesn’t even have comments.

And yet the inactivists call this “free speech” and “willingness to debate”!

Time for DeSmogBlog to stop giving these scumbags an unfair advantage.

Looking at how rabid the conversation has been here the last couple of days, I can just imagine the donnybrook if Heartland opened itself to criticism. And yes, clearly, they haven’t got the stones for it.

That said, I have had to delete an unusual number in the last three days that were profane and/or offensive in language and intent. We’re rethinking the policy, not as a way to stifle conversation - or criticism, which you can find here in good measure - but to provide a polite environment for people who legitimately want to converse , saving us all from the corporate shills trolling our site.

And which side were these on? I have found over the years that when you challenge a core belief system, like AGW, it sparks a number of people who support it to say very nasty things. People do that when they have no real defense in the hopes of scaring people away. I don’t scare. I actually feel sorry for such people. What I’ve seen here is mild. Nothing I can’t handle.

O.K., Richard, in the spirit of “put up or shut up”, when are you going to put the boots to Ian Forrester?

Richard, is it possible to get hold of this nasty person’s IP address? He has slandered me for longer than I can put up with.

I have talked to my lawyer and he is wiling to start an action against him.

This needs to stop.

Ian Forrester

When the kitchen gets too hot…

Start a lawsuit. Geeze, Ian, get some thicker skin, or leave.

You and your lies do you and your family a disservice. Do they know how dishonest you are? Do you teach your children to lie?

You actually do a disservice to the AGW deniers since they can see how dishonest some of their supporters are. If you really want to be taken seriously why do you not read the scientific literature. You might even find one or two papers (out of thousands) which actually support your bogus arguments.

By always referring us to the AGW denier sites, who are not familiar with the truth, you only show that you are either too lazy to look for real information or you know that it is false but cite it because it supports your AGW denier agenda.

That is not how real science works.

Ian Forrester

Stop……You are killing me.
LOLOLOLOL

You have a Lawyer? LOLOL
Put me down to testify against you.

The legal system does not take kindly to perjury. Are you willing to take that chance?

Ian Forrester

The legal system does not take kindly to perjury or frivolous abuse of the courts time.
Are you willing to take that chance.

Heartland can’t have comments the way DeSmog can because U S law does not allow tax exempt groups like Heartland to talk about certain subjects. That is why very few U S nonprofits have comments on their websites.

They’d have to know I was lying. Can you prove I am? NO they deleted posts that challenged them. I’m not the only one, google this title.

That’s because you keep posting the same debunked, idiotic claims over and over again. If you act like an idiot, don’t be surprised if you’re treated like one….

Yep, I’d agree in this case. People who post debunked idiotic claims should feel the ban stick in most places. Its the only way to have some progression in dialogue. Hopefully, their will correct themselves and seek out reliable sources of information for their education and then return. Like, any university…though….if that isnt possible perhaps they might not ever find anything reliable beyond wikipedia

Desperation because you have lost.
The only reason to censor the comments is because you have no valid counter arguments.
This is why the propagandists at Real Climate do it.
It would definitely signal surrender if Desmog chose to do it.
I predict it will happen fairly soon as their arguments are getting progressively weaker and their claims are getting progressively more ridiculous.
Its now down to calling names and insisting that everything is a lie.
Pretty pathetic really.

When will the Heartland Institute even allow any comments on their site?

I’ve seen several climate activist sites (DeSmogBlog, Hot Topic, Rabett Run), which allow free-for-all comments.

I’ve seen exactly zero inactivist sites which allow free-for-all comments. The Marohasy blog, Watts’s blog, Pielke’s blog – all are moderated. And again, the HI site doesn’t even have comments. Again, is this “willingness to debate” or what?

Name me one inactivist site that allows free-for-all comments, Gary. Just one.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sign the “Sue Us” Petition!
Urge Monckton et al. to sue Gore as promised! http://tinyurl.com/6265jx

It is a Web site. There is a difference.
I’ve seen exactly zero inactivist sites.

I have seen lots of science blogs on the topic of Global Warming that allow comment.

My Favorite is Accuweather. They actually have some good Posters in favour of your perspective as well. It is open and very much more civil than here.

When will the Heartland Institute even allow any comments on their site?

I’ve seen several climate activist sites (DeSmogBlog, Hot Topic, Rabett Run), which allow free-for-all comments.

I’ve seen exactly zero inactivist sites which allow free-for-all comments. The Marohasy blog, Watts’s blog, Pielke’s blog – all are moderated. And again, the HI site doesn’t even have comments. Tell me again, is this “willingness to debate” or what?

Name me one inactivist site that allows free-for-all comments, Gary. Just one.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sign the “Sue Us” Petition!
Urge Monckton et al. to sue Gore and Hansen as promised! http://tinyurl.com/6265jx

…corporate shills?

If they blocked garbage we would not be able to enjoy your commical coments any more.

GREENLAND ICE IS SLIPPING INTO THE SEA AT RATES FAR ABOVE WHAT THE IPCC HAS BEEN EXPECTING.

You do realize the vast majority of Greenland is 1000 ft below sea level due to the weight of the ice. So it cannot “slip” into the sea. It would take 1000’s of years to melt that ice. The last time it was all melted was 180,000 years ago. Gee wonder what caused that! So there is no physical way that all that ice is going to melt in any time frame we have to worry about, that’s assuming it all does melt.

In the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries, when sailing ships had been able to sail through the Northwest Passage. (WELL, ONE SAILING SHIP, CAPTAINED BY ROALD AMUNDSEN, WHO TOOK THREE YEARS TO MAKE THE TRIP.) It was free again in 1945, (ACTUALLY, 1940 AND 1944, FOR THE ICE-FORTIFIED SCHOONER, THE ST. ROCH)

That is such a misleading statement. Amundsen spent 3 years there mapping the area, that does not mean it took him 3 years to get through the northwest passage. Fact is the passage was clear enough to get through back then. Problem is we do not know what it was like up there when no one was around to see.

IF MEMORY SERVES, THE RESEARCH ACTUALLY SUGGESTS THAT THE CHANGES IN OCEAN CURRENTS ARE, ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING.)

Yeah, stay away from science, it’s far more complex than that. Besides, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has gone into a cooling trend http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/.

RESEARCHERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL REPORTED THIS YEAR THAT OVERALL ICE LOSS IN ANTARCTICA HAS INCREASED ABOUT 75 PER CENT OVER THE 10 YEAR PERIOD FROM 1996-2006 AND THAT MODELS PREDICTING AN INCREASE IN ICE MASS ARE NOT BEARING OUT: IT’S DECLINING EVERYWHERE

Reference please.

“Antarctic Cooling Down; The Antarctic Ice Sheet is Growing; Hansen Downgrades Warming Threat” http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160

“Antarctica Ice Cap Growth Reaches Record High Levels (Photos) ”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html

Note the graph, no change in over all direction.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=04&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=04&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=1980&year1=2008&.cgifields=no_panel

Note the diff between 1980 and 2008

Arctic Ice:

“Despite the recent global warming alarmism in the media that Arctic ice might melt away completely from the North Pole this summer, the latest scientific observations show that Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year. ” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase

“The Arctic is almost as warm now as it was seventy years ago. Unsurprisingly, Arctic ice has diminished. But, as Polyakov et al.show, the long-term changes are “generally statistically insignificant”. But there’s more ice in Antarctica now. It seems that points more to a natural, cyclical variation on a global scale when one pole diminishes while another gains.”
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-wind-says-nasa/

Note the graphs

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3229 note the graphs

I love when they quote Polyakov or other scientists without bothering to read their full research.

—-

Igor Polyakov, of the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, Alaska, explained that natural variability and global warming are crucial to understanding the sea ice melt.

“A combination of these two forces leads to what we observe now and we should not ignore either force,” Dr Polyakov said.

“There have been numerous models run that have looked at (the two forces) and basically they can’t reproduce the ice loss we’ve had with natural variability. You have to add a carbon dioxide warming component to it.”

Source: The Age (Australia), August 4, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/5a5ojr.

Think about what he is saying here. He is saying that MODELS “can’t reproduce the ice loss we’ve had with natural variability.” Then the MODELS MUST BE WRONG!! Just because a model cannot reproduce this does not mean there arn’t natural causes. The models can, and are, VERY WRONG if they do not model reality properly. And all evidence shows they cannot model reality with any certainty. One only has to look at the wide variabilty in the model predictions to see this.

Far too much reliance on models, and not enough physical, emperical evidence.

This is NOT what he said, but you are desperate for him to mean that.

What he is saying is that natural variability can only partly explain the Arctic ice loss, but not entirely. So carbon dioxide DOES play a role.

So please refrain from quoting someone who quotes Polyakov, thinking that he is a skeptic/denier because he is not.

JR Wakefield, I’ll try to explain it in simple terms. When they model ice loss taking into account only natural variability, the model gets results which do not match the evidence. When they model ice loss taking into account natural variability and CO2 warming, then the model produces results which do match the evidence.

Which means natural variability alone does not adequately explain what is happening; CO2 warming must also be occurring.

That’s an ASSUMPTION. Of cource I knew you would come pacbk with that. The assumption is that the models DO acurrately include ALL natural variability. They do not because no model can. A model is a mathematical representation of what our best guess is of how reality works based on the evidence provided.

To make your accertion true would mean that we know all natural variability parameters and have accurately modeled them. And that is not possible.

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1
Abstract Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

Fudge factors are used to make models fit reality after the fact:
Backcasting with Computer Climate Models
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/08/backcasting-wit.html

The climate modelers are all patting themselves on the back for their backcasts matching history so well. But the fact is that much of this historical temperature record is fraught with errors. Just as one example, measured temperatures went through several large up and down shifts in the 40’s and 50’s solely because ships were switching how they took sea surface temperatures (engine inlet sampling tends to yield higher temperatures than bucket sampling). Additionally, most surface temperature readings are taken in cities that have experienced rapid industrial growth, increasing urban heat biases in the measurements. In effect, they have plugged and tweaked their way to the wrong target numbers!

JR Wakefield said: “You do realize the vast majority of Greenland is 1000 ft below sea level due to the weight of the ice. So it cannot “slip” into the sea”.

So according to your logic, if I filled a bowl with water and slowly dripped in more it would not overflow since most of the water is below the lip of the bowl.

Good grief, is science education really this bad?

Ian Forrester

What? How is that relevant to Greenland? BTW, don’t just off the top of your head, give REFEREED paper references to back up any clarity to this supposition of yours.

I will let you think about it for a while. I’m sure some of your equally ignorant supporters will be jumping in and explaining how your ridiculous statement is in fact true.

It is utter nonsense and has no relevance to Greenland melting and causing rising sea levels.

Ian Forrester

Get flood insurance NOW!!
While you still can.

http://ex-parrot.com/~pete/greenland.html

Excerpt:
Lots of people quote this NASA press release, Loss of ice is 220 cubic kilometers per year, or 264 billion gallons of water. The important questions are :-

How big is the greenland ice sheet.?
Very. Wikipedia and other sources suggest about 2.85million cubic kilometres.

How long will it take to melt at current rates
So, divide, 2 850 000 000 by 220 and you get 13000 years.

Richard, you have my sympathy; you were hampered by a respect for the evidence.

Monckton seems quite skilled at the radio soundclip; maybe it would be as useful to look not only at his lack of scientific credentials, but also at how he has developed his PR skills. What is it that makes some of these guys good at spouting plausible-sounding BS?

Actually, I thought Littlemore could’ve done a good lot better, and still have respect for the evidence.

Part of the problem is that he spends too much time, while Monckton and Green repeatedly go on the offensive. I think Littlemore miscalculated when he thought that Monckton would try to deny his connections with Big Oil; instead he just blithely ignored it and counter-attacked Littlemore by talking about his connection with a “criminal” online gambling tycoon (which is totally irrelevant to any sort of “AGW bias”, but it just sounds bad). And for the rest of the “debate”, Littlemore was pretty much talking about whatever Green wanted him to talk about, rather than come up with his own counter-attacks.

As they say, the best defence is a good offence.

- - -

And once more…

To all global warming activists and inactivists:

Please sign the “Sue Us” Petition ( http://tinyurl.com/6265jx ) to urge Monckton, Coleman, and McShane to sue Gore and Hansen for “conspiracy”, as repeatedly threatened!

Climate inactivists, if you Monckton truly is right, then you should strongly urge him to bring his lawsuit against Gore and Hansen, so that he can stop this multi-billion-dollar global warming cam’ right away!

“…he spends too much time”

Too much time being defensive, that is.

My opinion is Is that Littlemore had one incredible obstacle to overcome: He was the only one with a microphone who actually had facts to support his points. He was the only one interested in telling the truth.

I could kick anyone’s ass in a debate if I didn’t have to stick to the facts.

Thx VJ

Wow VJ;
Your hypocrisy is breathtaking!
You say:
“you were hampered by a respect for the evidence. “ in one sentence.

Then follow it up with:
“look not only at his lack of scientific credentials, but also at how he has developed his PR skills.”

So you ignore the message content entirely and suggest attacking the credibility of the messenger as a valid method of debate.
“Find some dirt, that will make your point.”

Are you a Scientologist by any chance?
Is that how you learned to debate a topic?

No, but I’ve been studying your own methods, Gary…

Now, do I have to say something nice about you too?

I will try to think of somthing.

VJ seems to have a good spell checker.

We even now?

A waste of time. It wasn’t a compliment.

Wakefield:
Less Heating in the Winter is better? And are you sitting in an air-conditioned room at this moment?
No, making a reference to a peer-reviewed journal article is not the same as a writing a peer reviewed review article. I can say “XYZ scientist said (citing reference) the moon is made of blue cheese.” But no scientist-reviewer would let that statement be put in a journal. So no, somebody has a web site (or even writes a book) with copious citations doesn’t make it true.
And Yes, the 45 degree curve remark was meaningless. So what? You will notice that Monckton started with a personal attack on Littlemore. the purpose of “trash-talking” is to rattle the other guy.

Less Heating in the Winter is better? And are you sitting in an air-conditioned room at this moment?

Nope, this year is one of the coolest summers on record for Southwestern Ontario. Not one day has it been too warm for AC.

No, making a reference to a peer-reviewed journal article is not the same as a writing a peer reviewed review article. I can say “XYZ scientist said (citing reference) the moon is made of blue cheese.” But no scientist-reviewer would let that statement be put in a journal. So no, somebody has a web site (or even writes a book) with copious citations doesn’t make it true.

That goes BOTH WAYS!!

And Yes, the 45 degree curve remark was meaningless. So what?

Because Richard’s emphasis was on the steepness of the angle as if it had some important scary meaning to it. How much of an impact would his message have been if he said 10 degrees because of the scale? None, so he instead used his interpretation (incorrectly) and worse he has not even admited it was a mistake.

That’s the whole problem with AGW. You guys emphasize the scary stuff, those predictions with the LEAST probability of becoming reality, many of which are not even in the official IPCC reports with no justification at all.

You will notice that Monckton started with a personal attack on Littlemore. the purpose of “trash-talking” is to rattle the other guy.

It’s called strategy. If the opponent gets rattled so much that he cannot think clearly, then either he should be debating or he does not even understand his own position. I’ve had it attempted on me, and they fail because I know my stuff.

JR Wakefield said: “because I know my stuff”.

JR once again you are telling huge whoppers. You do not know your stuff.

The right stuff is found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Have you ever read a real paper?

Ian Forrester

Ian, have you been published in a science journal? http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

The stated purpose of Desmog is to “Trash Talk” about honest scientists in an attempt to discredit their work.
The goal is to stop people from reading it because it will erode the carefully constructed and delicate myth about AGW.
So an opening volley of Desmog Like trashing was completely ap[appropriate.
And you are correct about the graphs, they are misleading garbage.

Pages