UPDATE: University VC Rathjen reponds. Press will be investigated.
University Climate Researcher to be investigated for unprofessional conduct.
Professor Peter Rathjen, Vice Chancellor of the University of Tasmania (UTAS) has ordered an investigation into professional and academic misconduct by Dr Tony Press, the CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre based at the University of Tasmania.
Lord Monckton, who spoke to 150 scientists and members of the public at the UTAS last week, has complained, in an interview with the Sunday Tasmanian last week, Press had misrepresented both Climate Science and what Lord Monckton said in his talk.
The investigation comes under the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.
Professor Rathjen’s letter to Lord Monckton says, “…the processes will be followed rigorously!”
The Vice Chancellor added that the University strongly supported a culture of courteous, critical dialog on all matters of academic and public interest.
—————————————————–
Christopher Monckton has written to Professor Peter Rathjen, Vice-Chancellor, University of Tasmania to point out that one Tony Press has committed “serious professional and academic misconduct and scientific fraud, contrary to Australian Standard AS 8001 as amended by the relevant policy adopted by your university.”
Monckton is calling upon the University of Tasmania to investigate, as it must when allegations of fraud are made.
Tony Press worked hard to misrepresent Monckton in an interview with the Sunday Tasmanian (full text available here). Press claimed Monckton was wrong to say there was no recent warming, but all the data sets and the IPCC agree with Monckton. Press said that Monckton was cherry-picking short time periods, yet Monckton also talks about 60 years, 155 years, 1300 years, and 420,000 years. Press claimed that the recent warming could only be explained by higher levels of CO2, and asserted that this was basic physics, but ignored the fact that most of the modeled effect was actually feedbacks and not CO2, that many papers and scientists agree with Monckton that the warming could be natural and that feedbacks could be net negative, and that it has never been proven that there isn’t something else behind the global warming of the last three centuries. Instead Press stuck to the usual superficial line that the CO2 is obviously a greenhouse gas and there is more of it about, so it must be that.
Press claimed to be frustrated at the suggestion that scientists were ‘ ….involved in some “massive delusional group thinking”.’ Yet Monckton made no such claim.
Personally I think the most self-evidently silly line is Press’s assertion that there could be no groupthink because scientists are rewarded more “… if they happen to upturn established wisdom.” Does Tony Press think that being mocked, ridiculed, subject to false allegations and called a denier is a “reward”? (If that’s a reward, what is a punishment?)
Read Monckton’s erudite eight page PDF is here, or my shorter excerpts below. Monckton does not give Tony Press any wiggle room at all. Press needs to provide evidence to support his claims (evidence we know the IPCC hasn’t found yet either — don’t you think or we’d have heard all about it by now if they had, over and over, and it would settle the argument?). Either he finds that mystery evidence that thousands of scientists have been looking for, or he is either fraudulent for claiming Monckton was wrong, or fraudulent for putting himself forward as an expert because he does not know his topic.
Monckton’s conclusion is at the end of his letter, but I think, so important, I’ve posted it first. This could apply to many academics who are falsely using the goodwill and good name of honorable scientific work even as they trash the scientific method, Aristotelian reasoning, and any semblance of good manners.
Jo
Conclusion
It is outrageous that any functionary of what is supposed to be an institution of learning should have either malevolently and wilfully lied or recklessly made assertions calculated to be unfair and profoundly damaging without having any idea whether they were true or not. Press’ fraudulent method is to perpetrate the logical fallacy of argument from appeal to his own authority – the argumentum ad verecundiam – by outright misrepresentations and falsehoods and by artful concealment of the considerable scientific doubt that is well reflected in the learned literature but is wholly absent from his allegations.
The founder of the scientific method described the scientist as a “seeker after truth”. Press should be asked whether his remarks published in the Sunday Tasmanian are the remarks of a “seeker after truth”, or whether they are the remarks of a liar and fraudster – a mere seeker after grants at working people’s expense.
For it is working families who are hurt first and worst by the increasingly punitive regime of energy taxation and regulation that the lies, deceptions and frauds of Press and his ilk have foisted upon them, which is why the Democratic Labor Party had invited me to give my presentation in Hobart.
Recommendation
On any view, Press is not a fit and proper person to be employed in any capacity at the University of Tasmania. I hope that the University will investigate his misconduct and fraud and will dismiss him forthwith.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
————————————————————————–
To Professor Peter Rathjen, Vice-Chancellor, University of Tasmania
Mr. Tony Press, chief executive of your university’s Antarctic research centre, has committed serious professional and academic misconduct and scientific fraud, contrary to Australian Standard AS 8001 as amended by the relevant policy adopted by your university.
By that standard, fraud is defined as “dishonest activity causing actual or potential financial loss to any person or entity … an intentional or deliberate act to deprive … a person of something of value or gain an unfair benefit using deception, false suggestions, suppression of truth or other unfair means …”
I have consulted a senior Australian police officer specializing in the investigation of serious frauds and organized crime. His opinion is that this pattern of misconduct indeed constitutes fraud.
Reputation has long been considered at law to be “something of value” – even a value expressible in monetary terms. Press’ frauds were calculated to do great harm to my reputation, and to support public policies that have occasioned great financial loss and hardship to working families through substantial recent increases in utility prices, fuel bills and regulatory compliance costs.
…
I understand that investigation of allegations of fraud is mandatory under your institution’s policies.
The multiple falsehoods by Press published in an article in the Sunday Tasmanian on 24 February 2013 manifestly constitute frauds as defined in your policy
Count 1
Press falsely stated: “The argument of ‘no recent warming’ is wrong and has been debunked time and again.”
Yet just days before Press uttered his false statement The Australian had reported that Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the science working group of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, had admitted that the U.K. Met Office and other scientific bodies were right to find that there had been no global warming for 17 years.
As I explained in my presentation, the UN’s climate panel, for which I am an expert reviewer, uses least-squares linear regression to establish temperature trends on the stochastic data. The linear trend of global mean surface temperatures on all major temperature datasets shows no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for at least 16 years. The Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, which the IPCC regards as the gold standard, shows no warming for 18 years (version 4) or 19 years (version 3). The RSS satellite dataset, probably the most reliable of them all, shows no warming for almost a quarter of a century.
Either Press knew that Pachauri had admitted there had been no global warming for 17 years, and knew that the linear trends on the major temperature datasets showed no warming for at least 16 years, in which event Press knew his assertion that such statements had been “debunked” was neither endorsed by the IPCC nor supported by the data, in which event his allegation that I had been incorrect was a lie and a deception constituting serious professional misconduct and scientific fraud, or he did not know these things, in which event his presumption of knowledge that he did not in fact possess was also a lie and a deception constituting serious professional misconduct and scientific fraud.
Count 2
Press went on to allege that I had “cherry-picked” the time period I had mentioned.
It is Press, not I, who is aprioristically peddling preconceptions. In my presentation I had reported data for the past 16, 18, 19 and 23 years (no warming); 60 years (equivalent warming rate 1.2 Cº/century); 100 years (0.74 Cº warming); 155 years (equivalent warming rate 0.4 Cº/century); 1300 years (today is cooler than the Middle Ages); and 420,000 years (fluctuations of just 3 Cº, or 1%, either side of the long-run average, with the present interglacial warm period being cooler than each of the previous four).
Count 3
Press went on to allege that scientists working all over the world, independently and in many institutions, had concluded that the warming of the past 200 years could be explained only by higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: “You cannot explain it without having an increase in greenhouse gases.”
The wording of his statement was calculated to leave the reader with the impression that no credible scientist had concluded that the recovery of global temperatures after the Little Ice Age had been substantially attributable to natural causes.
Yet Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that natural variability is enough to explain all of the warming to date, though he – like me – considers that some fraction of it may be anthropogenic.
Furthermore – to take one of many instances in the reviewed literature – a recent paper has confirmed the findings of a long line of papers on the global brightening that has been evident in recent decades, concluding that the naturally-occurring decline in cloud cover in the last couple of decades of the last century has caused four and a half times as much warming as Man.
Another instance: solar physicists have published numerous papers attributing the warming over most of the past 300 years to the recovery of solar activity following the Maunder minimum, a 70-year solar Grand Minimum from 1645-1715 during which solar activity was less than during any similar period throughout the past 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age.
Press should be asked whether he is aware that to attribute a phenomenon whose cause is in fact uncertain to a single stated cause is to perpetrate the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, argument from ignorance. He should be asked why he considered it unnecessary to mention any of the papers indicating that the recovery of solar activity and consequently of global temperatures following the Grand Minimum may have been to some considerable extent natural. He should be asked why he considered this suppression of truth justifiable.
Count 4
Press said: “Our knowledge of physics, even at its most basic, suggests that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of all fossil reserves over a short time period will lead to catastrophic increases in global temperature and affect global climate.”
Yet the IPCC spells out the basic physics indicating that the direct warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration, which would take approximately 125 years on current trends, would be little more than 1 Cº, which the IPCC does not consider catastrophic. The models on which the IPCC relies spin up this non-problem into a potential problem by multiplying this direct warming by 3, on the ground that any warming of the atmosphere will engender strongly net-positive “temperature feedbacks” that amplify the direct warming caused by any forcing such as adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
As my presentation had pointed out, the very small fluctuations of just 1% in absolute global temperature either side of the long-run mean over the past 420,000 years, notwithstanding substantial astronomical forcings, are inconsistent with the notion that strongly net-positive (i.e. temperature-amplifying) feedbacks are in operation.
Also, the mathematics of feedbacks is taken from electronic circuitry, but there are powerful mathematical and physical reasons why the feedback-amplification equation developed for use by process engineers designing electronic circuits either to be stable or to oscillate may not be appropriate when applied to the climate object, which has proven formidably temperature-stable and does not oscillate in the fashion prescribed by the feedback-amplification equation.
Press should be asked whether he is aware (and, if he is aware, why he considered it appropriate not to mention) that not one of the temperature feedbacks without which two-thirds of predicted anthropogenic warming cannot occur can be directly measured; nor can they be distinguished empirically either from one another or even from the forcings that caused the warming that triggered them; nor can their values be determined reliably by any theoretical method. He should be asked why he made no mention of the scientific literature indicating that feedbacks may be net-negative, and why he considered this suppression of truth justifiable.
Count 5
Press went on to say my assertion that the ocean had become “slightly” less alkaline was a marked understatement, and that increasing ocean acidity was retarding the development of krill and reducing the ability of some marine organisms to create calcium carbonate shells.
Yet Press did not provide any evidence to refute my presentation’s contention that there is no global data series of sufficient duration, spatial extent or resolution to establish the rate at which deakalinization of the ocean is occurring. This point is important. In the absence of proper measurement, there is no scientific basis for Press’ conclusion: yet he dares to accuse me of being unscientific.
Nor did Press mention the numerous papers in the reviewed literature that indicate that calcifying organisms are not adversely affected by a greater partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Count 6
Press said he was frustrated by the suggestion that scientists around the world were involved in some “massive delusional group thinking”.
Yet in my presentation I had made no such suggestion. Per contra, I had repeatedly stated that the great majority of climate scientists were honest and were doing interesting and valuable work. I drew specific attention to the ingenious detective methods they used to reconstruct events long in the past. I had not at any point suggested that scientists around the world were involved in some “massive delusional group thinking”.
Count 7
Press carefully avoided any mention of the fact that I had presented not only scientific but also economic considerations during my talk at the University of Tasmania. I had demonstrated that, even if – which now seems most unlikely – the IPCC is correct in predicting 3 Cº warming this century, and even if – as also seems implausible – the Stern Report (followed by Garnaut) is correct in assuming that the cost of letting that warming occur is as high as 1.5% of this century’s GDP, it would be 1-2 orders of magnitude more cost-effective to adapt the day after tomorrow than to mitigate today.
Press should be asked why he not only mischaracterized my scientific argument but ignored my economic argument, leaving readers with the false impression that there was nothing of any value or merit in my presentation; why he did not ensure that either he or the journalist through whom he circulated his deceptions did not put them to me for the sake of fairness; and precisely how it came about that the article attacking me in so unscientific and fraudulent a fashion had appeared at all.
Monckton’s full letter is twice this length, so to absorb all his cutting reasoning Read the full PDF here.
More Monckton Magnificence …
I was curious that he was invited to speak by the “Democratic Labor Party”. Are not “Democratic” and “Labor Party” contradictory terms? Mutually exclusive even …
342
You have to go back in History Truthseeker. Google ‘Bob ‘Santamaria’ to find out more about the DLP. I think you will find that the DLP would agree with us on a lot of things.
122
Tony Abbott is the archetypal DLP politician.
00
Peter,
I am old enough to remember the DLP when it split from the ALP. I think that the “Labor” part of the name was what ultimately consigned it to the dustbin of Federal politics.
110
Older than me then Truthseeker.
You win. Clearly the DLP were a confused lot.
00
He writes almost as good as me. 🙂 i’d trust him with my life savings, if I had any!!!
32
More faux outrage backed up by faux science.
8115
Tristan,
Good to see you using all your brainpower and resources to contribute.
Thanks
922
Jo,
Click your heels together three times and say “There’s no place like home”.
293
You’ve cut and pasted from the wrong page of the Snark-Handbook. Better luck next time eh?
651
Nah, I think I got it right, the Snark is from a different fantasy realm.
260
I love Snarks!!! Gordon rocks!!! i reckon Monckton should get one as a pet, they’d be a perfect match!!!
024
Dear Jo,
I too was at Newcastle last night and though Lord M was truly magnificent presenting for almost three hours; not even a sip of water and never missed a beat on fact or detail plus a strong set of messages … He is however frustrating because it could have been even better:
1. Half an hour shorter so more time for questions
2. He may be right about Agenda 21 but on that subject he comes across as weird rather than eccentric so it needs to be “toned down”
3. Far too may incomprehensible mathematical formulae – cut to a punch line we understand and leave the IPCC to worry about the maths
4. I believe he is truly concerned about the international waste of taxpayers’ money and how that impacts on low income families and local industry as well as the poverty / lack of clean water etc. in developing nations. Care required as too much concern expressed re the impact on Hunter industry and suddenly it doesn’t quite “work”.
I know Lord M is a fan of your blog and should perchance he read this please be assured it is offered as criticism with only good intent.
192
This.
I’m not sure how he presents it, but a part of his brand and substance is his competence with maths. You could well be right as far as style goes, but I’m not sure. I’m interested in that aspect.
101
Hi Christoph,
Lord M took the time to shake hands with, I think, everyone including the “youngsters” who queried his maths. Took time to chat beforehand and he came across as genuine, interesting and courteous. Yes KK it is a show but its not a comedy when millions have neither adequate food nor clean water.
We must keep reminding folks this is not some comfortable intellectual ivory tower discussion over a cup of coffee. This is about a world where people living in poverty are dieing of malnutrition and / or from dirty drinking water. Meanwhile mega millions are being wasted because certain academics sucking hard on the taxpayer tit spew the pseudo science so beloved by politicians.
Recently there was a chart showing the predicted demand for coal (and thus power generation). China and India swamped the rest of the world but for the African continent just about bugger all. Without readily available and affordable electricity for schools and hospitals the poor sods are destined to ongoing poverty.
I suggest Lord M was wrong to single out Gillard et. al. for, as i have written elsewhere, I am yet to see Turnbull change his stance nor Hockey abandon his fence-sitting attitude!
80
Precisely — and this is of great importance. For if human subjective experience is not of importance, what is?
Great point.
30
Hi Apox
It’s a show.
Look at the behaviour of the beneficiaries of CAGW like the guy in the blue suit from the top end of town.
He has never cared about Newcastle despite the trust invested in him by the people, but he has the hide
to fly of the handle and berate LM.
Noticed how all of the GLENs prefaced their comment with a polite
“thank you for the interesting talk”
before launching off into the attack on looney tunes stuff.
1. The guy who rudely asked him to take his hat off later wanted him to fix the problems of everyone who had been rorted by a Local Government that had zoned (nudge nudge ww ) flood plains for use as residential or another: the use of sand spits for residential housing.
This is about Local Government fraud, and fraud is what LM is trying to combat in his appearances and private life.
All this zoning stuff had nothing to do with CAGW but was peripherally linked and so used as a bludgeon.
It is interesting that this fellow went out to make a phone call and later The Guy in the Blue Suit turns up.
Maybe as the Suit said, LM was a bit harsh on the two children who claimed to be Statisticians but from another viewpoint, they seemed to be connected to blue suit and his waterlogged mate, had listened to the presentation and then decided to stir the possum with NO BASIS for their claim.
Maybe they did deserve what they got.
Good to meet Brett but sorry not to have seen others.
50
You got a seat ok then KK; I had to leave before the talk, but there did not appear to be any ferrals so I did not think there would be any problem.
I will be talking to the suit later on; could you provide a few more details of the exachange.
The statistician [sic] got what she deserved; that particular graph shows an egregious statistical con used by AGW, namely the end point fallacy. It is plain that the longer time period has a linear trend much less than the trend at the end of the data because the longer period features temperature decreases as well as increases. At earlier points on the data, notably from 1910-1940 the trend is as great as the end point trend from 1976.
This is well covered territory and I’m not surprised Christopher became annoyed with some bright young thing fresh from stats 101 thinking she’ll show him.
80
Good to meet you too, Keith. I thought it would be a bit of a re-hash from the West’s talk, but there was a lot of new stuff and it was riveting, and a bit scary.
I wonder about the stage-fright MC who couldn’t say two words to introduce Monkton. What, you couldn’t write it down on a card and at least read it out? Was he also involved in ‘organizing’ this tour? It would explain a lot.
50
Hi Brett and Cohenite
A couple of us had a good chat with Chris Monckton before the talk but the funniest part of the night
was when “The Suit grabbed the mike and ran around the room and wouldn’t give it back.
Hilarious.
I could think of a book title based on Vaclav Klaus’s book Blue Planet in Green Shackles:
maybe Blue Suit With a Red Background.
Cohenite, I take it you know it’s JM? Did he pay?
basically, he accused LM of being very unpleasant when he accused the two young stats people of lying and then proceeding to verbal them.
There wasn’t much content or sense in any of it, just a couple (4) of GLENs throwing mud at LM and getting some stick back.
Also had a brief chat with Anthony before the event too.
KK 🙂
20
Hi KK; JM is a genuine sceptic and he paid; he was upset about the manner of LM’s reply to the statisticians and the question about his peerage; he agrees that both questions had no merit but that it was reasonable to ask them.
LM has probably been asked both questions about a millions times and I think it is a miracle and a reflection of his self-restraint that he didn’t chase the questioners around the room with the microphone.
That Anthony is a top bloke isn’t he?
10
I’d say that JM gave us a little demonstration of how things are done in Labor meetings. Grab that mike and don’t let it go!
10
Hi Cohenite
That Anthony was little disappointing in that he didn’t wear a tie, but what can you expect from Novocastrians, it’s such a casual place. 🙂
The NMH is starting to publish some items now that reflect a different slant:
see if this link comes up in the comments on LMs talk.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1328416/lord-monckton-warns-of-agenda-21/?cs=305#disqus_thread
Sounds very innocent from a first reading; Unless you were there!
KK
00
Hi Cohenite
Seems I misrepresented the suit, but he did later sit with the two stats people,
nothing wrong with that, but it was obvious well before LM started to let loose that ABSOLUTELY
nothing was going to influence their ideas on the matter and from that perspective their only
objective was to ridicule LM.
I’m disappointed that JM could not see this and just leave them be.
They didn’t deserve to have their hands held and he certainly wasn’t going to “break the ice” with them.
Also he seemed to know the Zoning guy who asked LM to take off his hat, so I assumed the worst.
KK 🙂
10
I’m starting to wish I could have stayed; the idiot with the hat fetish who asked LM to take off his hat would have been fun. What do you mean by “Zoning guy”?
10
Would have liked to put faces to some of you myself. Work commitments ment I needed to leave before the Q&A. c’est la vie.
10
Well Cohenite,
The Zoning Guy was also the Hat Guy and he seemed to know JM.
He got wound up about how come dangerous places, in terms of flooding and erosion, could be zoned as habitable when they were really dangerous.
This is not the same thing as complaining about say Lake Macquarie council putting a note on all properties within 90 cms of the current high Water mark because of fears of sea level rise from AGW.
Lake Mac Council did this and basically damaged everybody near the lake whose property was in the Global Warming zone of their projected sea level rise.
Anyhow back to the zoning guy, he wanted LM to fix this problem that someone sold people land on sand spits that was going to get washed away.
He was also concerned about erosion of part of England’s coast and ropeable about the flooding at Wallsend.
I pointed out that there was a huge concrete drain 20 metres wide running through Wallsend township.
It would seem obvious that anyone who saw the drain and didn’t connect it with possible flooding would probably not have the initiative to save money to buy a property.
The whole thing was just weird. A very disjointed attempt to involve LM in something that could probably have been better explained to the guy by JM, given his surveying expertise.
KK 🙂
00
The local paper has run a piece on the couple who passed them selves off as statisticians and harassed LM
I have submitted the following to the comments section. Will it get printed.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1330957/topics-moncktons-match/?cs=305#disqus_thread
———————-
This pair have presented one side to an event.
They claimed to be “statisticians” which they now seem to admit they weren’t.
I don’t think that makes them liars, perhaps a little inaccurate with the truth, because apparently, now, they are Neuroscientists.
Obviously they have done statistics in their basic degrees but presumably have little or no understanding of the data sets that go with Climate Science regardless of their core stats abilities.
This might normally be important, but the issue wasn’t that complex and so they cant be excluded from commenting just because of that…
Having done exactly the same two statistics modules of the Newcastle University Psychology course I feel in a position to comment and there are two things that come out.
The basic statistical issue was so basic that they could not have failed to understand the point made by Lord Monckton .
He was illustrating how climate scientists had distorted the perception of what was happening by using Non approved methods of reporting statistical analyses and creating alarmist ideas about the weather.
Secondly, and more importantly, the two “statisticians” in deliberately “overlooking” all of the information provided, have made it plain that they were there to harass the main speaker simply out of a duty to the “cause” and not to any duty towards scientific accuracy.
It may be that nobody at the meeting was happy with the way the pair were spoken to, but given the onslaught of unconsidered harassment that Lord Monckton and his family are subjected to, his reaction to provocation is in some way understandable.
The main purpose of the talk was to point out the divisions in the community that have arisen over this issue and to look for solutions and this incident unfortunately serves to show how easy it is for group-think and political and financial greed to win out over scientific reality.
In this conflict we are all victims of politics which has ridden roughshod over mainstream science and I believe that nobody at the meeting, including Lord Monckton, would wish them any ill will and hope that this obviously very bright couple will have a successful future as scientists..
—————————————————————————
KK 🙂
Peace
20
Good letter KK; but they do seem pleased with themselves; and to say LM’s stuff is not peer reviewed is wrong; he only uses peer reviewed stuff.
As for peer review, especially in climate science, I wonder whether they have read the emails?
10
Hi KK & Christoph,
Just in case anyone reads two day old blogs … looks like we have some more Lordly support. Extract from a letter to Sir Paul Nurse President of the The Royal Society:
“there is nothing ‘political or ideological’ about my dissent from your position. It is true that I value individual freedom, and consider it immoral to be recommending measures which would hold back growth in the developing world and condemn hundreds of millions to avoidable poverty. But my objection to the policy you favour (see, again, my book, where it is clearly set out) is that it is not cost-effective…
Yours sincerely,
The Rt Hon Lord Lawson
Chairman
The Global Warming Policy Foundation”
11
Hi Cohenite
It’s interesting that this pair have avoided the principal claims of climate science to focus on a small issue which anybody with any nous knows is a pimple on the backside of Global Warming.
The real issue for “statisticians”, like myself, is that they avoided the statistical evaluation of the principal claims about CAGW which could be these.
1. The temperature of the worlds atmosphere will increase as a result of increasing CO2 levels.
2. Human combustion of fossil fuels creates large increases of atmospheric CO2 levels.
3. Increased levels of CO2 are harmful to life on Earth.
Each of these statements is a Hypothesis.
Under strict Statistical Process all Hypotheses MUST be falsifiable. This means that the claim must be presented in such a way that another person can examine and test and attempt to disprove the claim.
None of the above claims by the IPCC can be examined scientifically because there is no falsifiable hypothesis.
This does not disprove CAGW, but there has been substantial analysis by reputable scientists to show that the proposed mechanisms by which CO2 is supposed to “heat” the air are quantitatively ridiculous.
Further, there are substantial processes in orbital mechanics of the Earth in relation to the rest of the solar system, that demonstrate not only high correlation, but solid scientifically based mechanisms to explain heating and cooling cycles on Earth.
Even discounting orbital mechanics( which you cant do) the sum total of all sources and sinks of CO2 on Earth is categorically behind the idea that Human CO2 production is puny and insignificant, even if the CO2 Warming Mechanism was real.
These two statisticians avoided the main issue and chose to nit pick which says something about their real feelings about CAGW; it is a Cause , not a science.
As further evidence of their leanings I would point to the frequent statistical ramblings of those talking on behalf of the CAGW meme. Their comments are statistically horrifying but never get criticized.
KK 🙂
ps I am rarely that conciliatory but I thought if I said anything too strong I might not get published or put others reading it offside.
00
.
Maybe Tristan you could be an experts expert in the selection experts to examine these misconduct charges.
180
Tristan Which bit is false science? I won’t use faux as it sounds so faux. The UK Met Office bit? The RSS bit? The Hadley Centre /CRU bit? Dr Pauchauri’s comments bit? Is it that you cannot read or that you cannot understand the points made? Why do you disagree with the chairman of the IPCC, the UK Met office etc. Have you got some special data not known to others? Sure, have a go at those who are less gullible than you appear to be but you need to put up some reasons for your stance.
660
The faux science is the incomplete, “settled science” UN-IPCC/CSIRO computer climate models:
Quote;
❝ Scientists have found a new source of the coldest, deepest waters, and they have done it with the help of seals.
The new discovery will now have to be factored in to climate change models. ❞
☼
Every Un-IPCC/CSIRO computer model ever made is now incomplete.
Thanks to GreenLaboUr, we have started to transform our economy on incomplete, failed computer models, using a fraudulent, deceitful carbon (sic) tax.
Trenberth’s travesty of the missing heat hiding in the depth of the oceans is also wrong. It ain’t hiding where the seals go!
Where can that heat be hiding?
250
“Where can that heat be hiding?’
Further away than Alpha Centauri is one suggestion for much of it.
110
Tristan,
Can you do nothing better than that in reply to his Lordship? How disappointing.
What do you gain with such remarks? They make you look like a fool.
162
Excuse me, I forgot, you are a fool.
121
He’s a bigger fool than all teh greenies rolled into one !!!
16
Why bother? His lordship is some sort of parody, isn’t he? Maybe he is an alter ego of Barry Humphreys? A climate change denying Sir Les Patterson?
339
miss brookes – you need to go finish your phtocopying and filing before you spend your work hours here spamming
132
You’re small fish but he may get around to you eventually …
30
Monckty Python?
212
Did yo wee-wee in your potty, jb ? Good boy, now go and play with the children at sks. If you ask nicely they’ll let you read their comics.
40
Better to shut up and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
140
Calm down Tristan. Monckton is wrong to imagine there is any CO2-AGW: there can be none for self-absorbing GHGs. The whole subject has been foulded by basic mistakes in physics.
05
“The Australian Labor Party is a democratic
socialist party and has the objective of the
democratic socialisation of industry, production,
distribution and exchange”
(ALP CONSTITUTION)
91
Juliar Gillard formed the Socialist Forum to bring together communists, socialists and other far lefties and merged them with the Australian Fabians when she could see political advantage.
250
Those seeking to remind themselves of “Fabian” might wish to read former Prime Minister Bob Hawke:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/fabian.pdf
Fabian Society centenary dinner, 1984. Form your own views, but this Fabian material is at the opposite extreme of just about every principle I hold dear in Life.
31
Kevin admitted (ABC Compass 2006) that he is a “Socialist Christian”.
80
So where does it leave the other skeptics and REAL phyicists like Piers Corbyn etc. Get him on the debate over here. Total proof that CO2 has zip doodas anything towards affecting climate.
I see that the RECORD temperatures have been set once again in SIBERIA minus seventy one degrees centigrade!!! thats -71 C CO2 freezes at -78C!! SO as we ARE heading towards a Grand Solar Minimum and a new LIA. Get a life you warmists.
492
Please bring back John Howard and Peter Costello style Liberal National Coalition government and when we were confident and far better off as a nation.
142
There are increasingly fewer times when I am proud to be English, but Lord Monkton’s continuing efforts to bring the cold light of logic to play upon the warm, fuzzy feel-good of climastrology is one of those times. Another time will be on England’s green fields this Summer, but that’s another story 🙂
I’ve read my first “Boney” story, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
331
Anyone who has had a reasonable education surely cannot be but struck with Monckton’s facility not only with the science but also with the clear thinking employed in the use of our language.
He readily shows up this unthinking critic who is essentially nothing more than an imbiber and disseminator of rote learning. In this case the poorly reasoned version of climate change alarmism that parades as legitimate climate science.
It seems Monckton has opened himself up to counter claims if it can be shown that his version of climate science can be shown on the observational evidence to be flawed. Makes for an interesting and illuminating confrontation if this critic has the courage to respond to the charges against him.
324
Ah, but the ball is clearly the the Lord’s court – Press now needs to find the evidence to clear himself from Monkton’s claim that he has leveraged wilful deceit by using lies and fraudulent claims to discredit Monkton and to gain an unfair benefit using deception. If the world’s scientist are still looking for that evidence, where the hell is Press going to find It?
172
The claim is frivolous harassment. Press won’t have to prove anything.
428
My wife has just finished Death of a Lake and seemed to think it was OK.
Started on the next one.
KK
20
Keith,
I’ve noticed a couple of mentions here about the Bony novels, and being off topic, I’ve stayed away, but your reference to this particular novel, Death Of A Lake raises something of real interest.
Upfield was very clever in that he always included something in his novels that was topical at the time of writing, usually using the method of having his characters discussing it. It’s almost like throw away comments, and more often than not, you tend to miss it because it’s not the main theme.
This particular novel was written in 1954, and in it, he has characters sitting around discussing, of all things, solar power, although not called that. Here, the discussion is along the lines of generating power using the Sun’s rays, and that this area, in outback Central Eastern South Australia. As the characters are waiting for the Lake to dry up to hopefully find the body of Ray Gillen, they are sitting around discussing anything that comes to mind to fill out time.
Bony is there, icognito (under cover) ostensibly as a horse breaker and is also in the discussion, although mostly listening in.
As the discussion unfolds, the topic of solar power leads to the conclusion that ….. wait for it, how the Capitalists would never allow something like this, the intent here being that this form of generating power was free, eg, free power from the Sun, and, in actual fact, that free power from the Sun thought still hangs around to this day. So, effectively, what is being said is that there’s no way that those Capitalists can make a buck from it.
Oh how times have changed.
Written in 1954.
Tony.
50
Wind turbines (90% efficient 10% of the time) are a blight on our society, a wealth creator subsidised without our consent by us
361
I’ve voted for Jo on the Bloggies, on the basis that she’s risen above everything the Dark Side has thrown at her these past 12 months.. Get in there and support her guys and gals.
610
Tough gig this year. There is only one science category (all climate sites) and Jo is up against WUWT and Tallbloke amongst others.
180
Jo deserves much more praise
311
Too much debate about inconsequentials!
I am going to write to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Tasmania and add my compliaint about about Tony Press in support of Christopher Moncton. I wish I had done something about the lewandowsky outrage at the time.
Will anyone join me?
371
“Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings.”
Jackie Rees, head of human resources at Yahoo!, on why the firm has banned executives from working from home
Think of me as contributing to a virtual hallway discussion. Jo, I promise not to be a displacement activist.
90
Count me in.
40
Peter
Still time to do something about Lew.
Come to First Ordinary Meeting of Convocation,University Club, Friday 15 March 2013
See comments from September 2012 meeting – Other Business:
http://www.graduates.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/185724/SOM2012_Minutes.pdf
Alice
00
Peter, I have a separate action developing that might conflict; otherwise I would have been pleased.
It is best, though, to have a first hand involvement in matters like this. Words directed to you alone are more useful than words to an audience. In general.
00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
Best video ever!!!!
41
I posted it here the other day. And yes, it is great!
(So are many of Stefan’s videos on ethical and other philosophical topics.)
52
Concise, well organized, well presented, based on real data that you can check yourself if you want to, impeccable logic — which is why it will never get through to the right audience. 🙁
21
It is all of those things you said.
31
Crap video. It continues the CO2 greenhouse gas unphysical crap to the extent of saying that Venus had a “runaway greenhouse effect”. Well, the observations and evidence do not support this assertion.
Anything that says that CO2 is anything more than plant food is not helping.
10
Let’s not miss the point here. Skeptics have disagreements about the details. But the really important thing is that the dire doom and gloom predictions are not coming true and there is no credible way to show that CO2 can make them come true.
We need to concentrate on getting that point across.
This video is exactly the argument we need to make. 🙂
20
***looking out her window in qld??? what a laugh:
26 Feb: ABC: Sarah Clarke: Key climate change body loses Government funding
A key research body charged with preparing Australia to handle the impacts of global warming is running out of money.
The National Climate Change Adaptation Research facility [NCCARF] has been running for five years but the Federal Government has decided not to extend its funding.
It means that from June the facility, which develops knowledge used by decision-makers from both the Commonwealth and industry, is expected to be wound up…
With more than 100 researchers set to be affected by the funding cut, Professor Jean Palutikof, director at the facility, says she is saddened and concerned that critical work may not being followed through.
“We’ve built up a lot of knowledge through our research programs that have really placed Australia in a very good position to deal with the challenge,” she said…
***”We might be seen an organisation that perhaps is meeting a future challenge rather than a current challenge although I have to say looking out of the window here in Queensland it looks to me like the challenge is pretty much here now.
“The bottom line is the activities of government in that respect of the present time are totally inadequate…
Chief executive officer at the Investor Group on Climate Change, Nathan Fabian, says NCCARF has played an integral role in keeping the nation and industry up-to-date on what is proving an important global issue.
“Business is largely still working out what it knows and what it doesn’t know about the physical impacts of climate change and to us,” he said.
“NCCARF has played an important interpretive role between the science of climate change and its impacts on regions and resources and in some cases the assets that we invest in, so there is still an important role to be played.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-26/key-climate-change-body-running-out-of-money/4539948
60
Craig Knowles and the MDBA are having a somewhat similar sook 🙂
They have even resorted to vague threats to state govts and rep bodies like NFF and NSWfarmers.
50
Maybe this person?
IPCC Technical Paper VI – June 2008
Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds.
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp.
00
Unhappy. 🙁 twisted my right ankle yesterday.. quite painful when driving or walking.
So I wasn’t able to go to the Newy Monckton talk this evening.
Hope all had a good time. 🙂
20
Bad luck Andy, I’ve now been to all three of his presentations in Newcastle and everyone different to the others.
He spoke for over two and a quarter hours, unfortunately I needed to leave at the start of the Q&A session. I would have loved to stay and see if a 20something young lady in the audience that questioned one of the graphs in his presentation from the forth IPPC report, when he pointed out errors in the way it was presented.
I dont know what made him twig that sections of the audience did not agree with his view of the graph,but he actually asked did anyone disagree with his view of the graph and this young woman and her the male accompanying her both raised their hands, he asked why,they gave their reason,he pointed out the error of their reasoning and whent on with his talk. The young lady tried several times to talk over him but he ignored her and carried on.
I am dissapointed on two counts that he did not give her the chance to expand on her claim that the differing views of the graph were no more than different interpretations.
1) She obviously brought her own shovel, it would have been good to see how deep she was willing to dig.
2) It now gives her the opportunity to say that when questioned on his scientific stand he talked over her because as she may see it he had no answer.
While I have no scientific training I would think when presenting scientific information via a graph there are only two ways to show said information, the right way or the wrong way, personal interpretations have no place in science.
20
She was probably just being polite
01
Bob, it’s not that I disagree with you here…but look at the broader issue. 🙂
When a graph shows that over time some variable (X) changed by amount Y, you’re right, personal interpretation, being subjective, has no place. The observation is entirely objective; the change is an observed fact. Unfortunately the other aspect of X changing by Y seems to always be subjective. What does that change mean?
I know this seems nit-picky but if I’ve learned anything from the great global warming scam, it’s that the subjective aspect is always the heart of the matter. The differences of opinion can be honest or dishonest and much of the world isn’t equipped to even look for the difference, much less recognize it.
It is unfortunate that the woman in question didn’t get the hearing she wanted. But the world won’t end because of it.
20
PS: Forgot to say I’m ruling out intentional manipulation of Y to show something that isn’t true.
10
Are you allowed to mention “Y” on this blog?
01
Gee, Aye hope so! 🙂
I’m in real trouble if not.
00
Not your fault!!! I blame it on the carbon tax. we don’t have enough money to fix the footpath!!!
00
Well, yes.. totally my fault..
Standing on an upturned milk crate, stood on the edge and it flipped sideways…. Doh !!
10
Stewart Franks has just moved down to UTas..
seems he has some serious work ahead of him, trying to re-educate the climate drones down there.
40
I don’t know the duration of a typical LM lecture, but he kept an audience captivated for four hours in Hobart the other night.
30
Yep, one of the few lecturers that could do a 2 hour lecture and still have people awake 🙂
20
oops.. tired and sore
you were talking about Lord Monckton, I was talking about Stewart Franks.. my confused 🙁
10
??? carbon pricing is where the world is moving? give me a break. Sky News – in their TV menu – has this as an AAP report:
26 Feb: Sky News: Call for coalition carbon review
A report to be released soon after the federal election could provide an incoming coalition government a chance to review its stance on carbon pricing, the Climate Institute says.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has vowed to axe the carbon tax if elected to government on September 14 and introduce a Direct Action plan.
That plan includes an Emissions Reduction Fund, with a review of its effectiveness to take place in 2015.
Climate Institute chief John Connor says the coalition should consider bringing forward this review, in the light of information to be provided in a report by the Climate Change Authority due in October.
‘I would encourage them to bring that forward, to have a look at what is going on in terms of emissions, global action and the latest science,’ Mr Connor told AAP on Tuesday.
???’They will see carbon pricing is clearly where the world is moving.’…
Mr Connor said a coalition government could face calls for compensation from businesses in terms of new billing systems that had been introduced, compliance costs and the bringing back online of mothballed coal-fired power station units.
Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey on Monday said the coalition would not be paying compensation for the repeal of the carbon tax.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=849521
30
Monckton’s pushing it a bit recently. Calling for Helen Caldicott to be de-registered and Press to be sacked typify the tactics of our opponents. Do we really want to sink to that level? I believe Monckton is bluffing about taking legal action in regard to Press and, although I agree with Monckton about global warming, the correct response to bullies is never to back off.
730
Actions have consequences. This is something that the academic left do not understand. It is only by taking this type of action, can they be made to understand.
390
Tony Press is from the left? OMG. So tell me what else you know about TP?
118
.
He’s not from the left.
He’s only got 10 followers on Twitter.
But he like his article in The Mercury so much he tweets it. Wonder how long that will last.
20
Yeah, exactly.
Lampoon the other side, defeat them with cold reason, savage their reputations if they falsify their data or whatnot, but to just go around getting people who disagree with you and criticise you (even stupidly) fired is not virtuous behaviour — especially in science.
IF they get fired because of their stupidity, that’s another matter. But using extreme stretches of existing procedures to try to force that outcome is just off.
610
Evil flourishes, where good men do nothing.
Pointing out their errors and stupidity does nothing to them. Those in power will support them regardless. Witness Ms Anna Bligh; with a 6% popularity rating (the lowest in history for QLD) she remained in power and with support.
They must be made to account for their actions, else they will not and nothing will ever be done about evil in high places.
131
I think that Mr Dollis understands this and it’s why he is trying to put LM down, even if very subtly.
KK
51
Agreed.
Never bring a knife to gun fight (sarc) – when they break the rules, throw the book at them.
One of the unspoken assumptions of the entitled elites that are at the base of the CAGW scare campaign is that they are above the law. One of the attractions for various nutters that cling to the CAGW meme is that this “untouchableness” will rub off on them, and they feel entitled to do to those who dissent, what they would never accept done to themselves.
41
Chris
How do you defend yourself against the likes of Caldicott and Press?
Don’t expose yourself like most of us?
A polite discussion would be better but they don’t seem to be able to do that. Just pointing the errors out to authorities doesn’t seem to get results.
Doug
120
Well to start with, I am using my real name.
Moving on, you point out how wrong they are. You can even mock their ideas and their ability to think if need be. I mean that is a fair issue, right? Certainly Caldicott attempted to do similar to Monckton.
You can’t turn aholes into nice people, if that’s in fact what they are. What you can do is stand up for yourself in a tough, forthright way, with truth on your side. They’ll have lies (or at least, inaccuracy and poor reasoning) on their side.
And guess what? You’ll never win everyone to your side.
But. In most countries, impetus to “do something” about global warming is waning as the facts come in. So we really are winning. Acting like a hurt child calling for whomever to get suspended/kicked out of school whenever someone takes issue with your facts is really unnecessary.
IF they get fired because their employers see and recognize their incompetence is one thing. Complaining about them is fair too, like a letter writing campaign from fans saying, “Caldicott sucks. Why do you waste my time with such ‘experts’ who get their facts wrong?”
But requesting a university investigate and fire a professor who disagreed with him. I mean, really! It’s embarrassing behaviour from an intellectual.
As I pointed out elsewhere on this thread, Jo reports on and summarises Monckton’s letter, but she (I suspect intentionally; she can contradict me if she does) pointedly said nothing about the advisability of Monckton doing this.
I’d love to give a couple comments about look at how Monckton wiped the floor with the nutty professor. But Monckton decided to aim his revolver toward his toes.
108
I guess it’s a matter of the best approach to get publicity for the CAGW skeptical cause. Monckton obviously likes this approach which got him a lot of exposure in for example the John Abraham of University of St. Thomas in the US. Abraham is another smart arse, know nothing academic who thought the old Monck would be a pushover.
So Monckton may not be quite as crazy using this approach as some suggest.
(BTW shooting at Post’s toes may be a legitimate use of the scientific method to invesigate where he hides his brains).
53
Two Thumbs up for Christoph Dollis!
Monckton analysis of the science is flawless. Tony Press is classic example of how groupthink gives one license to literally deny the facts, even facts accepted by the IPCC groupthink! Press can’t even get his groupthink right… Press’s article is intellectually bankrupt and on a moral level craven and cowardly. In my opinion his article is unbecoming of the standards of an institution of higher learning.
So some people are stupid. Such is life.
But we have to go back to first principles. The climate debate is not simply about the science. If it were, then it is settled and we can all go home. But it’s not, is it? In the big picture, the climate debate is a major front in the war to save western civilisation from slip sliding towards totalitarianism.
And what first principles we are fighting for in the culture war? The right to retain our natural, god-given civil liberties, which a small group of technocratic elite wish to take away from us so that they can expand their power to govern without our consent.
And what is the most important civil liberty of all? It is the right to freely express ourselves…. especially on matters of social, economic and political importance…. It is the right not to have government limit our free speech to that which is merely inoffensive.
Monckton has a grievance. But Monckton should be standing up for the right of Tony Press to stand up in public and make a complete ass of himself, rather than seeking to win the debate “by other means” than a rational and logical expose of why Tony Press’s speech is foul.
It’s tempting to do battle with wannabe leftist authoritarians by their own playbook…. You got a “hate speech” law on the books, eh? Well, we see how well the Left’s own hateful spews plays in the courts! That’ll show ’em!
But the strategy of “making them play from their own rulebook” in the case of free speech, is a form of moral corruption and intellectual laziness that in the longer game will only lead to the legitimisation of limits upon free expression enforced by the police and courts and further legislation.
I wish Monckton the best of luck in shaming climate clowns with a dazzling expose of the facts, but I deplore his use of the Left’s favourite technique, which is, of course, to seek to deny the opposition POV a platform from which to speak.
I hope that no one on our side of politics will ever decide any issue is more important than the right of free expression, especially political speech that others might find challenging, offensive or even utterly dishonest.
The the greatest battle of our day is to retain our liberties. Not climate change.
130
Those are fair points, Chris, and Wes.
But I also see another angle. The depth to which shoddy thinking about this issue has penetrated academia has not yet been made apparent to many capable and important people who are not yet either actively involved or interested. (Probably the real “97%”).
Personally, I think getting people like Tony Press fired is unnecessary, counter-productive, and highly unlikely to succeed. However, if Monckton’s approach draws the matter to the attention of these people, I think a number of them will agree with Monckton. Probably better publicity for him.
Whether that is his intent, I have no idea.
61
michael hart,
Monckton loves a good media stunt and good on him. There is much to be said for showmanship in public debates.
But it is a strategic misstep to forfeit the high moral ground of defending our immutable right to free expression in order to punch some lying SOB in the nose.
Actually, it’s worse than punching your opponent in the nose during a debate, because by descending to the same level as Leftists and adopting their techniques of attacking not the argument, not even the person, but the very soapbox upon which he stand, Monckton has supplied the left with a minor victory. He’s conceded that the Greens technique of trying to shut down public debate by claiming someone is offended has merit.
Epic Fail.
The Greens are smiling…. One of the classic strategies of the Left, whether they be socialists, trade unionists, WTO protesters, Marxist guerillas, Greenpeace wingnuts,The Symbionese Liberation Army or The Australian Greens is to the goad the politically moderate into violating their own code of civil conduct and constitutional rule of law.
It is a major principle of the Marxist dialect, upon which all Green political theory is based, that it is necessary to subvert democratic values, such of the right to private property, the right to a fair voting process at the polls and most of all the right to free expression. The Green intelligentsia believe our constitutional democracy and civil liberties are only a game the ruling business class play to oppress the masses. A socialist utopia will never be achieved if the rich and middle classes are allowed to maintain their civil liberties. So our liberty to freely dissent must be eroded to point that a revolution is possible.
This is literally the fundamental theoretical gestalt of the Left. I’m not saying its an organised conspiracy or that more than the intellectual elite of the left have waded thorough the canonical literature of the movement. Most folks of the left don’t understand any more than the slogans… they are “fighting for social justice” or the “rights of the poor.” Nevertheless, when you get to the intellectual leadership of Left, the Clive Hamiltons of the world, they bloody well know they are banging on about revolution, of course, it’s not polite to take notice…. Nevertheless, the Greenie insidious contempt for humanity and our civil liberties is constantly bleeding out between the innocuous “world peace” and “save the planet” bumper stickers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM&feature=player_embedded
We should never play into their hands. Never allow the left to goad us into — of our own volition — debasing the very same civil liberties we must be willing to defend every time.
Because if our right to free expression without fear of persecution is to be protected then the right of those whose speech that WE find offensive and dishonest must be cherished as if it was our own…because it is.
60
I am using my real name.
Chris, that’s highly commendable.
And I apologise for suggesting that your replies were like those of a Troll Simulator.
KK 🙂
20
You’ve put this very well, wes. I’ve had this thought bouncing around half-formed about what really bothered me about what Monckton’s doing — because believe me I got the publicity aspect others raised.
We make a big deal of free speech and that the minority position in a scientific debate must be heard.
Because not only is this the right way to do science, we ARE the minority position (although I think things are and will continue to shift in our direction as more data comes out, undermining the models’ predictions in major ways). To attract mixed positive and negative publicity, ceding the moral high ground on such an important issue, the right to say what one thinks on a scientific topic without fear of official reprisal, seems a very steep price to pay. You expressed this key point much better than I was able to, mostly because you put your finger right on it.
Plus I just don’t think it’s the right thing to do, and that counts for something.
51
Given:
and…
I think this is about a valid claim that fraud and misconduct has occurred, which claim should be objectively and impartially tested, and if Tony Press is guilty then he should be sanctioned iaw the rules of the University. Our Universities are set up as “elite” institutions where we should expect behaviours that are at the upper end of the spectrum – if we don’t actually follow through on the rules – then what we will have is what we have now. Standards of behavior that are well below what they could be.
Wes George says…
I would suggest that the argument is about fraud and professional misconduct, and is not about reusing the Greens technique of trying to shut down public debate by claiming someone is offended has merit. I think that you have a category error here.
I also think that it is important to recognise that it is not wise to play Ghandi – if your opponent is Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao or Pol Pot – it’s not going to work.
Go after Tony Press, and the next guy will be more careful to get their facts right, or to caveat their assertions, and you will lift the tone of the debate.
BTW: I also understand the primary value of free speech, and it’s capacity to enable other freedoms.
72
Well reasoned wes; but I would argue that a zero tolerance approach is more appropriate.
There is no doubt we have been lied to by alarmists; we have the evidence of lies, conspiracy, obfuscation, personal denigration and other unsavoury practices and attitudes. These are not manifestations of freedom of expression but abuses of that freedom.
Caldicott should be sued; various academics should be sued for misrepresentation and conflict of interest.
This clown from Tasmania has used his status to, deliberately or otherwise, present information which is wrong, patently so. He is part of a disproven, discredited theory which has been largely promulgated on the basis of the credibility and standing of various scientists. These scientists have not only cost the world community a vast amount of money in wasted expenditure but have severely undermined the standing and role of science as an honest broker and diseminator of reliable information.
I would be serving a SOC as soon as possible.
50
Cohenite,
Chillingly well reasoned. I’ll take your advice on notice, mate. You know that I highly respect your opinion, especially because I know you from the old days as a pioneer skeptic against the Warmist faith since when? 2004? Earlier? It’s been so long, compatriot, fighting side by side against superstition…but we’re winning now. It’s almost game over. So it’s not the time to compromise our ideals.
Of course, you know that should a warm change in the weather occur – the next El Nino is always coming… if even for only 500 to 700 or so days, the exact same phrases will be written in support of prosecuting skeptical academics, scientists and pundits, but they will have full support of the state owned media and the backing of some large segment of parliament. It won’t be a poorly thought out media stunt by a foreigner on the fringe, but a mainstream consensus zeitgeist backed up by the full force of the state apparatus and courts.
We would be wiser not to place our fate at the mercy of short-term weather patterns and proceed on principles based soundly on the defence of liberty for all, no matter how ignorant or dishonest or how high or low their position in society may be.
Like the Christians in Rome, turning our cheek doesn’t guarantee we won’t be thrown to the lions. But it does mean we will live and die by our convictions. The unifying faith of the skeptics lies in the proper conduct of the Scientific Method and the liberty to speak freely without regard to the correctness or incorrectness of that speech. That’s it, that’s all we have.
That’s just how bloody arrogant we should behave. We should put all our chips on our faith in hard science and liberty. Never compromise those ideals, because like the Christians in Rome we are likely to shortly become THE consensus and we should start thinking about how we shall rule. Will we be the totalitarian freaks that the Greens want to be? Or will we guarantee the freedom to dissent and doubt OUR consensus, a freedom that the bastards tried to denied us?
Because if you really believe that we have an airtight case, that we literally have the AGW theory by the balls, to pardon the expression, then there is no need to give anything away to these wannabe commie bastards. No need to concede a single inch of freedom or take a single short cut in the pursuit of scientific accuracy.
We should demand that we win not only the climate debate, but also the much larger epistemological debates — the freedom of expression debate, the property rights debate, the economic liberty debate, the culture debate, the history debate and the fight to save western civilisation from moral and cultural relativism. Knock off the climate question and the dominoes begin to fall.
It’s a winner take all game.
You aren’t being ruthless enough, Cohenite. 😉
10
From Watts Up With That? (where, yes, I also have commented for years including under a nickname before I began using my full name), the current lead post makes one of my points above:
So be of good cheer. Keep advocating for your beliefs and even more importantly, learning. Keep an open mind. How else can one do science?
72
Christoph,
You have to balance the conflicting merits in your comment. “Monckton’s pushing it a bit recently. Calling for Helen Caldicott to be de-registered and Press to be sacked typify the tactics of our opponents. Do we really want to sink to that level?”
Lord Monckton has followed a formal path, an open path that gives parties right of reply and representation.
You have to compare this with the methods revealed in Climategate, where Editors were sacked and Journals closed behind the scenes, using cloak and dagger methods. Yes, ‘we’ should avoid using the methods of “our opponents” as you put it (they are not mine in any sense of ownership or responsibility), but ‘we’ are not. ‘We’ are using defined methods.
There is imperfection in all methods that seek redress, but that does not mean that seeking redress should be abandoned. I’d also be reluctant to run the Caldicott matter and the Press matter in the same sentence, because they involve rather different circumstances and consequences.
60
This appears to be the difference. Monckton is not proposing new laws that inhibit free speech but rather the use of the present legal system which, it is often claimed, is the best in the world.
If the issue is one of lying or misrepresentation the Court seems to be a relevant place to settle that. Had Press attempted to rebut Monckton by sound scientific argument backed by uncontroversial data there would have been no need for Monckton to threaten the use of the legal system. Perhaps then the best place to test the general validity of the alarmist’s view of the data is in a court of law. Whether Monckton has a valid case or not is one for the lawyers.
Some of our skeptics are a little too precious about this perhaps with Andrew Bolt’s experience in mind. The problem there seems to be not the legal system per se but rather a law that inhibits free speech. The Coalition has suggested it may repeal or amend that law if it comes to power.
40
With this I heartily agree.
A legal framework exists for speech which is not free. Lying, misrepresentation, collusion – conspiracy, character assassination, and suppression of conflicting ideology… the list is long.
What Monkton is doing is working within the existing legal framework to address his complains for slander laid against him.
What the Green / CAGW scientists, physiologists, politicians have put into print themselves is their want to create NEW laws to stop the dissemination of ideas contrary to their own.
This is a difference of significance.
60
For the sake of accuracy, I didn’t initially say that. It was Anton, and I agree with him.
00
Anton
I think what Lord Monckton is doing is following your advice
when you say “the correct response to bullies is never to back off.”He will never back from attacks like that from Tony Press.
Writing “a letter to the editor” of the paper Press wrote his comments in saying he doesn’t agree with the comments isn’t going to achieve anything. Doing what he has done, at the very least, will generate publicity for his speaking engagements.
112
A more restrained approach appears ineffective. It’s now pretty clear that simply compiling an impeccably rational argument against warmist lunacy is not enough to encourage the blind faith warmistas to re examine their belief system. They simply will not do it even when confronted with overwhelming logic and irrefutable facts. The climate change issue has not been about logic for quite some time (if ever).
Putting direct pressure on partisan media figures and academics like Press may have the effect of encouraging some of them to think more carefully before opening their mouths.
142
.
Seems Professor Peter Rathjen has just arrived to fill his new position of Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania.
What a welcome for him – a serious professional and academic misconduct and scientific fraud against reported against one of his staff.
Welcome to the world of nutjob CAGW warmistas running around screaming all sorts of fraud to all and sundry.
Good luck with this one Proffessor Peter Rathlen.
171
I’m glad that Lord Monckton is ‘game’ enough to stand up to such lunacy. Such nonacademic antics by Tony Press further serve to underline how academia has fallen and how little real ‘quality control’ there is these days over:
1) when an academic should speak out and on what points and what degree of evidence is required to back up said points;
2) when an academic should indicate they are making personal views or opinions and qualify as such.
I know academics are a mixed bunch, I was one myself for a few years – but despite all the internal politics and ‘noise’ – it should matter above anything else that what is presented to the public is of the highest quality and standards. An academic of _any_ standing should never engage in character attacks and illogical thinking evidently totally unsupported by the facts in the public domain. Such a person is no longer an academic in my book; by their action such an individual has proven they wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the posterior, and as such should leave their post for someone more deserving.
190
You can hardly squeal about this when Monkers has made a career out of the most egregious porkies and misrepresentations of science. The words “suck it up” spring to mind. I think the UT is perfectly entitled to correct his obvious and probably deliberate mistakes regarding the current science. I’m really pleased to see the record being corrected for a change rather than just let through as so often is the case with the media. To do otherwise would be misleading readers.
456
JFC what planet are you on? Did you not read the facts that your AGW institutions are admitting no warming? and I get called a denier,it’s hard to gauge someone online,troll,ignorant,imbecile? all I can say mate is if you keep up that drivel prepare for a pineapple.
301
“career out of the most egregious porkies and misrepresentations of science.”
Examples please. Identify the specific “science” studies that contradict the science studies he has referenced.
Of course you could just identify one thing in his letter about Press that is an egregious porkie and misrepresentation of science. We’re waiting.
190
Has anybody noticed that we are suddenly being hit by drive by trolls?
90
Some are squealing like stuck pigs, anticipating Monckton’s attacks will be successful in PR if not also in legality.
Others are shrieking with delight, hopeful Monckton will have his fraud claims dismissed or counter sued.
I, for one, will be making metaphorical popcorn.
80
It is interesting to note that none of them have anything to say of any intelligence.
I am reading “Death of the Grown-up by Diana West” at the moment.
Where have all the grown-ups gone? Of course I have no way to know for sure, but it seems that the drive by trolls here are adolescent (even though that does not of necessity mean young) and have nothing to contribute other than to harp about the propaganda fed them by an ineffective public school system and their own herd mentality.
It is indeed a pity that our civilisation is being destroyed by an attack a generation ago on our hallowed halls of learning.
40
Oh darn. I’m eating ice cream again.
It passes the time while waiting for a comment of substance from anyone having problems with Lord Monckton’s morals, principles, knowledge, skills, presentation …. Examples, please.
00
It’s the Emily’s listing as their comrades prepare for a very big fall
10
I think some of these trolls are actually one person.
30
“most egregious porkies and misrepresentations of science”
I note that you are so caught up in listening to your own bullshit that you didn’t bother do cite any examples.
60
“most egregious porkies”
Second time you have claimed that he has lied in as many threads.
Examples please. Don’t just post the “rebuttal” from SkS, that is some scientists disagreeing with his conclusions, not proving that he has told “porkies”.
Stump up or Shut up.
50
Examples please?
30
Lord Monckton is no fool
152
But too many fools do not understand
70
The key argument here is that the IPCC and their cohorts have been making predictions based on computer models that are demonstrably wrong. Yet the believers are completely ignoring this.
The politicisation of the science, which was inevitable once the UN bureaucracy got involved and set up the IPCC, means that the science is now being ignored as the cognoscenti defend their position. The debate is no longer about science.
210
That’s where “meLord”might just have them;their “criminally”out of touch,merrily spouting the party line,lying and lying by omission.
100
All us sceptics should be grateful Lord Monckton is on our side,to see the man in action is a real treat especially when he’s destroying a warmists taunts in the nicest possible way.
His genius in making legal threats is the hope that the MSM will actually run a story stating his facts and we will not be subjected to the usual biased tripe (as above) that passes for objective news,which has sadly been the case for years.
281
well only to the degree to the seriousness of the allegations. If I just randomly made an allegation then they “must” investigate, but this has little meaning if the allegation is frivolous. The investigation is likely brief.
So Jo, you not being a Lord, and whether or not M Monckton is one, why do you pepper your article with the symbol of the house of lords? Are you a Lord?
338
Hmm. I can answer for Jo. She is not a Lord. However, she is certainly the female equivalent i.e. a Lady. I am also confident that HM will formerly acknowledge this at some point in the future (for her tireless work in exposing so many Lysenkoists and charlatans).
220
.
“why do you pepper your article with the symbol of the house of lords?”
So is pepper two GeeAYe?
Didn’t you open the links provided – you’ll see the reason for the PEPPERED Crowns.
50
yes! Two it is.
04
and they signify that the quotes below each are from Lord Monckton.
so… what is your problem ?
20
So do the words, “these are quotes etc”
03
The more pronounced graphical style of Jo’s blog is just one of the things that sets it apart from most WordPress blogs.
00
The portcullis with coronet is stylised from the three penny bit and signifies that anyone can throw in their threepen’rth and shouldn’t be discouraged by supposed authorities from doing so.
Science advances by challenging widely held notions. Sadly the level of basic scientific understanding among the general populace has been allowed to fall so low that later generations are encouraged to be more in awe of science rather than involved with it.
100
Threepen’rth
30
Thripence — or three pennyworth? — three pennyw’th ?
10
Always thought it was pronounced thrupence and spelt threepence but I might be wrong it’s been a long time 🙂
20
true Bob ; now that you mention it both were in use.
Where I lived it was mainly thrip.
KK
00
Dear Gee Aye,
Are you quite certain that the logo/symbol (the use of which you question) is in fact as you state, ‘the symbol of the house of lords’?
I looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UKHOL_logo.png
I am just trying to get accurate facts and knowledge. I saw nowhere in Jo’s article where that claim was made.
Was this simply a supposition on your part or is there definitive evidence to support your statement.
I have never delved into this stuff before and I would really like to know so I don’t share this information with others and make a goose of myself.
40
what the… look it up. Don’t rely on on me to provide an answer.
02
Dear Gee Aye,
More info the symbol/logo on which you questioned.
Look here:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/eu-sub-com-c/cwm/CWMsubCmay31Oct2012.pdf
Research does seem to uncover corroborating evidence. This is great.
Gee Aye, what have you found?
40
well done sir. Now consider the usage of the symbol.
02
Count 7 appears to be repeated above.
[yes, fixed that. Thanks] ED
20
Hopefully this will gain lots of publicity,although an investigation?I don’t think we will see that.The irksome academic left ought to get a nasty fright,nevertheless.
80
I’m curious as to whether contributors to this blog regard accusing one’s critics of fraud and misconduct legitimate? To me this seems heavy-handed within a scientific debate.
Isn’t this a bit like Singapore’s use of libel laws to silence critics and as such, an assault on free speech?
426
Everything else has been tried. The real threat of prison time may be the only way to stop them lying.
203
They’re is no need to stop them lying. That’s beyond your control. All you can do is speak the truth. The truth is a pretty damn good thing to have on your side.
134
Not all of them. Just a few need to go to gaol. Pour l’encouragement des autres.
51
Mais oui.
D’accord
KK 🙂
10
People have been speaking up for decades, showing scientific papers, data, and using reason. Meanwhile, BILLIONS of dollars are going into Green pockets and continue to do so.
I think it’s time to get heavy because, so far, the CAGW crowd have ignored all and steamrolled onwards regardless. We can’t keep turning the other cheek. People – real people, not computer-model people – are DYING because of Green lies. Allowing that to continue is not an option.
81
The truth that jews ar not sub-human did not save them from Hitler.
The truth (sadly) is literally not as powerful as you think it is.
10
It’s a bit like a free-speecher using anti-free-speech laws against his opponents. People on Monckton’s side of the global warming debate must not sink to the level of our opponents. Rather we must expose their false arguments and demand apologies for needlessly personal attacks, but not respond to bullying with bullying.
52
I was bullied once for about three weeks in year 9 at school.
At the end of the three weeks, I lost my temper and beat the crap out of my bully.
The bully stopped that day and never happened again.
Go figure.
(Do you understand the conflict with the greens?)
20
Provided that you beat him up in response to real-time bullying that he was perpetrating on you then you weren’t bullying him, just defending yourself.
Scientific truth should not be determined in court, if only because it’s not the best way. I support Monckton in his letter of complaint to the university in all but his threat to go legal.
00
And Brett_Mcs got 17 thumbs up for that? Really?
Shocking! This is exactly the same thing that Green wannabe fascists, like Clive Hamilton, say about the skeptics!
“
–Clive Hamilton, speaking at Oxford.
Hamilton is the jerk that sought to have “democracy suspended” so a Green police state could imprison “liars.”
One man’s truth is another’s lie….But hey, why merely throw people in prison who lie? After all, people are DYING, right?
Where have we heard this sort of moral urgency before? Oh, yeah the deranged Musicologist:
–Prof Richard Parncutt
Notice the similar note of resigned despair… “the only way to stop them.” And the compassion… “people are DYING.”
Anyone that believes people who don’t agree with them and who don’t express their disagreements agreeable should be prosecuted is flirting with totalitarian fantasies.
Tragically, the fact that someone might be skeptical of the climate change scam doesn’t mean they necessarily understand that the right to be a skeptic of a scientific or political consensus and to express that skepticism is far and away more fundamental a principle to the debate than any other point. To be willing to sacrifice the stalwart defence of that principle merely to score points on some lying SOB is to reveal monumentally ignorance of what the true stakes are in the climate debate.
Btw, Brett and Everard, I fully support your right to freely express your poorly considered opinions and encourage you to comment more often. Have a nice day! 🙂
50
Not only that, but is ironically going directly against Jo Nova’s stated mission for this blog on her masthead:
31
Tony Press is free to explain why he said what he said at any time. I would publish his answers here if he asked. How is that suppressing free speech?
Universities use our tax money, and Tony Press was interviewed supposedly because he was an expert. The bare minimum we should expect is that they be able to justify their statements to the media.
If Press whips out papers or graphs to support his arguments and shows Monckton is wrong, the investigation stops there.
80
It’s the trying to get him fired — from Monckton.
Obviously, “I would publish his answers here if he asked,” from yourself isn’t suppressing free speech.
24
Jo, that’s very thoughtful of you. 😉 Wouldn’t it have been great if cooler heads had prevailed? I’m afraid by now his lawyers will have advised him – like an Andrew Bolt – to say no more on the topic.
Instead of threatening the clueless sod with professional misconduct and a fraud inquiry, what if he had been invited here to justify his statements?
That would have been a win-win-win, because Press would have declined the offer, Monckton would have done a point-by-point take done of his false claims and we would have tacitly stood up for right of every idiot to say utterly useless rubbish in public as long as we have the right to call him on it and show why his “expert” opinion is rubbish.
I understand that Monckton accusing Press is a stunt aimed at getting some media attention…good luck with that.
My objection is that, in this country, where a debate is going on about the limits of free speech – AND WE ARE LOSING – this stunt sends the wrong message…worse, since Monckton’s audience is largely the same people we most dearly expect to stand up for free speech, he’s pooping in our well of support.
Next time, Monckton should choose a media stunt which doesn’t sacrifice the defence of everyone’s right to free speech, even people we think are liars or idiots.
May I suggest Lord Monckton skydiving into the vice chancellor’s office in drag with a list of Press’ errors. Now THAT would get media coverage 🙂
42
Fraud can be defined as an:
Act or course of deception, an intentional concealment, omission, or perversion of the truth, to (1) gain unlawful or unfair advantage, (2) induce another to part with some valuable item or surrender a legal right, or (3) inflict injury in some manner.
This should not be confused with Willful Fraud, which has the additional requirement of collusion between multiple parties, and is a criminal offence which often carries severe penalties (e.g. Enron could be classed as a willful fraud, and in fact many of those involved did jail time).
Willful Fraud is actually on a par with murder, in that it is not bound by the Statute of Limitations in many countries with a legal system that was originally based on the British Westminster system.
81
Well this one is pure silly driving of the outrage meter isn’t.
Please, please, please, let daS Monkster take them to court to get his satisfaction. 🙂
Will be interesting to see if UT responds and cuts him down to size.
426
I hope the University does step in to assist Press. If they do, then it can be argued that they were complicit all along, and in fact encouraged the perpetration of the alleged fraud, making it a case of willful fraud (see comment 29.2).
102
This is nuts.
It is not fraud to be mistaken, including factually. With the public at large who are NOT bound up in “tribal groupthink” (that is rather common here and, alas, must cause Jo Nova to get exasperated at times), this is not going to increase their estimation of either Monckton or the skeptical side of the CAGW debate. (We’ll eventually win that one, just as the debate was won against those pushing imminent ice ages in the ’70s and no ice age was forthcoming.)
As far as Monckton goes, you’ll note that Jo summarises his letter about Press and wisely refrains from giving her opinion on the advisability of it.
512
Christoph,
1. I was merely troll baiting.
2. The troll in question used the sentence, “[It w]ill be interesting to see if UT responds and cuts him down to size.” This sentence contains the abbreviation “UT”, which in the context I take to mean “University of Tasmania”.
3. The matter is presently between Monckton and Press.
4. The introduction of the possibility that the University of Tasmania might get involved, as a third party, would indeed be an interesting development, since it raises the possibility that the University might have been complicit in the original statement from Press.
It would be entirely appropriate therefore for the University to wash it’s metaphorical hands of the matter. That is what I expect them to do. In which case the troll’s conjecture will not be forthcoming.
I had hoped to have a bit more fun in bringing he/she/it to that realisation.
81
Nope, lots of precedent for this. If it can be taken that the academic in question has commented in his / her capacity as holder of a position at a University, then the University can be argued to have liability for any fallout. Has happened where i work and the legal crap dragged on for years.
That’s why Universities have pretty clear guidelines on public comment by academics.
sorry to burst your widdle bubble. 🙂
03
He won’t go through with it. Just a bit of posturing on the grandstand. Loves a bit of free publicity does his lordship.
54
“accusing one’s critics of fraud and misconduct legitimate”
we’ve been copping that accusation for years.
131
That may be the case, but do you consider it legitimate?
05
To answer your question with another question, in what way would the skeptical community “gain an unlawful or unfair advantage” through arguing against the established dogma.
The skeptics are not the party that stands to receive financial benefit from the perpetuation of concerns (whether real or imagined), over changes to or within the climate system.
90
Skeptics argue that Man Made Global Warming is a non-issue, and hence the correct response is to “do nothing”.
There is no opportunity for fraud of the public when we require that they “do nothing”.
All the opportunity for fraud is with the “do something” crowd, provided the public can be herded into using the selected methods for the “doing something”.
30
As a tactic it makes me uncomfortable. I certainly wouldn’t have responded in this way. But Monckton is his own man and my opinion is irrelevant. As the one targetted in Press’ attack it is his right to decide how to respond.
Skeptics are not a united movement or political party. We don’t follow an agreed upon strategy. We don’t adhere to a dogma. We are an eclectic collection of individual thinkers. That means we don’t always agree. Fortunately we don’t have to.
50
Ian,
That’s a good observation. Skeptics are not a united movement. Monckton is certainly free to proceed as he sees fit.
That said, it’s still an irony to note that if the Greens ever achieve the political power they aspire to, Jo Nova’s blog will be shut down and she will be prosecuted for “crimes against Gaia” and about 150 other fit-ups as well. After her 30 minute trial, that’ll be the last that was ever heard from enemy of state #34985, Jo Nova.
Likewise, the IP addresses of the commenters on her blog will be tracked down and whole families sent to Green re-education camps to harvest kangaroo dung for the vast collective farms which feed our endarkened and starving cities.
So maybe it’s time the climate skeptics starting thinking like a political movement and realised that the only thing between us and a very dark future is our right to speak out publicly against those who imagine they are so self-righteously wise that they can determine whose speech should be permitted and whose should be prosecuted as, say, fraud and professional misconduct.
And maybe someday, we’ll meet in a quarry, shackled to our pick axes, slaving away busting stone for the foundation of Our Lord Mother Gaia Temple and maybe you’ll say:
“Wes george, wes george, eh? Say, I think I remember you…. Aren’t you that bloke who wuz whingin’ about Lord Monckton’s embrace of the Green’s free speech policy all those years ago on Jo Nova’s blog?”
And I’ll look away and mumble, “No, mate, don’t know what you’re on about. I’m here ’cause I stole a piece of bread. Hungry is all.” And we’ll go back to busting rocks.
30
Most people don’t realise how close to reality you are Wes. Those FEMA camps are all ready and waiting for us.
10
doGs, having read daS Monkers latest jape in more detail its certain.
He’s an attention seeking idiot. Think he probably better hope Press and UT don’t decide to go after him.
435
.
Goodness gracious.
The Trolls of GAIA have a problem with Peerness Envy.
They’ll all be here soon. Yawn.
200
TOGs have Peerness Envy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
🙂
60
Oh, that is very good …
50
I nearly lost my coffee on that one. 🙂
30
As I understand it, Tony Press was a national parks ecologist, then a professional public servant/manager in the Federal Department of Environment and Heritage, before running the Australian Antarctic Division, and now the institute at UTAS. Probably a long time since he was actively involved in any science.
150
Just got back from Lord Monkton’s presentation in Newcastle. Excellent and informative as always, he is making it clear now that the best way forward is to hit these climate fraud scientists with legal action. Get them in courts subject to cross-examination. Send a few to gaol and the rest will straighten up quick smart.
290
Somehow I don’t think that boat’ll float, friend.
It’s fun to dream though.
626
I thought you would be happy making money over on Allan’s site?
Or are you another Tristan?
Don’t tell me they come in different colours, or is this just a “save the left, last ditch stand”.
KK 😉
70
A good example of that is the pursuit of Dr. Tim Ball by ol’ hockey stick Mann.
To his chagrin, the case was tried in Canada, where the court had to look at Mann’s characteristically unscientific work in order to determine whether Ball was right or wrong in saying that Mann should be in the State Pen rather than at Penn state.
Mann wasn’t game enough to put his work before the court, so he lost the case, and a cool million to boot.
180
Surely Tristan will have another wise and sophisticated comment that explains that Michael Mann was right all along.
30
Your innocence & faith is quite sweet Brett. Trouble is the mendacious old fool has been threatening people with legal action for years but for some reason nothing ever comes of it. I wonder why?
314
They’ve got to break the law in order to lose in court. I don’t believe that Press did and I think Monckton knows that – I reckon he’s bluffing. Which puts me in a quandary because I agree with Monckton about everything except tactics.
31
Which begs the question of why doesn’t he if its such a sure fired way ahead??
16
Dear Professor Press:
I’m very sorry to hear about these terrible allegations about you and this possible (likely justified) request that you be made redundant from your present position, cushie as it is.
As it stands, you probably enjoy a fairly “comfortable” lifestyle, in the materialist and consumerist context of the word. Were it to alter, you would be greatly discomforted in assuming a more “sustainable” lifestyle compared to your upcoming station in life. I think it would be unbecoming of me not to offer some assistance or alternative.
Professor, please feel to send your resume to Jo and I’ll see if I can get you a job on the “Clean Up” crew in the Mineral Processing area where I work. You’ll be expected to understand and comply with verbal and written instructions, work 12 hours per day, 14 out of 21 days per swing, comply with the site drug,alcohol and other policies, have a modicum of initiative and work safely. In return, you will be offered comfortable accommodation and messing conditions and a lovely bus to deliver you to work at 05:30 am each day. Plus a salary of up to $70k per year, minus tax and super. Your role will ensure you become familiar with the pointy end of a shovel and what it means to work in a productive, tax-paying position.
Please consider this offer, former Professor Tony. It is probably more than you deserve but I hope you choose the opportunity to learn something from it. After all, isn’t that what academics are supposed to do?
Cheers,
Speedy
281
come off it Speedy. what FIFO only gets $70K?
00
Ahhh – he’s gotta buy his food and accommodation at the company store…
Where’s the Union???
10
I’m assuming he’s pretty green – in more ways than one. He won’t be much chop for a few months so if he makes it past probation then a review of his remuneration will be considered. As it stands, for what he has to offer, the $70k is outrageously generous.
People think a FIFO job is like winning the lotto every week; in fact, there are a lot of FIFO jobs, particularly in services and catering, that pay less than $70k.
Mind you, there are some positions in the Pilbara where the wages are like Hollywood, but usually for specialised skills and with some long hours involved.
Prof Press (ret’d) is on the $70k pile if he’s lucky.
10
“Debunked” can mean almost anything. Press can say that by saying that he was referring to sub-tending theoretical positions that support AGW by “explaining” temperature status “away” in terms of other “phenomena”. Hence he wont be dismissed or reprimanded or contradicted even.
I know Monckton did well on the Parncutt case and we wait to see what comes out of Caldicott Vs Civility, but I do wonder if these spats are going to do more good than harm or not.
I see that in contrast to my previous opinion, Moncktons Peerage kerfuffles and things like this are perhaps part of a bigger role as a kind of poppin-jay. The execrable Galloway called Blair a poppin-jay. A friend looked it up. It means an archery target. In spite of Galloways faux erudition and fancy language, he misused the term, it is not inherently an insult. It means someone who is widely attacked. Saint Sebastian was quite literally a poppin-jay (in the end, God deliver him). Whether by standing up and being a living target achieves the attention to the issues it deserves I dont know. The Romans after Sebastian, whether that sacrifice helped, did become Christian. But I will say, it surely takes great self-assurance and massive testes!
I hope Monckton fares well with these current controversies as he did earlier.
120
Erudite. Thankyou.
30
what a timewaster. goose.
119
Pot. Kettle.
50
What has Wayne got to do with this subject?
20
“1300 years (today is cooler than the Middle Ages);”
Lol he just can’t help himself can he!!!!
122
Mattb, a clear majority of over 130 proxy studies say you are the goose.
Honk!
220
lol CO2 “science”. Great source.
111
Matt, had you clicked on the link AND went through the titanic task of getting to the tab which would lead you to a list of papers which show that the MWP was global and not a North American Or European event you wouldn’t have had to embarrass yourself. The MWP was indeed global which is why the CAGW propaganda machine is so keen on hiding the truth.
Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Think about it, Matt! This is the same machine that tried to tell us that the skeptics were lying and that temps were continuing to rise! Now, Chairman Choo Choo of the IPCC confirms the findings of the Met office that temps have stalled for over 17 years. That is, no rise in temperatures for over 17 years! That means that everything blamed on global warming is wrong because there has been no global warming!
Face it, Matt, you’ve been had!
91
one of us had, and you’re with Monckton… so I’m feeling pretty comfortable to be honest.
19
Therefore, based on your bold example, MattB, what we need to get to the bottom of this problem is less science and more politics, less proxy studies and more IPPC attendance rolls, and most importantly less Scientific Method and more Great And Powerful Friends Doctrine.
Because the important thing for you is not determining an objective truth but to be On The Right Side Of History, and to make sure your political allies write that history and speak fondly of you.
So it’s nothing to do with fact. Skeptics cannot prevail primarily because they have chosen the wrong allies! Or in your words “you’re with Monckton”.
I wonder how you will be on The Right Side of History when the headline almost writes itself.
MATTB GOES BONKERS
OVER THE MONCKERS
AND SAYS SOME REAL HONKERS
WHILE ALLIED TO PLONKERS.
There’s a story people will remember.
90
Eddy says …
Science by Omission.
The favoured hypothesis is protected from falsification by the omission of refuting evidence. Refuting evidence is
[1] Simply omitted from consideration.
[2] Disqualified from consideration.
[3] The significance is downplayed (and look at something else).
[4] The source and/or the messenger is maligned.
[5] Adjusted into compliance.
20
MattB,
Way to go! Once again being the intellectual lightweight that you are you avoid the crux of my argument and respond with your usual mindless drivel.
Why am I not disappointed? One a waste of skin, always a waste of skin!
50
One a waste of skin should be Once a waste of skin.
My apologies.
10
Eddy the crux of your argument is… sorry… was there a crux of your argument? Or just a rubbish claim that beyond that link was the promised land?
08
NO Andrew – I’m not sure where you got that from. Monckton is all politics and no science. Or is that all snake oil and no science.
09
Hi Mattb
Eddy says …
Science by Omission.
The favoured hypothesis is protected from falsification by the omission of refuting evidence. Refuting evidence is
[1] Simply omitted from consideration.
[2] Disqualified from consideration.
[3] The significance is downplayed (and look at something else).
[4] The source and/or the messenger is maligned.
[5] Adjusted into compliance.
I’m sure you can find some instances of all of the above within the Alarmist camp – should you be prepared to actually go looking for them.
BTW: What’s the difference b/w Snake Oil & Science again. I’m not sure if your actual, functional definition for “science” doesn’t look like the above.
20
Very well then MattB, let’s assume I have jumped to the wrong conclusions about your motivations and argument.
Do you admit the skeptics may prevail if evidence and scientific analysis is on their side REGARDLESS of the efforts of one Christopher Monckton?
Do you accept that Lord Monckton is NOT the original discoverer or inventor of ANY information germane to the CAGW hypothesis that he has ever said in public? i.e. that he is reporting the scientific research of others?
Do you accept that an unbiased objective reality is being revealed piece by piece to any skeptically minded person who wishes to find it, Lord Monckton being just one of millions?
Do you admit the FACT that in the precious few debates that Monckton has had with warmist opponents, including unscripted question and answer sessions, he has referenced historic facts and scientific research results from memory with high accuracy on most occasions, and until this tour has spent the minority of his speaking time on politics?
Do you admit that the objective reality or non-reality of CAGW crucially underpins any political statement made by Lord Monckton about climate change? i.e. that the politics follows from the science, not the other way round?
Will you accept that, THEREFORE, in spite of not having a science degree, Lord Monckton is NOT “all politics and no science”?
Will you further admit that attacking the character of skeptical opponents is not merely easier than understanding their arguments, but is in fact the only response available to you as no observational evidence gathered by anyone anywhere anytime supports the catastrophic global warming potential of CO2?
I can lead you to the inevitable conclusion, but I can’t make you accept it. The final step is always your own.
You’ve been led a merry dance by people who should have known better and are too far along in the scam that has grown up around it to admit their error now.
50
Mattb – I can just as easily say that you are not a scientist and know absolutely nothing about climate, which only leads me to the conclusion that you have absolutely nothing to say about it.
That’s playing the game by your rules, so WTF are you doing here?
10
Here is the crux that you missed.
So, Matt, everything that the “scientists” are blaming on global warming (e.g. melting glaciers, acceleration in sea level rise, more snow in winter, less snow in winter, more hurricanes, more intense hurricanes, etc.) was predicated upon a false premise. You cannot claim that rising temperatures are to blame for anything when temperatures are not rising,
Get it, Matt?
11
Backslider… well you could say I’m not a scientist and know absolutely nothing about climate… but my qualifications would beg to differ. I’m not a practicing scientist that is true. I do have a t-shirt that says “back off man I’m a scientist” though.
03
Eddy when the crux of your argument begins with calling someone Mr Choo Choo well I apologise if I ignore it as the rantings of an idiot. YOu need to read what he actually said btw. the coinclusion is certainly not “That means that everything blamed on global warming is wrong because there has been no global warming”
04
Andrew:
“Do you admit the skeptics may prevail if evidence and scientific analysis is on their side REGARDLESS of the efforts of one Christopher Monckton?”
Id say “in spite of the efforts of one Christopher Monckton” but yes of course… IF evidence is on their side.
“Do you accept that Lord Monckton is NOT the original discoverer or inventor of ANY information germane to the CAGW hypothesis that he has ever said in public?”
Absolutely – yes 100%
“i.e. that he is reporting the scientific research of others?”
I agree as long as you don’t mean accurately reporting. Twisting and manipulating and misrepresenting.. sure.
“Do you accept that an unbiased objective reality is being revealed piece by piece to any skeptically minded person who wishes to find it, Lord Monckton being just one of millions?”
Nope… well actually yes it is by actual scientists in literature, but I don;t think that’s what you mean. YOu may need to elaborate here.
“Do you admit the FACT that in the precious few debates that Monckton has had with warmist opponents, including unscripted question and answer sessions, he has referenced historic facts and scientific research results from memory with high accuracy on most occasions, and until this tour has spent the minority of his speaking time on politics?”
No I do not accept that. His not speaking on politics does not make the motives apolitical. I do not believe that he factually/faithfully references “facts” and “scientific research results”. I do believe he spots a lot of facts and numbers that may or may not mean what he says them to mean in order to bamboozle.
“Do you admit that the objective reality or non-reality of CAGW crucially underpins any political statement made by Lord Monckton about climate change? i.e. that the politics follows from the science, not the other way round?”
No I do not admit that. His political stements are underpinned by bollocks. His politics inform his opinion of science.
“Will you accept that, THEREFORE, in spite of not having a science degree, Lord Monckton is NOT “all politics and no science”?”
I would accept that he is just “no science”.
05
Bullshit…
00
Until somebody runs it through the Skeptical Science refrigeration unit, the MWP in much of China would appear to be a touch warmer than now. Of course, you’d find times in that period when the old Dynasty-stressing curses of cold and drought recurred, but the Northern and Southern Song seemed to do nicely on the overall warming. And didn’t the Ming find out the hard way about global cooling in the LIA!
50
Grudd 2008 using a much wider smaple than Mann and intepreting the data correctly finds a MWP about 1.2C warmer than today [see figure 11]. This accords with the IPCC has found in 1990, Figure 7c.
00
To use a procedural club and try to get someone fired because they disagree with you about science — even if they’re doing so in a totally wrong-headed way — is ghastly.
Monckton shouldn’t be using the finer hair-splitting pedantic literal details of university policies to silence his critics. He can simply point out how wrong they are, with evidence, as eloquently and frequently as he likes.
I completely agree with Monckton’s substantive scientific points here. His repeated attempts to get people fired who criticise him or disagree with him is another matter.
928
If one could count on the press to fairly and succinctly portray both points of view, your assessment might be valid.
However, this is the “Green Vipers’ Lair”. There is simply no way, Jose, that both sides of the argument will be presented to the public in the press.
Hence, I suppose, is the rationale for trying to have this heard in court. At least someone might listen.
130
That’s exactly the point Rod.
The Green Eco Loon Left knows they are safe in the care of the mainstream media but also are aware that once the scientific falsehoods of CAGW are exposed in court they are done for.
Unfortunately our legal system has the Green Tinge, but there is still a chance, even in its’ present poor
state that it may be forced to function and expose this fraud.
There is a precedent with the Algore movie in Britain that is a template for action.
The Green left are therefore hard at work on the main issue:
To stop ANY and ALL court action that would clearly define CAGW as a SCAM and to discredit LORD MONCKTON to prevent or discourage the legal action going ahead if possible.
Personally I think it is way past time that fraudulent behaviour was ripped out of ALL of our publicly funded institutions.
We need more court cases against lying scientists and politicians.
There are some posting here who criticiise LM for proposing legal action against people who defame or ridicule him.
The question must be put.
Do those same people stand up and criticise the comments of the Doctor Caldicotts or Doctor Presses of the eco pressure groups.
It is amazing how fearful the Eco Left are about Lord Monckton.
Since his arrival here in Australia this blogg has some subtle and not so subtle smears of His Lordship by a wave of tiny little micro trolls.
A micro troll in one who tries to blend in with the science but curiously seems unable to exhibit any sort of human warmth in communicating with other bloggers here. In short; they are not the full Troll.
You may recognise them, and as someone else said, I would not lend them my power tools.
KK 🙂
They are obviously afraid.
First there was the collapse of the Mediterranean empires.
Hopefully we will have the collapse of this CAGW monstrosity next.
KK 😉
100
Your approach seems to be a very common one now among the green left.
KK 🙂
42
You’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist, Keith.
The fact is, Lord Monckton has called for a doctor to be stripped of her licence and a university professor to be fired within a very few days. He’s gone to lengths to make these things happen. Monckton discredits himself with these actions, when he’s not causing Andrew Bolt to scratch his eyes out by publicly endorsing fringe Australian political parties.
625
She isn’t licensed.
University professors sucking on the Australian taxpayer teat should be more grateful for their positions and do more research and be less dishonest in public.
You have generated a lot of antagonism here but you don’t seem to care.
Why is that.
Most people would make an effort to smooth things over?
Puzzling.
Or maybe there is the real end game?
KK 🙂
101
For her to be “deregistered” then.
17
Dollis is a troll. Stop feedin him.
95
Probably not a troll, just a sales agent who should still to what he knows.
53
typo.. again.
He should STICK to what he knows
23
I agree with you Christoph.
And I am unhappy to see your quite reasonable comments in this case attracting “disagrees” like a magnet. There seems to be a small mindless mob hiding here among the rest of us intelligent independent thinkers who seem to see it as their duty in life to run around madly clicking the little “disagree” icon so that we’ll all know what to think.
I also find it quite ridiculous that you should be called a troll for simply expressing an entirely rational opinion.
57
Thank you, Ian. I appreciate it.
24
I think it’s more than a small mindless mob, group think is alive and well here, every bit as much as SkS.
00
Hey KK,
I am not sure you have noticed, but Christoph is a skeptic, ie. fighting the same cause….
I tend to agree with him about Monckton.
I am a very strong supporter of the good Lord, but IMHO calling for people to be de-registered or sacked smells a little desperate and OTT, and slightly detracts from his message. He should be using his knowledge of the subject and his quick wit to destroy their arguments using science.
Having said that, If I was getting constantly attacked my warmists, I would also probably get to the point where sharply worded requests for discipline would be neccessary
100
Monckton is an incredibly smart man. He is a fountain of knowledge on climate science. Unlike certain folks here, he actually understands basic physics and doesn’t claim the atmosphere immediately gets to work cooling the planet when a bit of heat bounces off of its surface out to space (it does shield us from the Sun; it also slows down the heat flow back out to space).
He’s a smart dude and a magnificent debater.
But he does like his tangents when his feelings get involved.
54
“Unlike certain folks here, he actually understands basic physics ”
You speak for yourself, I see. Go back to school and learn something, ffs.
42
“it also slows down the heat flow back out to space.”
Only when the surface heat is less than that “allowed” by the pressure/temperature gradient.
I’m sorry that your “basic physics” does not allow you to comprehend the concept. Not my problem. !!
22
C is a skeptic?
maybe
maybe
KK
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/monckton-accuses-tony-press-uni-tasmania-of-fraud-and-deception/#comment-1245192
20
You will find that he has the occasional posting at SkS.
Enough said.
41
It is not a “scientific disagreement”. It is dishonest and malicious conduct inconsistent with his employer’s published standards.
92
Yeah, I don’t see it that way.
I think Press’s scientific opinions and especially his predictions are about on score with Paul Ehlrich (I commented to that effect elsewhere on this page). In other words, they suck.
But I don’t think his motivation is to maliciously hurt Christopher Monckton. Thinking that it is is kind of silly, to be quite frank. The truth is much simpler:
He disagrees.
312
“But I don’t think his motivation is to maliciously hurt Christopher Monckton”
This is where Lord Monckton would probably disagree with you. Press’ attack was straight out of the SkS/Romm handbook.. I would not be surprised if there is a link.
LM has been trying to get his version of the issue out there, and has been constantly ridiculed and put down for his physical issues, his peerage, ad hom after ad hom after ad hom.
I suspect that he has just got fed up with it and is fighting back, with the biggest stick he can. Is it a wise move ? who knows ! Only the final outcome will determine that.
At least it brings the issues well into the foreground, hopefully it forces the debate, so to speak.
I say, lets not judge yet, but see what eventuates.
Maybe this is a trigger that will lead to the final collapse of the whole global warming edifice, and its sinking back into the stagnant ooze from whence it came.
120
The point is, Press was trying to do Monckton some serious damage. It was not a misunderstanding or a mistake. There are too many CAGW-ers doing exactly the same thing and ignoring it has gotten skeptics exactly nowhere.
I am 100% with Lord Monckton.
140
I am also with Lord Monckton!
For too long the skeptics have been fighting for a just cause without using all the means at their disposal. Why bring a knife to a gun fight when you can bring an Apache helicopter gunship?
The rent seeking misanthropes must be hit where it hurts them the most, in their pocketbook. When Team Gaia gets bad publicity it costs them money. When they lose in court it costs them money. Hopefully, by generating enough attention and how much money this scam is costing the taxpayer perhaps we can slay the green beast once and for all. Voters vote their pocketbooks. Once they feel financial pain the game is up for the CAGW gravy train as the voters will force politicians to stop this insanity.
Until then, we have to continue to fight the good fight. Lord Monckton is on the front lines and he is a personal hero of mine!
I stand with Lord Monkton because I stand with the truth!
141
Brilliantly said, Eddy. I am in total agreement on all points.
51
The danger of course is that by the time the general public wake up, their votes may not count for anything, with actual governance moved off shore.
30
This statement is inconsistent with the modus operandi of the warmista … evidence abounds supporting the view that they have a deliberate and malicious purpose in their statements. Press is no different, cosying up to his ‘in-crowd’ … his groupthink buddies in whose company he thinks that he is untouchable to smear whomever he pleases. Our academia is unfortunately awash with these miserable weeds and they need to be weeded out or set straight. Whilst Press is unlikely to loose his job, he will likely have a black mark in his file having received a formal and public complaint concerning his conduct.
Press must understand that there are consequences to ‘free speech’ that he needs to accept and deal with to his embarrassment.
10
Christoph, I about half agree with you. In the case above it isn’t just a disagreement Monckton alleges, he alleges that Tony Press is committing fraud.
When people make a public statement and where their position leads anyone to assume that they are authorities, then I think it is their burden to be clear about what they KNOW and what they do NOT KNOW. When they exaggerate or step into activism (while wearing their uniforms) then perhaps they should know that doing so is at some peril.
111
Dollis, you seem to miss the point.
People living on taxpayers money is to serve the public and follow the rules. They is not allowed to have agendas, attack people because of any difference in opinion or how they look. When they use their position for something so wrong and bad you sometimes have to set an example. This is what will cause the rest think twice before acting. Monckton is right and at some point you have to stand your ground.
61
fat and stupid is no way to go through life – suggest doing something about one of those problems chris
40
WTF Christoph
Your arguments are all about the ethical issues with calling a “scientist” a liar.
There is no science in this.
The science part is that the null hypothesis; natural causes result in minor changes in temperature and climate.
If there is some other explanation required it would be a result of changes far greater than +/- 3 degrees over 420,000 years. There is no alternate hypothetical explanation necessary. Period.
Were it not for the clandestine manipulations of Maurice Strong at the UN in the early seventies, there would be no “scientific” discussion. Fundamentally that is the issue with climate realists and Monckton as well.
Therefore when a person with authority at an institution of higher learning comes out with statements to the press that are nothing more than witchcraft and chicanery, then of course it needs to be addressed in a disciplinary fashion. If the Chief Executive of the Antarctic Division of the University of Tasmania held a press conference to announce that the sun is blue and the moon is pink, don’t you think that a rebuttal is worthwhile? It’s not nuclear physics. It’s not rocket science. It’s nonsense. It’s high time we said so.
71
No, you can call him a liar, although severely misguided is probably closer to the mark. But that’s a lot different than going around trying to get your opponents sacked from their universities.
29
Christoph,
As any lawyer will tell you (and as mine repeatedly tells me), “You can rarely get more than you originally ask for in a dispute or negotiation.”
The matter is over alleged scientific fraud (which is still fraud, under the legal definition), a matter which requires the University to investigate and take the appropriate action if accusation of fraudulent activity is upheld, or to publicly announce why it was not upheld, if it finds that to be the case.
You seem to have fixated on the fact that Monckton reminded the University that dismissal is the ultimate option available to the University if they find that fraud has indeed been committed.
What Monckton has done, is to merely state the ultimate sanction open to the University. In doing so, he has defined the point from which negotiations towards a public apology might proceed.
I really do not understand why you have chosen to bomb this thread over this matter.
41
Chris has argued a particular point on this issue which really goes to the heart of the AW debate; and that is people using their status to push a discredited theory when there is overwhelming evidence that theory is wrong or highly exaggerated.
People forget that this exaggeration and lying was legally challenged in 2006. That decision really established that AGW, if true, which was not considered by the case, had no consequences.
When people of scientific standing such Press make egregious comments which they know will be relied upon by other people, they should be held to a high standard. I think litigation against Press would be interesting and test the veracity of what he has said and his capacity to support it.
10
Well put Rod.
KK
20
Why not? Because the “just cause” the skeptics are fighting for is not to show the science of AGW is invalid. That’s just a science debate.
A debate about mere data interpretation can never be a “just cause” unless, of course, you are a Greenie.
The “just cause” of the skeptics starts with the defense of the “scientific method” and expands out to defend a rational process for determining how our society debates policy issues based upon scientific understanding. In other words, the ultimate skeptical just cause is to establish a rational and transparent process by which society comes to “know” stuff.
And the very first principle upon which any rational inquiry into any topic must be based is the liberty to express your thoughts.
All the arguments made here in defence of kicking people out of university positions because they expressed ideas we find offensive are the same arguments that Greens make for regulating free debate and speech.
I sense that the confusion here starts with equating “facts” with “truth.” Once facts become truth, then an emotional and moral dimension is added.
In society, facts are measured through the lens of human understanding. Who here really doubts that Tony Press doesn’t believe his side represents the “truth?” Who here doubts Tony Press’s intent to “fight the good fight on the front lines!”
In this sense, there are two political “truths” here, even if only one of them (Monckton’s) accurately represents the empirical facts of the matter.
The Greens would argue that the best way to defend (and thus define) truth is simply to disallow all speech that is not true. Not surprisingly, they demand to be the arbitrators of what is the truth is. Also, not surprisingly, they would claim to use science to determine this truth.
If we allow ourselves to fall into the cognitive trap of believing that a set of “facts” – such as Monckton’s points showing Tony Press is not just wrong, but invidiously so – is the same thing as “truth” and to further claim that “the consequences of free speech” is that those who knowingly deny the “truth” have forfeited their right to speak their minds freely, then we are advocating the same method of reasoning as the Greens.
The mere fact that we got the facts right this time is incidental to the precedent established on how we go about determining what is true and what is false.
If both the Greens and the Skeptics claim monopoly on the truth and the support of science AND WE AGREE THAT ONLY THE TRUTH IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK FREELY.
Then Eddy is right to bring an Apache gunship because ultimately who ever has the biggest guns and is most willing to do violence to the other side will determine what is “truth.”
Obviously, this is not the skeptics’ “good cause.”.
The good cause that skeptics fight for is to establish a rational standard of inquiry, which never allows for any dataset to be framed as truth so sacrosanct that those who wish to speak against it are denied the right to do so.
Leave your guns, knives, warships AND tort law handbooks at home!
All you need is your particular point of view of whatever the dataset is at hand and a soapbox. From there let society listen to the arguments. The truth will sort itself out in the end.
00
The evidence would suggest that for the last 30 years the truth has not sorted itself out. Hence we have an AGW scam.
01
OT. Is this how the Governing class intends to keep robbing us? Deputy Governor of the Bank of England suggests negative interests to encourage you to spend your cash.
40
Of course inflating the money supply is what the government does to take more money from people without being seen to raise taxes. Hell, they claim to be fighting against inflation. It’s utter horsecrap.
It’s part of one of the most unethical, evil things you could imagine: we add massive amounts of debts for our short-term spending and pass these debts on to children, including those yet to be born.
132
Amen to that
50
Double amen.
10
Face Palm..
One of the best scientific defences of $CAGW$ that I have read for ages. 🙂
Seriously..they know they are stuffed when it comes to the science so its always smear and sneer.
Keep posting here Tristan..PLEASE 🙂
Its makes our “job” so much easier when people see the science/intelligence of junior $CAGW$ team members.
70
Anything for the people x
07
You don’t give a monkeys for the people you troglodyte. Aren’t you late for a union meeting or something?
10
Ceetee says
The ‘something’ being more like a Fabian Society meeting with mattb, Brookesy, Catamon, whoever.
10
Mr Press may be an incompetent fool, the incidence of which is hardly absent in academia. Whether or not he has his facts straight (and doesn’t) is beside the point. He has a right to say them.
Monckton has a right to complain about being misquoted, but claiming academic fraud and using the law as a weapon has become his recent dog and pony show. Judgment is not always the Noble Monck’s strong point, especially when it is competing against showboating.
613
Hear, hear.
412
I can see that this is a big issue for you Chris.
Good luck with it.
KK
70
Academic freedom? Not forcing organisations to fire people for expressing a wrong scientific thought?
Sure is.
411
Dude! did you not notice the carbon tax?
This isn’t just about a “wrong scientific thought”!!!!!!
THINK ABOUT IT!
90
It might be a Monckton tactic to get the science debated in a more public forum. If these apparently irksome legal remedies get taken seriously then it might be that the skeptics voice will be heard. I doubt the end game is Caldicott’s disbarment or Press’ sacking. The main point is the science.
71
Or in English, as spoken by LM.
here here.
KK 🙂
20
He has a right to say it, but its where and how one says it that matters.
If Mr Press’s purpose is to ridicule Lord Monkton, or publicly discredit / shame the man; then that speech is not free. That is character assassination, and it matters in a court of law.
111
Disagreeing with someone about external facts isn’t slander, particularly in the context of a scientific debate. And cherry picking is far too broad and common to successfully get a slander case going over it.
Monckton’s position is as ridiculous re: Press as it was re: Caldicott. He can’t let their ridiculousness stand on its own with reason standing in stark contrast. On no, he’s got to raise them on that score when he feels personally slighted.
417
I have to disagree with you Chris. While your contention that disagreement about external facts is not slanderous is correct, this is quite a different matter.
As an institution supported by taxpayers and the public in general, one could expect UTAS to comply with the guidelines established in AS/NZS 8001 Fraud and Corruption Control.
When you analyse the statements made by Mr. Press to the Press it is not too difficult to spot the fraud.
This document is intended to protect institutions, specifically those of an educational nature from fraud and corruption. What does it say about UTAS when this man Press runs counter current to that Australian Standard? As an Engineer, I am held to account to behave with Best Practice, often as defined by Australian Standards. Why should the University of Tasmania not be held to maintain this standard, which by the way is within the same series as AS/NZS 8002 Management Guidelines.
141
Chris seems to be a Micro Troll, one with a foot in both camps to confuse intention.
Actually his posts seem to lack something human and I’m thinking perhaps He is actually a Troll Computer Simulator.
Notice how after establishing his CAGW credentials he has spent all his time condemning LM.
Interesting.
KK
52
He’s a sales rep of some sort.. what is he trying to sell though !!
22
Eruptik
12
KK says:
Maybe, but he has said several things already that Brookes or Mattb or Catamon or Maxine would never say (or agree to). So please lets agree to enjoy what he has to say? For awhile at least, he’s new here we should be polite.
40
Mark D
I agree, but there is something that I can’t put my finger on that worries me.
KK
20
Rational thought perhaps KK?
21
Maybe he’s bombing this location for business to his site ? Quite unimpressive and abhorrent in my view.
02
You must be extremely naive if you think that’s his motivation.
41
Hi Backslider.
I don ‘t think naivete has much to do with it.
He doesn’t want any warmers harmed and will therefore discredit LM to reduce support for legal action
or any legitimate censure of nut cases.
Free speech is a vital component of our country, but using that term to justify petty backbiting and
harassment of LM and other people, whose only crime is to be looking for the truth, is a bit too
European for me.
The laissez faire approach to personal responsibility towards the community and other individuals leads to unpleasant breakdowns in society.
Just look at Europe. Somebody else did it. Some body else is responsible; but funny that they all voted to be the one who didn’t have to work.
And in Greece, where all discipline is gone, and which has recently collapsed into a PC shambles, you
don’t even have to pay taxes; whatever is needed the Government simply borrows from the other more
disciplined countries of the EEU.
So.
I don’t like the PC approach where university workers who should be at work spend taxpayer funded Time harassing LM. Do your job.
KK 🙂
20
no-one to vote for:
25 Feb: Herald Sun: Malcolm Farr: Greens save Labor a week after deserting them
Greens Party Leader Christine Milne stood by her pledge to side with the Government when the Opposition attempted a no-confidence attack…
The House of Representatives is not sitting this week and the senators appeared to be enjoying the extra attention…
Senator Milne then went on to criticise the Government’s handling of the mining tax and education funding, and demanded both Labor and the Opposition explain how they would pay for their policies…
So the Greens and Labor were set to vote together to oppose the no-confidence motion, and the Greens and Liberals were set to unite to condemn the Government…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/greens-rescue-labor-a-week-after-deserting-them/story-fncynkc6-1226585244416
27 Feb: Australian: Lauren Wilson: Coalition joins Greens’ probe
THE Greens and the Coalition have joined forces to establish a Senate inquiry into the revenue failings of Labor’s minerals resource rent tax…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/coalition-joins-greens-probe/story-fnb56a2t-1226586384546
20
[…] of the University of Tasmania’s Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre (H/T Jo Nova). The issue was published in the Sunday Tasmanian. The interesting part was Press’ firm […]
00
http://vimeo.com/25224318
This isnt a good start with Press saying that within five years they will be able to see enough of how the antarctica is behaving to predict what its effect will be on the rest of the world. What a load of delusional twaddle that is.
This bloke is out of is depth.
81
He’s in Paul Ehrlich miscalculation territory (and for almost exactly the same reason: he’s not adequately modelling the chaotic complexity of the system, which is full of fractal self-similarity and drawn to a strange attractor. It’s stochastic, not in the slightest linear.
42
Chris
OK I agree.
But consider me (and I nearly am) Joe at the pub. I watch a bit of news and talk with a few mates at work. How am I going to find out that the rubbish I hear is just that? I am beginning to hear about this funny looking lord and just might take an interest in what he is on about. For whatever reason.
Doug
110
I am so glad Lord Monkton has done this. Those in the field so quick and easy with their lies and smears need to learn there are repercussions. I’m fed up with them getting away with it.
If the University does nothing (or even if it does), can the police step in? There is altogether too much fraud out there and if Universities are unwilling to dismiss – or worse, dismiss then welcome back after a month or two – isn’t it time to bring charges? I would really like the police to start getting involved right across the board.
Thank you, Lord Monkton, for standing up to Press and to them all.
101
My apologies – spelling – Lord Monckton.
21
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It should be protected even if favored groups are insulted, their feelings hurt or even if the statements are false.
There can very few circumstances where speech should be restricted, and it should not depend on what the majority or elites think.
There seems to be an awful lot of confusion on this question, see above.
44
indeed
23
Freedoms always come with responsibilities and consequences.
Press has exercised his freedom of speech, in an irresponsible manner, and now must face the consequences.
83
Here is an ABC link that ties the previous Jonova post about the ABC and Monckton of Brenchley.
ALPBC denies. 2 lies, one sentence:
Despite an overwhelming majority of climate scientists reaching consensus on human-induced climate change, Lord Monckton says he does not believe there has been any evidence of global warming for 17 years.
30
Related to the “no warming for the past 16 years” point:
Collapsing Consensus – Another German Meteorology Site Wonders About The Global Temperature Stagnation
100
“Even a natural variation of the climate cannot be excluded.””
Which of course is the position of the highly credentialed climate scientist Roy Spencer:
““Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
20
You mean NATURE … can’t be “excluded” … as being behind changes in THE WEATHER?!????
Knock me over with a feather.
41
Particularly nasty weather.
00
(OT) Ahhh the press…. the crap just keeps flowing:
http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1327329/our-wild-weather-is-climate-change-to-blame/?cs=257
20
Yes, I saw that ridiculous claim by local alarmists, I think that they are under the weather or on something that distorts their mind (yes I mean mind as I doubt they have more than one brain between them).
20
The Sunday Tasmania is part of the Mercury stable and owned by NewsCorp. Yet another example of this dribble that the NewsCorp papers do not give a hearing to the AGWs. They have no only given them a hearing but as LM puts it they have “ciculated [AGW] deceptions”.
30
Fraud and deception… is that a flying pink portcullis I see before me?
110
Yes. it means truth and honesty, and its coming to get YOU….
70
I finally (I am a bit slow) notice the pattern of the trolls.
They are completely off topic and irrelevant (like this post).
Make a wild, unfounded assertion and do not answer the rebuttal.
This just dilutes all other posts with guff. The wild assertion is usually targeted to offend, so that someone will weaken and respond, which further dilutes the other posts.
The equivalent of a speech of importance being continually drowned out with chants of “racist” and “misogynist”.
What fires up the trolls? Ask the question if you wish to know who funds the little blighters.
They are not necessarily activated when green mythology is debunked.
They are not activated by posts which contain
They are activated with an almost 100% hit rate when:
. debunking/criticism of Federal Government policy occurs
. university academic idiocy is exposed
100
Folks here may want to look up the case in the UK in which some 9/11 Troofer nutters have taken the BBC to court for allegedly not telling the troof (which is what exactly, there seem to be as many versions as Troofers).
Now if they can force the BBC into court to defend the fact that they reported the Third Tower collapsed (which it did) as opposed to saying something like “it may or may not have collapsed” then who knows what else they or others can be forced to defend.
In the USA theres a thing called “lawfare” (as in warfare) which consists of stealth-jihad groups such as CAIR and terrorist apologists taking legal action against people who say things such as “Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim’ (wheres your proof?). These cases are all crazy and all parties both know this and know everyone else knows it, but thats not the point. It wastes the defendents time and consumes their resources.Its sick and I sympathise with the victims, but maybe theres a lesson inthere for how to get the arguments some attention.
10
The lawfare strategy doesn’t work in a jurisdiction where the loser has to pay the winner’s costs. For that reason I suspect the troofers who have brought the UK case are going to learn an expensive lesson.
21
In the UK anyone can launch a civil action for a claim up to (when I last looked) 5000 GBP and the fee is a mere (when I last looked) 30 GBP or thereabouts. No other outlay.
I dont know about other arenas inUK law. But I do know that when the hypnotist Paul McKenna was exonerated of allegations against him he was saddled with a six figure legal fee.
Thecost / benefit analysis for these actions in the UK are such that a trend has emerged of cases lodged here between parties in other countries. London is alleged to be a focus of “litigation tourism”.
10
They are not activated by posts which contain raw data. technical argument and math.
50
I guess that’s why we’re on this post then yes?
04
A self-confession to being a troll, Mattb, yes?
30
It is clear folks like me were being referenced. I prefer to think of myself to be a brave visitor to a thriving enclave of trolls.
17
Yeah, we’re actually the dwarves, come to shed some sunlight on you all.
13
Me, i just come for the laughs, see what the fringe of the right wing are on about at the moment. and the occasional interesting reference.
Ok and to just, sometimes, poke a little fun at the “Tackling Tribal Groupthink” banner. 🙂
24
Actually, MattB, Tristan and Catamon are all related. They all use to be hemorrhoids in their last lives and now they are deltoids.
Whats the difference between a deltoid and a hemorrhoid?
Answer: There is some hope that a hemorrhoid will go away! 😉
111
You’re like pushing 60 dude, why you still making playground jokes?
06
Actually, Tristan, I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. All you do is make stupid, idiotic and moronic comments. Perhaps you can show where you have ever, even once, made an intelligent and sincere comment that contributed to the topic being discussed.
You can’t which is why you are nothing more than an object of ridicule, scorn and derision.
30
Your analysis has been noted!
00
Even if true, it could be reasonably argued that it is entirely in theme when commenting on a post about daS Monksters latest silliness. 🙂
01
O/T, but related to use of tax payers funds.
The Age reports “CLIMATE Change agency dumped!.
THE national body for adapting to climate change is preparing to be closed
down after the federal government decided not to renew its funding.
The National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility has been told
its $28 million in funding over four years has expired.
On Tuesday, researchers presented some findings to staff at the Department
of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in Canberra. They presented
policy briefs on water security, adapting to sea level rise and wild weather.
The group has helped develop 140 projects across 33 universities, and
about 100 staff are expected to be affected by funding cuts. The organisation
is expected to be wound up in June.
A spokesman for the group said it was pursuing other sources of funding,
and aspects of its work would continue if possible. BEN CUBBY
80
Hoo-bloody-ra!
I wonder what those 100 ex-alarmists will do for a job. Apart from mooching about seeking more rent from some other gullible benefactor.
30
I’m not sure it isn’t a ploy on Gillard’s behalf (I really don’t trust her on ANYTHING). You know, getting rid of it to look as though she’s changing, then win back some votes and if she gets back in – BOOM – the department is back in full force with twice the staff.
A bit like OBummer of the USA not mentioning
global warmingclimate change, then making it his priority once he was re-elected.41
I think that you are right on the money with that one…..
40
aprioristically? Christopher, please forget this word. The base word is just fine. But this adverb is way too much. I support your arguments. Thanks for your work in behalf of science.
32
So glad that these kinds of smears are finally being tackled.
All power to Lord Monckton.
61
Yes but fast running out of money is the explanation, socialist objectives no longer able to be funded as reality bites that borrowing to spend as revenue falls is a recipe for financial disaster in an election year at least. Too little too late.
20
Normally I avoid personal comments but Moncktons complaints shows him to be a pompous ass who repeatedly indulges in this type of nonsense.
His comments about Tony Press are merely about the interpretation of evidenc and scientific argument.
This is complete drivel:
Recommendation
On any view, Press is not a fit and proper person to be employed in any capacity at the University of Tasmania. I hope that the University will investigate his misconduct and fraud and will dismiss him forthwith.
Yours faithfully,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Especially coming from a man who has been publicly told by at least one scientist to stop misrepresenting her before he went on to do so again before the US congress.
616
Got your attention, didn’t he? ++ Monckton
103
He also has the drawn the attention of “warmists” like Senator Barnaby Joyce who has described him as “on the fringe” and columnist Janet Albrechtsen who wrote that Monckton was an extremist in his language and is hurting the cause of those who want to ask hard questions of the science.
35
Oh, two opinions. And?
60
The point Backslider is that even committed skeptics recognise that he makes outrageuosly stupid statements.
The is not enough space to go through all of Moncktons complaints against Press here to show that it is ludicrous to describe them as fraudulent rater than simply a legitmate disagreement about the interpretation of the scince between Monckton and Press.
In Count 1 he has this to say whether or not it has warmed over the last 17 years:
“his allegation that I had been incorrect was a lie and a deception constituting serious professional misconduct and scientific fraud, or he did not know these things, in which event his presumption of knowledge that he did not in fact possess was also a lie and a deception constituting serious professional misconduct and scientific fraud.”
Five out of five of the major temperature data show a warming trend for the last 17 years. Monckton and others want to say that the warming is not “statistically significant.”
That is an argument about the interpretation of statistcal significance. I will not repeat my arguments on that here. Monckton has one view entirley legitimate to put, but I an Press have another, also entirely legitmate to put.
This petulant abuse and defamation of someone who simply has a different view on the interpretation of data shows what a complete prat Monckton is.
He wants Press sacked and claims he is gulty of criminal fraud because of this. Talk about trying to shut down debate.
13
Christopher Monckton is a master of using the media. Yes, he is a showman, but for a good cause. His intelligence would make you want to crawl into a hole, so trying to belittle him only displays your own fear of him.
As I said, he got you, didn’t he?
20
Lying in a good cause?
00
Now you must prove this to be the case.
20
Philip Shehan did you in fact read Albrechtsen’s article to which you refer?
Try this excerpt for size for size:
“Heated moments mar Monckton”
by: Janet Albrechtsen
From: The Australian
January 20, 2010 12:00AM
“…Is it too much to ask for a measured climate change debate in 2010? Looking back at 2009, it’s hard to think of a more frustrating debate than the one about anthropogenic global warming.
One side says the science is settled and will not countenance dissent. Within that group sit the alarmists who preach death and destruction, those who define humanity as the problem and those who have long harboured an ideological grudge against Western progress. Those on the other side of the debate say man-made global warming is all bunkum. Though they describe themselves as sceptics, for many of them the science is equally settled: in their favour.
And in between is a far larger group of people, those who are open-minded and genuinely sceptical, who are trying to understand the debate as best they can. Yet frustration only grows at the extremism on both sides.
So what will Christopher Monckton bring to this exasperating state of affairs? The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher is in Australia next week, speaking about the flaws of the push for a global solution to global warming. Last year, Monckton blew the whistle on a draft Copenhagen treaty that political leaders seemed keen to keep away from the prying eyes of taxpayers, who will fund the grand promises.
While nothing concrete came out of Copenhagen, the push for global commitments and a foreign aid bonanza continues. And in this respect, Monckton has plenty more to say. He has written to the Prime Minister outlining legitimate concerns that billions of dollars will be wasted on a problem that does not exist.
When Monckton talks about the science he is powerful. Watch on YouTube his kerb-side interview of a well-meaning Greenpeace follower on the streets of Copenhagen last month. With detailed data behind him, he asks whether she is aware that there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for 15 years. No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has in fact been global cooling in the past nine years? No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has been virtually no change to the amount of sea ice? No, she does not. Whether, given her lack of knowledge about these facts, she is driven by faith, not facts. Yes, she is driven by faith, she says.
To those with an open mind, Monckton’s fact-based questions demand answers from our political leaders. To this end, he will impress his Australian audience over the next few days. Unfortunately, while Monckton has mastered the best arts of persuasion, he also succumbs to the worst of them when he engages in his made-for-the-stage histrionics……
The last paragraph is shared by some skeptics who regardless still regard Monckton’s grasp of the scientific arguments as sound.
Barnaby Joyce is possibly also not referring to Monckton’s grasp of the science.
50
diddums..
The CAGW bletheren are going to find they can’t keep with their lies and misinformation.
It is well past time some of these parrots got held to account.
91
May I suggest a return to the stocks?
Rather than locate them in the village square, the local sewerage farm would be appropriate. Lots of material for the aggrieved to throw and a constant reminder of what you get for speaking s**t.
10
OT – Yesterday was Polar Bear day at Seaworld so an animal carer takes the opportunity to give us a lecture on climate change!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment
30
Yowza!
Way off topic I know but hey, this is funny.
I see that Bob Brown is now officially a Pirate.
A court in the U.S. has declared that the Sea Shepherd Group as pirates.
Hey, I suppose it’s just a label. However, what it does do now is to open up the way for the Japanese to pursue Sea Shepherd through the court system.
I can just see Bob now.
“Arrr Jim lad”, with a cocky on his shoulder squawking ‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight!’
Oh the irony, that we need Americans to tell us that Bob Brown is a pirate.
Link to article at ABC
Tony.
71
Argh.
22
Hmmm.. Ramming Ships in the open sea and threatening their crew.
Sounds a lot like piracy to me.
I wonder what dodgy financial transactions are used to fund them (another form of piracy).
51
MadJak – so you want the jap whalers labelled as pirates too?
16
…..THEY ARE……..Doh!
10
Tony,
Judge Kozinsky may well call Sea Shepherd Pirates, but he has a bit of form as well.
What a fine upstanding member of the legal fraternity.
21
Clearly this would reflect on his neutrality in an “obscenity” trial. But as long as all his material features only consenting adults, why the hell should it be held to mean anything. I am only concerned as to how he obtained these images and whose copyright he may have breached (no, I mean that seriously).
Thats like saying he shouldn’t be allowed to sit on the bar if he is gay. That used to be the case. Noone would dare to suggest that today. Whats fair for gays should be fair for everyone else in the realms of consensual perversion between adults.
Otherwise…well millions of people dress up as animals, cross-dress, engage in SM, scat, CBT and a huge list of other “perversions” whilst many of them maintain careers in every sphere of the “respectable”, from finance to law, medicine to academia. If you start to open that can of worms then dont claim to be shocked at what you disciver in the closet of many people you know and respect and had never a previous inkling as to the private passions of.
20
And Ace, whatever any of we respectable professionals may do, we do not leave it exposed to public view, do we?
Therein lays the problem. He’s now been shown to be a “user” of obscenity. So there’s now reasonable doubt about his impartiality. He should recuse himself.
I don’t care what he does privately. In California all such acts between consenting adults are explicitly legal along with any video or photos thereof. 18 years or older and it’s no problem. End of story. But his impartiality does matter and it’s now in doubt.
He can make all the excuses he wants to about not knowing it would be open to public viewing but that doesn’t withstand even a casual look. He could not possibly have thought it wouldn’t be public.
He may well be capable of impartiality. But if you were a plaintiff or defendant in the case would you be willing to trust him?
00
Alex Kozinski:
That word fraternity is the key I think. He’s acting like a frat brother instead of the adult he should be. But they go as high as the Supreme Court, as numerous rulings that simply flush the Constitution down the drain will quickly show you. He’ll probably stay on the case because no one will even remotely dare to appear to support any kind of censorship by taking action.
The Internet is a free-for-all proposition these days.
00
Finally! Hooray, hooray, hooray!!!!
00
Eccentric, as the judge calls him, is not nearly the right description of Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd. He thinks nothing of risking not only the safety but the lives of anyone in his way. He’s a wanted man in numerous European countries. I’m glad to see this happen.
00
Forgive the delay between posts. I got sidetracked. But we’re glad to be of service, both to Australia and the cause of sanity and good judgment. 🙂
00
I think it’s entirely reasonable that the Lord pursue this through the university, it appears to me that it is his personal reputation that’s been tarnished with unsubstantiated counter points. The fact that some of us don’t agree he should be doing it is coming from the mindset that this is some kind of move by Monckton to act on behalf of all skeptics. Whilst that is part of the package I’d say he has every right to pursue this just to protect his own name alone, not as some victory for the skeptical masses.
31
Jaydee. Nonsense. Monckton has called Press a liar and a fraud who should be sacked and it is Monckton’s personal reputation that’s been tarnished?
And because Press has simply disagreed with Monckton on matters of science?
Go back and read the “Counts.”
I wrote at #6o that there was not enough space to thoroughly examine Monckton’s claims but I will do so briefly here. These “Counts” are entirely scientific disputes (with one exception) which occur everyday on blogs and between scientists about climate and every day between scientists in every field.
Only someone who I have correctly described as a pompous ass and a giant prat would flounce about in high dudgeon as Monckton has when challenged in this manner.
Count 1 (gone into in more detail at #60)
Entirely a scientific disagreement between Monckton and press over the issue of statistical significance.
Count 2
An argument about what constitutes cherry picking.
Count 3
Monckton writes that Press gives as his opinion that ‘scientists working all over the world, independently and in many institutions, had concluded that the warming of the past 200 years could be explained only by higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: “You cannot explain it without having an increase in greenhouse gases.”.
According to His Lordship, “The wording of his statement was calculated to leave the reader with the impression that no credible scientist had concluded that the recovery of global temperatures after the Little Ice Age had been substantially attributable to natural causes.”
As an exercise in English comprehension, what utter tosh. And of course “skeptics”, including Monckton, when giving their opinions on climate science always acknowledge – “but there is another side to the story as Professor Mann (etc etc etc) state…”
Ludicrous.
Count 4
An argument about the role effects of CO2 on climate.
Count 5
An argument of ocean acidification
Count 6
‘Press said he was frustrated by the suggestion that scientists around the world were involved in some “massive delusional group thinking”. Yet in my presentation I had made no such suggestion.’
Press does not attribute that statement to Monckton, but is making a general comment about how scientists are often portrayed by “skeptics”.
Count 7
And I think this is my personal favourite. Monckton complains here not about what Press has said or written, misrepresenting and lying about Monckton’s views, but about what Press has not written, misrepresented or lied about.
His Lordship complains that Press, a scientist, has discussed only Moncton’s views on the science of climate change. He has not discussed Monckton’s views on the economics. If he had of course, Monckton would have again called him a liar and a fraud who had affronted his Lordships dignity.
But Press failing to do any of this is more evidence of Press’s despicable nature and his tarnishing of the Universities reputation.
At the risk of repeating myself, His Lordhip is a pompous ass, a prat and a complete clown.
36
Mr. Tony Press, chief executive of your university’s Antarctic research centre, has committed serious professional and academic misconduct and scientific fraud, contrary to Australian Standard AS 8001 as amended by the relevant policy adopted by your university.
By that standard, fraud is defined as “dishonest activity causing actual or potential financial loss to any person or entity … an intentional or deliberate act to deprive … a person of something of value or gain an unfair benefit using deception, false suggestions, suppression of truth or other unfair means …”
I have consulted a senior Australian police officer specializing in the investigation of serious frauds and organized crime. His opinion is that this pattern of misconduct indeed constitutes fraud.
Reputation has long been considered at law to be “something of value” – even a value expressible in monetary terms. Press’ frauds were calculated to do great harm to my reputation, and to support public policies that have occasioned great financial loss and hardship to working families through substantial recent increases in utility prices, fuel bills and regulatory compliance costs.
I should be grateful if you would refer this letter – which I am circulating widely in the hope of minimizing the damage occasioned by Press’ fraud – to the Provost, to the head of Legal and Governance, to the Chief Operating Officer and to the Dean of Sciences. My formal request is that my complaint should be investigated and that, if it is in substance upheld, Press should be dismissed.
In due course I may act upon the advice of the senior fraud officer and refer Press’ misconduct to the Australian police for investigation and consideration of prosecution for his frauds. In the first instance, it is fair to let the university investigate. I understand that investigation of allegations of fraud is mandatory under your institution’s policies.
Are you a police officer specializing in fraud as police officers generally know what they are talking about as you make yourself look like a ” pompous ass, a prat and a complete clown” by posting this garbage.
11
And your police friend’s knowledge of science and scientific debate?
Does Monckton of all people really want to set this precedent because he would be in the deepest of trouble.
12
By all means, please supply contact details of your senior police source.
13
Michael, in the comment here which appears to be addressed to me, you appear to be under the impression that I am connected with the University of Tasmania. I am not, although I am a scientist in the field of biomedical research.
With regard to the opinion of your police source. Did he examine Press and Monckton’s respective statements or is his opinion based on your account of those opinions? Did he refer the comments to somone qualified to assess scintific arguments if he does not have such expertise himself?
Again I would like to contact him directly on these matters. If you cannot supply his contact details, your comments here must be regarded as unsubstantiated alleged hearsay.
00
Ah, yes, Tasmania the home of the University Star Chamber, peer review process. I remember when Prof Pansy Wright took leave from Melb Uni to head down there and be friend in court to a Professor accused of improper dealing with a student. If Pansy were around today I bet he’d give Press’ tree a good shake.
10
As a former student in UTAS, with some acquaintance with it, I can tell you the following: Pigs will fly before the university will do anything to voluntarily take any action of its own volition against Press. If Press has committed what could be regarded as academic misconduct by abusing his academic status (- an option which I do not discount) – it is still “small change” compared to what is going between the walls of this university. I have heard a lecturer (a rusted-on Greenie, like so many of UTAS staff, especially in its environmental and Antarctic schools) in this university who said “it is ok to lie about science in order to achieve social goals”. (Thus confirming our long-held suspcions.)
If anyone can provide me with Lord Monckton’s e-mail I could contact him and do my best to help him with any potential legal case, based on my knowledge of UTAS and the Tony Press-es of its staff.
30
Is Monckton at UTas?
23
You really are a piece of work aren’t you? Do you enjoy debate or are you the the blog equivalent of a gangsta graffiti artist, here to deface and debase a discussion way above your head in order to protect your own shallow prejudices. You’re wasting your life away on a false cause because you don’t have the guts to ask yourself the hard questions which many here have done. You’re a fool, a grunt in the trenches who follows orders without question. You are dispensable, a useful tool for your masters. Why are you here? You make no attempt to sway opinion or to debate the issues. Go back to your masters for new orders cause this aint working ya drongo.
21
Mattb said:
Cool. I have one with the beeriodic table on the front.
20
Which one. It sounded like such a good idea that I googled it. There are many tables to choose from. how can there be more than one?
11
Science isn’t perfect. Chemists must have a better sense of humor than medical research Phd’s
10
Try Ikea
10
On second thought, good one 🙂
10
Wheat the heck, this thread is getting long in the pint anyway.
I like this one because they have a large print key on the back: http://foodop_media.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/photos/cache/the-beeriodic-table-t-shirt-0_detail.jpg
But you are not alone in being critical: http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/the-beeriodic-table-beautifully-executed-fatally-flawed/
* Disclaimer: I receive no compensation from linking to the above.
20
Cool indeed! Where can I get one? It’s much easier to understand than the real one.
10
The Vice-chancellor will have a laugh at that and throw it in the rubbish bin. At some point the skeptic community will realise the damage Monkton is causing and try to disown him.
63
Are social studies doing trolling this week or what?
11
As I noted above, some of them already have.
01
The AGW movement is slowly collapsing… its very obvious from recent surveys and shrilling from the diehards re climate extremes etc. I don’t think that Monckton’s tours or even skeptical sites
etc., have influenced mainstream thoughts re AGW. However probably the ONLY main reason AGW is collapsing is that people are beginning to notice no change in average global temperatures or even in local temperatures! Hopefully the small group of fraudsters (about 25 individuals in Universities and politicians) who knowingly pushed the agenda to get funds will get some sort of punishment re firing or limited jail terms for the suffering they have caused
01
Aliens did it, to divide our society before they attack.
00
At last, Tristan confesses. Now we know.
00
Nice hat you’ve got there Tristan. Is that aluminum or something more exotic like say material you found in the desert near Roswell?
10
UPDATE: University VC Rathjen reponds. Press will be investigated.
University Climate Researcher to be investigated for unprofessional conduct.
Professor Peter Rathjen, Vice Chancellor of the University of Tasmania (UTAS) has ordered an investigation into professional and academic misconduct by Dr Tony Press, the CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre based at the University of Tasmania.
Lord Monckton, who spoke to 150 scientists and members of the public at the UTAS last week, has complained, in an interview with the Sunday Tasmanian last week, Press had misrepresented both Climate Science and what Lord Monckton said in his talk.
The investigation comes under the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.
Professor Rathjen’s letter to Lord Monckton says, “…the processes will be followed rigorously!”
The Vice Chancellor added that the University strongly supported a culture of courteous, critical dialog on all matters of academic and public interest.
21
Now let us pray that it won’t turn out to be a whitewash job like the investigation into CRU.
20
How’s that rigorous investigation going ?
(Can I stop holding my breath yet ? )
00