XPost: alt.religion.scientology.xenu   
   From: kingkongg@iglou.com   
      
   "First. Post."  wrote in message   
   news:Xns9FBBC2C047327dtreqt@94.75.214.39   
   > Monckton at odds with the very scientists he cites   
   > Posted on 14 July 2011 by John Abraham   
   >   
   > Guest post by John Abraham, also posted on The Conversation.   
   >   
   > It is a tireless job to track the frequent mistakes Christopher   
   > Monckton makes as he misinterprets science, as his statements are   
   > frequently at odds with the very scientists whose work he cites.   
   >   
   > It is, however, necessary.   
   >   
   > In a recent lecture given at the University of Notre Dame in Australia   
   > (June 2011) represented by his document "The Climate of Freedom",   
   > Monckton claims, "Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000   
   > scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence   
   > of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm   
   > as, and in most instances warmer than, the present."   
   >   
   > This claim by Monckton has two parts that are important to the   
   > discussion of climate change:   
   >   
   > To be clear, the prevailing view amongst scientists is that the MWP   
   > was neither global nor warmer than present times.   
   >   
   > In fact, the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly investigated this   
   > issue and concluded, "the late 20th century warmth in the northern   
   > hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years."   
   >   
   > Other studies reinforce the view that when considered either by   
   > hemisphere or globally, the temperatures we are experiencing now are   
   > truly unprecedented.   
   >   
   > In the past, I have found Monckton's claims on this topic sorely   
   > lacking.   
   >   
   > Specifically, he referenced authors whose work he used to either   
   > answer "yes" or infer "yes" to questions one or two.   
   >   
   > Last year, I embarked on the task of actually reading the papers he   
   > referenced, and they all disagreed with Monckton's interpretation.   
   >   
   > To confirm, I wrote to the authors and they assured me that my   
   > understanding of their work was more correct.   
   >   
   > Was this latest list of "1000" authors different from the list I had   
   > previously debunked? Had Monckton finally, after many missteps, put a   
   > nail in the coffin of human-caused climate change? Well, let's find   
   > out .   
   >   
   > What about this list? Well, if you go to the Science and Public Policy   
   > website (of which Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor), you will   
   > find a link to a Craig Idso article which is, in turn, linked to a   
   > denialist website CO2Science. Once at CO2Science, you'll learn that   
   > they have a MWP Project which lists many articles that reportedly   
   > dispute recent warming. So I think I have the correct list.   
   >   
   > I'll begin with the following trivial assumption: the authors know   
   > more about their own work than Monckton does.   
   >   
   > With this as a starting point, I selected a number of papers in the   
   > list and I sent inquiries which asked the two questions I've posed   
   > here. Now, since this is a list that Monckton is using, you'd think   
   > the deck would be stacked in his favor. That is, you'd expect that   
   > most or all of these papers to support his view. The problem is .   
   > that is not what I found.   
   >   
   > Dr. Raymond Bradley responded, "No, I do not think there is evidence   
   > that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times."   
   >   
   > Dr. Jessica Tierney also had her work cited in this "study" yet she   
   > wrote to me, "No. The MWP is seen in many proxy archives, but it is   
   > not yet certain how global in extent it was. Whether or not it was   
   > warmer than today's temperatures depends on the proxy and the place.   
   > Most global temperature reconstructions suggest that on average, the   
   > MWP was not warmer than today. Regardless, a warm MWP doesn't   
   > disprove the fact that humans are changing climate presently."   
   >   
   > Dr. Lowell Stott reported, "the studies that are currently available   
   > for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming   
   > in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth's radiative   
   > balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late   
   > 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have   
   > very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were   
   > present in the atmosphere during the MWP."   
   >   
   > Dr. Andrew Lorrey told me that his paper "certainly does not disprove   
   > AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of   
   > climate science."   
   >   
   > Dr. Rosanne D'Arrigo stated, "We do not believe that our work   
   > disproves" human-induced global warming.   
   >   
   > Dr. Robert Wilson added, "It really does not matter if the MWP was   
   > warmer or slightly cooler than present. Ultimately, it is the   
   > underlying causes of these warms periods that we need to worry about."   
   >   
   > Now, was I surprised by these results? Not really.   
   >   
   > You see, I had performed a similar investigation of claims made by   
   > Monckton in 2009 with similar results.   
   >   
   > I live in Minnesota where baseball is a popular sport. To borrow a   
   > baseball analogy, Monckton does not have a very good batting average.   
   > Perhaps it is time he was benched.   
   >   
   > So where does all this leave us?   
   >   
   > First, the existence of the MWP is not in serious doubt; but whether   
   > it was global in extent or warmer than today is. In addition, the   
   > presence of a MWP does not call into question whether humans are now   
   > causing the Earth to warm.   
   >   
   > Second, it is very dangerous to rely upon the interpretation of a non-   
   > scientist to real science work.   
   >   
   > Monckton has never published any peer-reviewed scientific article, let   
   > alone anything on climate or energy. Despite this, we are supposed to   
   > trust his interpretation of science? Not only that, but his   
   > interpretation disagrees with the very scientists who did the work.   
   >   
   > When I go to my next family reunion, I'm not going to let my Uncle   
   > Jed fix my car because he knows nothing about cars.   
   >   
   > I won't allow my Aunt Betty to teach my daughters calculus (she isn't   
   > a mathematician).   
   >   
   > In the same way, I won't listen to Monckton when it comes to climate   
   > science. He has been shown to be incapable of understanding even the   
   > most basic subjects of climate science - this would be humorous if it   
   > wasn't so serious.   
   >   
   > Monckton is a one-man wrecking crew for the credibility of   
   > climate-change deniers.   
   >   
   > So now a challenge to Monckton . I have provided you with responses   
   > from people whose research you have used. I have shown they do not   
   > agree with your interpretation. To a person, they agree with me.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)