The FalseClimate propaganda blog, (...) has launched a malevolent, scientifically- illiterate, and unscientifically-ad-hominem attack on a publication by meA 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.Those who see the ad-hominem in those words are kindly asked to raise their hands and show it to me.
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
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 wasRemarkable, because APS clearly wrote a paragraph to make clear that Monckton's article
has not undergone any scientific peer reviewin 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.