Abraham v. Monckton: Science v. Ideology

Late yesterday, Climate Shifts highlighted a presentation rebuttal of Christopher Monckton’s famous lecture, carried out by Prof. John Abraham from the Unviersity of St Tomas, Minnesota. It follows like the response I mentioned a while ago by Dr Andrew Glikson and highlights just how little Monckton seems to understand or is intentionally misinterpreting to confuse his audience in regards to climate change. John’s presentation is found here.

John goes to great length to follow up on the few references that Monckton has (those he emails makes it clear that Monckton does not properly understand the result) and to find out what the bulk of our understanding suggests where Monckton “forgets” to reference. John also demonstrates that in some cases Monckton must have lied (his Google search portion would suggest as much) and while he accuses scientists of playing statistical games to suggest their desired results (something that is well known and would be quickly criticised in many cases), he is quick to do so himself as well as change his stance throughout his presentation.

I have to thank John for going to such lengths to dissect Monckton’s presentation; listening to it once was more than most people could stomach.

I’ve since seen that DeSmog blog has also made a post on John’s presentation. I hope that everyone else that reads these blogs listens to this excellent lecture (it’s just over an hour) and also posts about it to let everyone else know about it. Christopher is currently floating around the denial circles as their champion; Prof. Abraham has correctly weighed up Monckton’s stance and found it wanting.


3 thoughts on “Abraham v. Monckton: Science v. Ideology

    1. Why am I not surprised that his response would be on Watts pointless blog? Last refuge of a scoundrel I’d be tempted to think…
      I’ve heard the man reply to others who have proven him wrong in that past. He is venomous without a hint of accuracy. Desmogblog has already looked into Monckton’s reply here.
      That said, I’ve gone into enough of the science in the Innovation series and since when I compared Nova’s handbook to John’s rebuttal. The world is warming and we’re playing a major role in that warming. Anybody who tries to hold onto any credibility with Monckton is a fool.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s