Sunday, 3 August 2008

It's not just climate science Monckton fails to understand correctly

The FalseClimate propaganda blog, (...) has launched a malevolent, scientifically-Lord Christopher Monckton illiterate, and unscientifically-ad-hominem attack on a publication by me
A quote from Chistopher Monckton in his text Chuck it again, Schmidt! which is a reply to NASA's Gavin Schmidt, who wrote a rebuttal of Monckton's APS-article on the RealClimate website. The post can be found here

Monckton says, in his rebuttal, he will "replace all comments by him (Schmidt) that are purely ad hominem with “+++”.

As an example, hereby Monckton's first claim about an ad-hominem attack :
Schmidt: "+++ ... the most egregious error is a completely arbitrary reduction by 66% of the radiative forcing due to CO2. He +++ justifies this with reference to tropical troposphere temperatures ..."

The part Monckton censored with "+++" as being an ad-hominem are the words :
"As Deltoid quickly noticed"

That's a little strange because that's not even close to an ad-hominem. Or is it ?

Did maybe deltoid place an ad-hominem attack, which by copying could be interpret as Schmidt placing an ad-hominem attack on Monckton ? Well, let's have a look to what was written on the deltoid blog. This is the part Schmidt is referring to :
But Lindzen (2007) (which was published in Energy and Environment rather than in a proper journal) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high by a factor of three.
In fact, he specifically says that ΔF2x "is about 3.5 watts per square meter". As far as I can tell, Monckton has misunderstood this statement from Lindzen
Those who see the ad-hominem in those words are kindly asked to raise their hands and show it to me.

It does give the impression Monckton's bewildering quote is a result from simply not having a clue what an "ad-hominem" attack actually means. Which is a bit strange for a man who, according to his biography, read classics in Cambridge.

Further in his "rebuttal", Monckton basically claims global warming isn't a reality. And if it is, it doesn't matter anyway. My advice to Monckton would be : choose one point and stick to it. Now the man is defending two rather conflictuous opinions on one page. Which looks a bit silly

Monckton continues writing remarkable things :
It is regrettable that Schmidt neither has his blogs scientifically reviewed as thoroughly as my paper was
Remarkable, because APS clearly wrote a paragraph to make clear that Monckton's article
has not undergone any scientific peer review
in New Scientist; Al Saperstein, one of the editors of Physics & Society explains what the traject before publication was :
He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. "I'm a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed," he said. "It was not."
Monckton's claim the paper was peer-reviewed simply is incorrect .

And, not surprisingly for anyone who everspoke with a climate change denier, Monckton ends his text with a complot theory.
Who funds FalseClimate and the blogs connected to it ?
Monckton writes those words on the SPPI-website, funded by exxon-money.
Which is an amusing detail.

No comments:

Post a Comment