Journalist Graham Readfearn writes: His choice of the Gershwin song It Ain’t Necessarily So was unfortunate, if not a little ironic.
In an opinion article published in The Australian, professional climate change denier Christopher Monckton tried his hardest to convince readers that “thoughtful” politicians were beginning to ask “privately, quietly” if a supposed climate crisis was not “necessarily so”.
They were beginning to ask the “Gershwin question” mused Monckton, referring to the song in the 1935 musical Porgy and Bess — a song delivered, ironically, by the musical’s drug dealing character Sportin’ Life.
An addiction to a drug can be a terrible and debilitating experience and just as it is in the case of The Australian’s apparent addiction to climate denial, it can be degrading, embarrassing and professionally damaging.
Christopher Monckton is one of the world’s most charismatic climate deniers, yet he has no qualifications at all in climate science. Among his beliefs are that the UN is attempting to create a world government and young climate campaigners are like the Hitler Youth. Others have also examined Monckton’s creative CV.
This lack of genuine expertise and tendency towards conspiracy theories don’t in themselves deny Monckton the right to an opinion, but the thrust of his views have been roundly rejected by practically every climate scientist currently researching and publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
Over and over, scientists working in the field and opening their own research to the rigours of peer review (which Monckton has never done) have gone to great lengths to debunk Monckton’s “analysis” of climate change (small selection of examples here, many here and here). They have explained his persistent misrepresentations and errors in calculations, but still Monckton repeats them and still — after alarm bells have been ringing for half a decade – The Australian provides him a forum.
It was possibly predictable that Monckton should appear in The Australian in January — they gave him a spin last January too (at the time Monckton was touring Australia and among others, received backing from mining billionaire Gina Rinehart). This time around, Monckton’s polemic comes as NASA confirms that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year since records began.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also found 2010 to be tied with 2005 as the warmest year ever.
The UK’s MetOffice found 2010 was the second hottest year on record, behind 1998.
In all three separate major records of global temperatures (shown in the table on the right with the anomaly being °C above long-term average), the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.
Yet writing in The Australian, Monckton ignored this context by misleadingly stating that “satellite datasets show last year was not the warmest on record”.
One major area of concern for climate scientists is sea-ice. Because ice reflects some heat radiation back out into space, when it melts it exposes darker ocean which then absorbs that radiation, leading to more warming.
Monckton stated that “a largely unreported gain in Antarctic sea ice since 1979 almost matches the widely reported loss of Arctic sea ice”. Does it?
No, it doesn’t.
The US National Snow and Ice Data Center states there has been a slight gain in Antarctic sea-ice cover of 0.9 per cent since 1979, the equivalent of about 100,000 sq km per decade. But the loss of ice in the Arctic over the same period is 500,000 sq km per decade.
Dutifully ignored by Monckton was recent research suggesting Greenland’s ice sheet, containing enough ice to raise sea levels by several metres, had its worst year for melting.
Monckton also questioned the need to cut CO2 and claimed “nor is sea-level rising fast”. One of the world’s leading authorities on sea-level rise is Australia’s Dr John Church. I asked Dr Church about Monckton’s claim. He replied:
“Sea level is now rising at more than 10 times the average rate it was during the time our coastal society developed over the last couple of thousand years. There is now over a trillion dollars of infrastructure and over 140 million people living within 1 metre of sea level rise. Unfortunately there is no alternative way to explain ocean warming over the last 50 years.”
Monckton also claimed (I’m sorry if this is now becoming predictable) that 2010 was “the best year” for hurricanes with the lowest tropical cyclone activity for 30 years. This is true — but only if you remove the entire Atlantic ocean region, where NOAA explained that 2010 “tied for third- and second-most storms and hurricanes on record, respectively”.
Many more of Monckton’s claims – including others about snow cover and sea-ice – are being diligently examined against the peer-reviewed science – yet again – by SkepticalScience, which has begun a series looking at his debating points in detail.
One revealing phenomena about Monckton’s opinion piece in The Australian was its use of impenetrable statistical language which I’m more than happy to admit, left me bamboozled. For example, he wrote:
“Thus what we maths wonks call the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if [Australia's multi-party climate change committee] got its way would be 505.826 divided by 506, or 0.9997. The UN says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7 to 5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change.”
Logarithm of the proportionate change? Crumbs! Sounds like he must know what he’s talking about, right? But did the opinion editor of The Australian actually think “logarithm of the proportionate change” was a phrase its readers would be familiar with?
Of course not, because this gets to the core of what sceptics such as Monckton wish to achieve in their ideologically-driven and fossil-fuel backed quest (including Exxon funding). That mission is to spread doubt and it is being aided by our only national newspaper The Australian.
The reader is not left enlightened or well informed. Rather, readers are left somewhere between confused and conned.
The mission of the sceptic lobby is — for the most part — nothing to do with scepticism. There is no noble cause to reveal truth, but rather just an empty mission to spread doubt and confusion and water-down concern.
Perhaps a better Gershwin song to describe Christopher Monckton’s contribution would be I Got Plenty o’ Nuttin.
This article first appeared on Graham Readfern’s blog.
60 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
The Australian is just Fox News with an education.
I wrote an essay about island biogeography inter relationship with boom and bust population dynamics back in 1984 or so. It was all about the non human mammals massively expanding in numbers then predictable disease, stress, food shortages, aggression, and mass die offs. The principle is the same. We change our suroundings and expand to the carrying capacity then beyond it for a short while. That’s what we do as a species, and we are doing it until we hit some ominous limit. If it wasn’t the atmosphere it would be something else.
As I said Greenland melted for an extra 50 days this year: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110121144011.htm
Only a fool would believe in endless expansion of carrying capacity. And even if it were possible at the expense of most every other species who wants to live in such a world?
Fitz #48
Your carelessly worded comment about a mere 148 million people gave the impression that you were implying that poor black people don’t matter. Your counter argument is a fairly poor quality rebuttal based on soemthing you just appear to have made up off the top of your head.
Regarding climate sensitivity, it’s very clear that the probability of net zero (or negative) feedback is highly unlikely. The best reasonably approachable lay explanation of this that I have come across is Tamino’s Uncertain Sensitivity article. Where’s the scientific literature that demonstrates that zero or negative feedback is likely? I’ll answer that for you – there isn’t one. Dr Kininmonth has simply made an elementary error of omission which you are blindly accepting in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
Anyway this climate change issue is not a problem for the planet, it’s a problem for the infrastructure of civilisation. You appear to be arguing that because it’s not a problem for the planet, then we shouldn’t do anything about it, but I think this is the result of a false premise.
Nice work Fitz…I’ve learnt something today.
@kdkd #50
For your own sake just look at what has been written and ask whether you want to write stuff which a teacher of bright 12 year olds would be cross about. Embarrassing though it may be consider “Your carelessly worded comment about a mere 148 [sic] million people gave the impression that you were implying that black people don’t matter”. Careless? Who’s so careless that one wonders what else one needs to examine very critically? What I said, accurately picking up the figure mentioned by Boerwar, was
“As to the 140 million people who might be displaced if sea levels rose by a metre in the next century as you put it, that doesn’t strike me as either historically unusual on the scale of inconveniences experienced by humans or numerically serious. You are proposing that something might have to be done about one and a half per cent of the likely human population over a period of one hundred years. That is almost negligible given a historical perspective and a reasonable projection of mankind’s scientific and technological capabilities.”
As I said “Now why would anyone want to say that….?” What you describe as a “counter argument” which is “a fairly poor quality rebuttal” is more a matter for a Year 12 teacher of the struggling pretentious. What counter argument? It is just a dig at you gently using some mildly interesting (and true) facts to avoid saying you read what other’s say so carelessly, or are so dim at construing its meaning, that we had better, out of sensitivity to the solemn disadvantaged, use a light touch.
You are remarkably assertive for an amateur observer. You cite now “Tamino’s Uncertain Sensitivity article” which is even older than the last link of yours that I followed (this one is 3½ years old) and say there is nothing in the scientific literature that demonstrates that zero or negative feedback is likely as if you could possibly know. As it is I can point to your having ignored my reference to the Lindzen and Choi article in Geophsical Research Letters, August 2009. I have read somewhere an assertion that they have been shown to be wrong and, perhaps, when you bring yourself up to date, you might find me that reference.
I am not sure what “elementary error of omission” you suggest Dr Kininmonth has made, why your word on that should be accepted as mere ipse dixit, or why you think I have blindly accepted what Kininmonth has said.
As to
“Anyway this climate change issue is not a problem for the planet, it’s a problem for the infrastructure of civilisation. You appear to be arguing that because it’s not a problem for the planet, then we shouldn’t do anything about it, but I think this is the result of a false premise.” you have again got me completely wrong.
I do regard the “problem for the planet” from warming, however caused, as an open question, and obviously worth a lot of attention. On either of your suggested premises I would be in favour of doing something about it if one was in a position to do something worth whatever time and money it was proposed to put into it.
Australia’s position and potential for action is obviously very different from that of the US, China and India. For anything that costs vast amounts of money we are obviously a minor player. Research into the reality of the feedback effects of water vapour increased by CO2 induced heating could be Australia’s great contribution.
Cutting our own greenhouse gas emissions or coal exports now makes little sense apart from conformity to internationally agreed action. Indeed we might be better placed to help save civilisation if we just make ourselves as rich as possible (and don’t squander it all on mortgaged McMansions).
Wasting money on windfarms as a political gesture to Greens is about as dopey as it gets. Solar thermal begins to look promising but will cost us more for our electricity than relying on coal unless we think we have an accurate idea of the relative negative externalities of coal fired electricity in the real world where China is builing dozens of new coal fired power plants.
Being capable of holding more than one thing in my mind I am concerned about the planet and about maintaining the conditions for civilisation….. Unfortunately faith-based-science tends, so far, to be shoring up the wasteful and fashionable Green nonsenses which have added already so much to Australians’ electricity bills without any advantage in return.
fitz
Thanks for the info on your grandad. Do you know where and with whom he fought in the Boer War?
I do admire your insouciance about ocean temperatures and changed pH and what they might bring. I suppose to focus on speciation is consistent with the new meme that adaptation is cheaper than mitigation?
Did I understand you correctly, if there is going to be a mass extinction event, you are relaxed about waiting for speciation to occur? Suppose that the interim involves the collapse of marine food chains and the end of the 100 million tons of wild caught marine fish?
BTW, there are some peculiar things happening with marine fisheries already. Some of the US’ major fish stocks have left their warming US territorial waters, and headed to relatively cooler, extra-territorial waters. Others are just heading north. Just an early AGW ‘adaptation’ challenge, I suppose. All very disruptive.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/2009/SciSpot/SS0916/
BTW, having read the quality of your posts, I assume you find Moncton to be a bit of an embarrassment?
@ calyptorhynchus
satire and tongue-in-cheek has its place, especially when mercifully brief, but do you really think you should risk giving Cockatoos a bad name as air-heads?
Fitz #55
If you’ve got something to say about the state of the science, point to the body of peer reviewed literature that supports it. Your meandering waffle contributes nothing but noise.
@kdkd #58
“If you’ve got something to say about the state of the science, point to the body of peer reviewed literature that supports it.”
How stupendously splendid! As an example of the pot calling the kettle black that is.
Admittedly I can’t help just pointing to thoroughly bad reasoning, non-sequiturs and logical fallacies quite independently of whether a blog may be about scienctific fact or theory. I am sorry if you can’t tell the difference between waffle and noting of intellectual fallibility or if it hurts too much to have attention drawn to your deficiencies.
Fitz,
I gave you a trail to the literature, but you chose to ignore it. All we get from you is rambling non-equiturs and absolutely no reference to the scientific literature at all. The literature is important if you want to understand and debate the underlying science. The mainstream literature is also pretty wartertight in that it comprehensively deals with the climate delusional position.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All