UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (153) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: putnid Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1977205  
Subject: Re: I dont believe man causes Global Warming Date: 2/23/2013 6:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
I find it hysterically funny/absurd that anyone claiming to believe in "scientific rigor" would then turn around and cite Christopher Monckton.

For those not familiar with that charlatan Monckton, here's an introduction:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monck...

Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions) claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords, a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.

Monckton's quite a character and a darling of the Denialist Industry. But, hey, enough about the man, let's examine his cited APS "paper" regarding climate sensitivity.

It should come as no surprise to any reasonably astute individual that scientists weren't all that impressed by Monckton's "paper":

http://tinyurl.com/a3qlxhe

Arthur Smith has read "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" by Christopher Monckton published in the APS Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter just a couple of months ago. Should someone of your acquaintance inquire, Arthur finds 125 errors. He separates them into

Errors or fallacies in the text are categorized and denoted under the following headings:

Errors of fact: "Wrong"
Irrelevant conclusions and non sequiturs: "Red Herring"
Other errors of logic: "Nonsense"
Errors of interpretation or misunderstanding: "Confused"
Arguments that only work for specially selected data: "Cherry Picking"
Other arguments that have no scientific validity: "Invalid"
Statements that contradict or conflict with other statements in the text: "Inconsistent"

Arthur, unlike Chris, is a nice fellow so he sums it up at the beginning

...please note that simply itemizing errors in an article doesn't prove one way or another whether the central premise of the article is wrong or not (the "fallacy fallacy"). Monckton's central question is on climate sensitivity. The magnitude of that sensitivity is a central question of climate science as a whole, and in particular centers on the sign and magnitudes of various feedbacks to temperature increase in Earth's climate system. The most recent IPCC report (AR4, Working Group 1, 2007) presented a robust collection of evidence from physical modeling, paleoclimate, and observed recent response of the climate system for their conclusions of a temperature response to CO2 doubling of between 2 and 4.5 K, with a best estimate around 3 K. The substantial collection of errors in Monckton's article renders his arguments against this IPCC conclusion quite unconvincing.


For those wishing to review Arthur Smith's thorough dissection of Monckton's "paper" you can read it here:

http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

For another recap of what actual scientists have to say about climate sensitivity, here's a detailed article, chock full of useful links and references:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced...

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

Knutti and Hegerl (2008) presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity. In their paper, they present a figure which neatly encapsulates how various methods of estimating climate sensitivity examining different time periods have yielded consistent results, as the studies described above show. As you can see, the various methodologies are generally consistent with the range of 2-4.5°C, with few methods leaving the possibility of lower values, but several unable to rule out higher values.


The terms "Christopher Monckton" and "scientific rigor" are mutually exclusive.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (153) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Foolanthropy 2014!
By working with young, first-time moms, Nurse-Family Partnership is able to truly change lives – for generations to come.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Looking at Currency Ratios
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement