This blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there. Plus some other stuff convenient to place here. And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.
(lets see whether there is room for open debate at WUWT)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm
> I’m happy to say I have found that original source file that Monckton provided to the Telegraph. It was lodged in the Wayback machine
Can’t say I’m impressed by your sleuthing. That info has been on my blog for days: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/27/battle-of-the-graphs/#comment-49253
I don’t find the idea that the Telegraph would invent a graph out of thin air terribly plausible. Nor that Lord M wouldn’t even check the article pre or post publication.
> that the source graphs came from the IPCC
No, clearly not: the lower pane bears a vague resemblance to 7.1.c but clearly isn’t it.
But you’ve missed AIG news from late 2006 (http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/09.03.08%20Klima,%20CO2%20analyser,%20Monckton%20m.fl%20NB%20Nov06.pdf). Which was by “Christopher Monckton (Reproduced with kind permission of Lord Monckton of Brenchley)”. And the graph in question appears on p13. At the end the article says “(Reproduced with kind permission from the Author).” So I can’t see any way that Lord M can disclaim responsibility for that.
(that gets in reply)
DeleteREPLY: See the updated version 2 of the Lamb graph courtesy of McIntyre at the end of the article, which closely matches the Telegraph version, and is NOT in Monckton’s PDF. I suggest you try to explain that.
I generally don’t read your blog in detail (I simply noted you were on about it), because the bias and condescending attitude you display towards anyone with an opinion contrary to your own makes it an exercise in futility. Your ego there seems so large that the MOT must have to put out orange road cones ahead of you when you travel. It is quite off-putting. So, I don’t trust you to honestly research anything, therefore I do my own work.
As for the new PDF you supply, it seems clear to me this is an article reference (with Monckton as the author) not a personal communications. Something you’ll have to prove. I see it as a desperate a stretch – but certainly good enough for a Wikipedia smear. – Anthony
(continuing)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 3, 2014 at 3:00 pm
> As for the new PDF you supply, it seems clear to me this is an article reference (with Monckton as the author)
Yes. That’s exactly what it is. That’s the point.
> and is NOT in Monckton’s PDF. I suggest you try to explain that
I agree that’s an interesting point. I disagree that its conclusive;explanations are easy.
> updated version 2 of the Lamb graph
In blog posts from 2009 and 2011. As is usual in “skeptic” blogs they don’t bother giving sources; but for all we know they copied the Telegraph.
> Stoat/Connelley [sic] is simply flat wrong, and the website that cited Monckton’s graphic as an example of what not to do needs to clarify that it was the newspaper that made the errors, that the source graphs came from the IPCC
You still haven’t realised that the IPCC isn’t the source of the lower pane graph. It may or may not be the modified source of the upper pane.
(which gets)
DeleteREPLY: Which doesn’t matter, and you still don’t realize the precarious position you’ve put yourself in. Monckton seems quite determined to make a legal example out of you.
Nick Stokes adds: There is a version of that graph at the John Daly site here. The article does not seem to be dated, but Daly is indicated as the author, which would make it 2004 or earlier. No source given.
My best advice to you Mr. Connolley is that you should offer up a retraction and an apology, post-haste. Though, I’ll be happy to invest in popcorn futures if you don’t – Anthony
(its gets weirder)
ReplyDeleteYour comment is awaiting moderation.
July 3, 2014 at 11:39 pm
I’ve just received the following email, from someone claiming to be AW:
—-
As a third party, I am passing this request on from Monckton of Brenchley.
He requests that I provide him with your email addresses so that he can send a communication to you.
Please advise if you accept this request.
—-
But its an odd request. Firstly, my email isn’t hard to find. Second, someone purporting to be Lord M has already been posting messages to me on my blog (see, e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/27/battle-of-the-graphs/#comment-49175). Of course, there is no way of telling if that person is Lord M. And of course, I have no way of telling if the purported email is from AW.
(from AW)
DeleteREPLY: You really should stop playing games, as you have the ability to verify the comment yourself. The IP address and email in your comment should be enough, unless of course your are technically inept or that scienceblogs platform doesn’t provide such information. I can easily verify you as “you” by your email and IP address which shows you commenting from Cambridge, UK. But I’ll leave the decision to Monckton as to whether to waste further time. – Anthony
(in reply to one of Lord M's)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 4, 2014 at 2:21 am
> the desire to conceal the extent of this divergence
Not believable. Wiki has the same information, but more clearly and accurately presented: see the second graph in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports
I drew it. No-one is attempting to conceal the difference between the IPCC ’90, 95/6 and 2001 temperature reconstructions. The point at issue is the interpretation of the difference. You lot insist that things were better in the good old dayes (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/10/adoration-of-the-lamb/); everyone else accepts that science moves on and improves.
William Connolley says:
ReplyDeleteYour comment is awaiting moderation.
July 4, 2014 at 6:07 am
>> was Lord M or not. I can see no way to know for sure
> REPLY: You really should stop playing games, as you have the ability to verify the comment yourself. The IP address and email in your comment should be enough,
How could it be enough? I’ve got no idea what Lord M’s IP should be; nor what his email address is. If you’d like to post here his email address or IP I could verify it, I suppose. Or he could. But Lord M isn’t very good at answering questions.
(AW)
DeleteREPLY: Oh, please. You know where he lives in England, right? Or has that fact escaped you as well? Maybe you could look it up in Wikipedia. Then use any one of the freely available IP checking tools, which you can also probably look up on Wikipedia.
Of course you and I know you’ll come back and say that’s not enough. You’ll cite “uncertainty”. I’m not playing your silly game any further, so make no reply. – Anthony
William Connolley says:
ReplyDeleteYour comment is awaiting moderation.
July 4, 2014 at 9:23 am
> Oh, please. You know where he lives in England, right?
Nope. I could look it up, but so what? A vaguely correct IP is no guarantee of identity.
(AW then goes weirdo)
DeleteREPLY: Gosh, since you made I clear I can’t use this method to identify you, because you might be a “fake” then we’ll have no more comments here from you until you can verify your identity. Funny though, just a little bit of certainty in a sea of uncertainty seems good enough to justify your views on global warming. – Anthony
I received the same email from AW. I wrote:
ReplyDelete"Legal notices are not sent via email. If he wishes to communicate via something other than blog comment threads, then my home mail address is
----
---
---
If Monckton of Brenchley wishes to communicate privately via email, and you have verified that he is Viscount Christopher Monckton, you may forward him this email address. "
I want something from an actual solicitor's office - not some worthless piece of email.
He's going to have to pay for a stamp :)
(it looks like that thread is running into the sand. The Watties are suffering Black_Knight syndrome. Lets change the subject)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 7, 2014 at 1:49 am
> It is quite notable that prior to the global warming scare the existence of the MWP was well accepted among climate scientists.
Or so you say, but you offer no evidence. What you seem unable to face up to is that science progresses: there was early work, largely based around conditions in Europe. Subsequent research has found a more mixed picture. But you cling to the Olde Wayes.
(and so we transition to the familiar MWP argument)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 7, 2014 at 10:40 am
>> There is a mountain of evidence [http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html] proving the worldwide existence of the MWP.
> the striking thing about the various graphs is how the MWP seems to encompass the years 600 to 1450 – very roughly
Exactly. That page is nearly useless: its an undigested mish-mash of graphs, from which you couldn’t even begin to try to calculate a global or hemispheric mean. It does serve to nicely illustrate the IPCC’s point: that the thing called “MWP” has various different regional manifestations and is by no means at the same time in all places.
> the period was between 1100 and 1300 AD
Really? The top lefthand graph labels the MWP at a time clearly before 1000; probably about 800. The one two below that has two teensy peaks labelled MWP, but they are before 1100. the one just to the right of that has an “MWP” dot, again before 1000 (all of these graphs, BTW, are “adapted from” rather than straight honest reproductions). And so on. The graphs DBS points at simply aren’t evidence for the MWP that RSC believes in.
(who knows when the MWP was or wasn't?)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 7, 2014 at 10:48 am
> the period was between 1100 and 1300 AD.
S+B say “(2) Is there an objectively discernible climatic anomaly during the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800–1300) in this proxy record?” so I’m not sure why you’re using a different period.
(my comment hasn't appeared, but one by J Murphy has, which usefully points you at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO270003/pdf)
Delete(more lies from the Watties)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 8, 2014 at 2:01 pm
> As commented on here recently [and many times in the past], Connolley uses a sockpuppet now to make changes, since he has been banned from altering comments.
This is a lie, in both parts. I’ve never used sock puppets, and have not been banned for altering comments.
(I'm curious if this will be allowed to run. Normally the mods have to step in to protect the incompetent)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 8, 2014 at 3:07 pm
> the many falsehoods you have put on wicki [sic]
You’re long on accusations but short on details or evidence.
I’ve put no falsehoods on wiki (unlike the comment I was responding to, which is a simple lie, and which you can’t defend). But if you have any examples you’d care to quote of things you consider falsehoods, I’d be happy to discuss them.
(I'm talking to RSC. Yes, I *know* its a waste of time; but there are lurkers)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 9, 2014 at 4:52 am
> Anonymous sock puppet posting as JBL… And I add that C0nn0lley claimed to not use sock puppets, but you – one of his anonymous sock puppets
I have no connection to JBL. Your assertion that he is a sock of mine is false. You made it up out of thin air. You have no evidence for it, you know you have no evidence for it, but that doesn’t stop you. Perhaps you should pause to think: how many of your other assertions are of the same form?
>> the many falsehoods you have put on wicki [sic]
> You’re long on accusations but short on details or evidence…. But if you have any examples you’d care to quote of things you consider falsehoods, I’d be happy to discuss them.
Oh look, another example of something you’ve just made up out of thin air and then just run away from when challenged.
(a newcomer enters the fray. As usual with WUWT type folk, he asserts something as true with no references at all)
ReplyDeleteWilliam Connolley says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 12, 2014 at 10:12 am
Lewis P Buckingham> We are constantly being told that the Arctic is a proxy for global warming.
I don’t think so. A google search for that exact phrase produces nothing. Could you point us at some of this constant being-told stuff?