RealClimate logo

Monckton’s deliberate manipulation

Filed under: — gavin @ 2 May 2009

Our favorite contrarian, the potty peer Christopher Monckton has been indulging in a little aristocratic artifice again. Not one to be constrained by mere facts or observable reality, he has launched a sally against Andy Revkin for reporting the shocking news that past industry disinformation campaigns were not sincere explorations of the true uncertainties in climate science.

The letter he has written to the NY Times public editor, with its liberal sprinkling of his usual pomposity, has at its heart the following graph:

Among other issues, it is quite amusing that Monckton apparently thinks that;

  • trends from January 2002 are relevant to a complaint about a story discussing a 1995 report,
  • someone might be fooled by the cherry-picked January 2002 start date,
  • no-one would notice that he has just made up the IPCC projection curves

The last is even more amusing because he was caught out making stuff up on a slightly different figure just a few weeks ago.

To see the extent of this chicanery, one needs only plot the actual IPCC projections against the observations. This can be done a number of ways, firstly, plotting the observational data and the models used by IPCC with a common baseline of 1980-1999 temperatures (as done in the 2007 report) (Note that the model output is for the annual mean, monthly variance would be larger):

These show clearly that 2002-2009 is way too short a period for the trends to be meaningful and that Monckton’s estimate of what the IPCC projects for the current period is woefully wrong. Not just wrong, fake.

Even if one assumes that the baseline should be the year 2002 making no allowance for internal variability (which makes no sense whatsoever), you would get the following graph:

– still nothing like Monckton showed. Instead, he appears to have derived his ‘projections’ by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 and ignoring the fact that the actual projections accelerate as time goes on, and thus strongly over-estimating the projected changes that are expected now (see here).

Lest this be thought a mere aberration or a slip of his quill, it turns out he has previously faked the data on projections of CO2 as well. This graph is from a recent presentation of his, compared to the actual projections:

How can this be described except as fake?

Apart from this nonsense, is there anything to Monckton’s complaint about Revkin’s story? Sadly no. Once one cuts out the paranoid hints about dark conspiracies between “prejudiced campaigners”, Al Gore and the New York Times editors, the only point he appear to make is that this passage from the scientific advice somehow redeems the industry lobbyists who ignored it:

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied. While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today’s concern is about net warming. However, as will be discussed below, it is still not possible to accurately predict the magnitude (if any), timing or impact of climate change as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Also, because of the complex, possibly chaotic, nature of the climate system, it may never be possible to accurately predict future climate or to estimate the impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

This is a curious claim, since the passage is pretty much mainstream. For instance, in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995) (p528):

Complex systems often allow deterministic predictability of some characteristics … yet do not permit skilful forecasts of other phenomena …

or even more clearly in IPCC TAR (2001):

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states….

Much more central to the point Revkin was making was the deletion of the sections dealing with how weak the standard contrarian arguments were – arguments that GCC publications continued to use for years afterward (and indeed arguments that Monckton is still using) (see this amendment to the original story).

Monckton’s ironic piece de resistance though is the fact that he entitled his letter “Deliberate Misrepresentation” – and this is possibly the only true statement in it.

513 Responses to “Monckton’s deliberate manipulation”

  1. 51
    David B. Benson says:

    Hamish (50) — Modeling efforts began with
    in 1896 CE.

    Obviously, having computers has been quite a big help; read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, first link in Science section of the sidebar here.

    If you have a chance to counter such foolishness, that is.

  2. 52
    Rod B says:

    Peter Williams, except it took the French 3 or 4 revolutions to get it even half right. :-P

  3. 53
    ccpo says:

    re: #1 Good story, but some of the 2007 Arctic summer peices seem to have been founded on a short termism and hence maybe we all learn a lessen there.

    False. Why repeat what the deniers say? There was nothing said about Arctic sea ice that is any different from the points made by Gavin above regarding probabilities.

    The sea ice is so reduced in **mass** (thickness), a point that is made, but under-emphasized, that any strong summer melt could lead to a nearly ice free arctic. More to the point, most people seem to forget the comment made by the NSIDC regarding the sea ice was about an ice-free north pole, not an ice free Arctic.

    Let’s not reinforce their lies, eh?


  4. 54
    ccpo says:

    [edit – this is not a subject that leads to sensible discussion. Sorry]

  5. 55
    Hamish says:

    Thanks DBB (51), appreciate the reply and swiftness thereof. I get the impression that journalists are slowly starting to arm themselves with a bit more information about the nature and history of climate change science.

  6. 56
    Richard Steckis says:

    Ray Ladbury:

    “Steckis, I believe it was Ray Pierrehumbert who gave the refutation of Miskolczi as an undergraduate assignment. Eli Rabett has pretty well eviscerated it on his blog.”

    But Ray. I have heard nothing more about the undergrad rebuttal. Regardless of what Rabett has eviscerated on his blog, that is not a peer reviewed rebuttal. As for calling the journal that Miskolczi an obscure journal, well it may be obscure in the West but perhaps not in his country. I do not denigrate a scientist for publishing in journals that are more suited to their native tongues. Nor should those journals be denigrated for not being in the mainstream (Read mainstream as Western Dominated Literature). You are being both elitist and dismissive for criticising his choice of journal.

    Finally, none of what you have said answers my original question. Why has the work of Miskolczi not been rebutted in the peer reviewed literature so that the rebuttal itself can be exposed to review by peers? I believe that Arthur Smith published a rebuttal to G&T but I see none for Miskolczi.

    [Response: Because it is self-evidently rubbish. See Nick Stokes remarks in many forums. It’s like asking for a peer-reviewed rebuttal of a claim that the moon is made of green cheese. – gavin]

  7. 57

    Rod B, and if you would have asked Chou en-Lai, the jury’s still out on that :-)

  8. 58
    Mark says:

    Hamish, what’s the difference between getting a piece of paper and putting on it

    F=12 N

    Then working out on paper what acceleration you get and typing into a computer

    print “Acceleration = “, 12/1.4, “m/s”;

    then typing “run”.


  9. 59
    Mark says:

    RodB, #44, so why do you need nicotine patches to give up smoking if it’s not addictive?

    Why, before then, did people give up smoking and then take it up again?

    Why do you discount what the chemists working for the tobacco firms said (they said that it was addictive and came up with ways to make it MORE addictive).

    Marijuana is not addictive even in the sense that nicotine was but it is claimed to be a “gateway drug”. THERE is where you see governments redefine “addictive”. Not in tobacco.

  10. 60

    Further to the Upper House thing, it’s rather unfortunate that the House of Lords official web site, despite repeated public claims by His Lordship to the contrary, does not list Monckton as a member.

    Britain may not be the great world power it used to be, but is still does pretty good comedy. His Lordship should take some tips from John Cleese.

  11. 61
    Slioch says:

    Anyone with any remaining doubts about Monckton (Mike N, for example) might care to read the keynote address he gave to this year’s Heartland conference. See:

  12. 62
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Richard Steckis, You are SO astoundingly naive. Ever hear of journal shopping? That’s when you realize you can’t get your work published in the journal of record for a field, so you look for obscure journals where your work is just a wee bit outside the likely expertise of their readership. It’s pretty much how denialists get anything published at all. E&E is a favorite because by definition everything is outside of its expertise.

    Last I saw, there was no peer-reviewed rebuttal to Lyndon LaRouche’s claim that the Queen of England was a drug dealer either.

  13. 63
    Richard Steckis says:


    “Last I saw, there was no peer-reviewed rebuttal to Lyndon LaRouche’s claim that the Queen of England was a drug dealer either.”

    You are appealing to ridicule. It demeans you and it contributes nothing.

    [Response: Relying on Miskolczi is an appeal to the ridiculous. It too contributes nothing. – gavin]

  14. 64
    walter crain says:

    i think one reason anybody takes monkton seriously is his really smart-sounding english accent.

  15. 65
    Lynn Vincentnathan says:

    Oh, Monckton again. Sheesh! What’s really upsetting to me is that ROME REPORTS (aired on EWTN – the U.S. Catholic TV channel) interviews him when they want an expert on climate change. You’d expect newspapers and other commercial media heavily funded by oil and oil/caol-based industries to feature Monckton, but church-related media??

    To repair the great damage Monckton (and EWTN) are doing to my beloved Catholic Church on the issue of climate change, I want you to know what good Catholics — present and past popes, many bishops, priests, and laypersons — are up to re climate change. See:

  16. 66
    Ike Solem says:

    For more of the same, try the Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson, on renewable energy and fossil fuels:

    On renewables: “Actually, no one involved in this debate really knows what the consequences or costs might be. All are inferred from models of uncertain reliability.”

    On fossil fuels: “Almost everyone loves to hate the world’s Exxons, but promoting domestic drilling is simply common sense.”

    You know, in the past, articles like that were preceded with a statement: “This is an advertisement”.

    If the nation’s leading newspapers have been converted into propaganda and marketing tools, then who needs them? More to the point, why do so many members of the educated public have so much faith in what they read in them?

    Robert J. Samuelson can’t even get his statistics right:

    “It may disappoint. In 2007, wind and solar generated less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity. Even a tenfold expansion will leave their contribution small. By contrast, oil and natural gas now provide two-thirds of Americans’ energy. They will dominate consumption for decades.”

    The actual numbers are here:

    Coal: 50.0%
    Natural gas: 20.1%
    Nuclear: 19.4%
    Hydroelectric: 7.1%
    Wind + solar: 2.4%
    Petroleum liquids + coke: 1.6%

    That’s for electricity generation. The other big energy sink is transportation, which is difficult to compare directly to energy generation. Here we have petroleum products, 2007:

    U.S. motor fuel consumption (gasoline _ diesel) is 9,286,000 barrels/day (3.39 billion barrels/year).

    Here we have biofuels in 2007:

    154,416,000 barrels per year for ethanol, 11,691,000 for biodiesel

    Total biofuel production thus is about 5% of total motor fuel production in the U.S. at present.

    As we have seen, a 5% drop in demand for fossil fuels sends the price down. We could easily double or triple biofuel production in the U.S. with no ill effects on food supply (maybe fewer corn-fed factory farms, which is where 50% of all corn ends up today).

    Combine ethanol production with wind and solar power, and add in the plug-in hybrid vehicle with significant electric energy storage capacity, and you have a fossil fuel independent transport system.

    It’s very feasible, and in the absence of fossil fuels, that’s how we’ll move goods and people around – unless you prefer to walk or ride a bicycle (or a horse).

  17. 67
    walter crain says:

    we mock monkton et al, but they are effective. it’s getting worse. THEY are winning the global PR battle. i was going to post this on that “lies, damn lies ans stats” thread, but i guess it “closed”.

  18. 68
    JCH says:

    walter crain, La Nina provided excellent cover for the fibbers. La Nina wasn’t forever.

  19. 69
    Rod B says:

    Ike (66), your 2.4%+ was generated from wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind. I’m sure wind and solar is a big part but I’m sure not all of it. You shouldn’t say that it is.

  20. 70
    ccpo says:

    Re #54: It’s your blog, gents, but with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, given the results of the Rasmussen poll linked above, you appear to be redefining “sensible.”

    Without accountability there is no responsibility; without responsibility there is no trust. Without trust there is… chaos.

    Cest la vie.


  21. 71
    Lynn Vincentnathan says:

    RE #41 the correct link for American Denial of Global Warming is:

  22. 72
    walter crain says:

    i don’t know what the content of the edited post #54 was, but the link to the rasmussen poll was a link of the public’s opinion, not scientific opinion. it indicates the gulf between public and scientific opinion and highlights the need to educate the public of the scientific consensus.

    if only there were some sort of funny, clever way of demonstrating the extent of the scientific consensus…

  23. 73
    Richard Steckis says:

    Response: Relying on Miskolczi is an appeal to the ridiculous. It too contributes nothing. – gavin

    I am not relying on any such thing. But his theories are gaining traction (e.g. Therefore, his work must be addressed professionally and not dismissively (otherwise it will bite you in your backside).

    [Response: Your definition of traction seems to be somewhat different to mine. The same points have been made over and again to these people and yet they continue to think this is worthwhile. No peer reviewed comment will change this one iota. Just as there are some who still think Velikovsky had some good points, no doubt some Miskolczi supporters will persist. Anybody sensible has far more important demands on their time. – gavin]

  24. 74
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Richard Steckis, Traction, huh? How many citations if Miskolczi have there been since it’s publication? How many climate models have incorporated its “insights”?

    Richard, when somebody publishes something and it lies there like a dog turd on a New York sidewalk, maybe you have to conclude that it wasn’t as golden as you thought.

  25. 75
    chris colose says:

    Richard Steckis,

    Miskolczi’s paper was intentional misrepresentation, much like the Monckton piece, and he used it to confuse many students as well, which is probably a violation of some academic conduct standard.

    He believes runaway greenhouse effects violate energy balance considerations (despite happening on Venus), he believes water vapor decreases in a higher CO2 world (which has been proven wrong), he does not understand Kirchoff’s law, and many other things. It is not worth review.

  26. 76
    jyyh says:

    Wasn’t ‘Lord’ a hereditary honorific? Doesn’t he have any children who might do a coup?

    jyyh in jest.

    ReCaptcha at dismal

  27. 77

    Ray Ladbury wrote in 74:

    Richard Steckis, Traction, huh? How many citations of Miskolczi have there been since it’s publication? How many climate models have incorporated its “insights”?

    But it isn’t just lying there: Miskolczi has a viral video. And who needs technical papers in journals devoted to climatology citing your work — when you have a viral video?

    Please see:

    And I am sure that Miskolczi’s work was warmly received at the Heartland Institute’s conference in 2008. (Incidentally, according to Heartland, the scientific research showing that there is a significant health risk associated with second-hand smoke is junk science.)

  28. 78
    James says:

    Mark Says (4 May 2009 at 3:34 AM):

    “RodB, #44, so why do you need nicotine patches to give up smoking if it’s not addictive?”

    Maybe you “need” nicotine patches because they can be manufactured and sold at a profit? However, it’s a fact that lots of people have quit without them, or without any sort of addiction-related treatment. Indeed, though it’s a bit dated, this CDC page says that simple “cold turkey” without any external aid is the most effective method.

    “Why, before then, did people give up smoking and then take it up again?”

    Why does anyone stop a habit or (to them) pleasurable activity, then later take it up again?

  29. 79

    Richard Steckis (73),

    You will find a good critique of Miskolczi’s work here:

    Why Ferenc M. Miskolczi is Wrong (2008)
    by Barton Paul Levenson

    … and more criticism of it here:

    SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2008

  30. 80
    John Mashey says:

    re: 71 Lynn: thanks for the fix!

  31. 81

    I recently had to deal with Monckton for an hour on BBC Radio 5 Live.
    Whilst some of his comments were scientifically laughable and contradictory, he came up with a concept that I had not heard of before.
    He claimed that due to the logarithymic response of global warming to increased levels of CO2, all the warming had already happened.
    Not having heard of this before, I was unable to refute it.
    I have not been able to find any quality refutation on the web. Anyone able to help?

    [Response: Typical nonsense. The Viscount is just trying to bamboozle – the forcing from CO2 is logarithmic in concentration and this what is seen in all models and projections, but all it means is that it takes a doubling of CO2 each time to produce the same forcing. i.e. the forcing from 2xCO2 (560ppm) is ~4W/m2, and you need a further doubling (to 1320 1120ppm) to get to 8 W/m2. It does not mean that CO2 has maxed out or that further increases don’t have an effect. – gavin]

  32. 82

    Richard Steckis,

    Eli Rabett et al. are going to publish their critique in the same journal that published G&T. But as the man said, it’s self-evidently rubbish. For a review of some reasons why, try here (remove the hyphen first):

    CAPTCHA: throws outer

  33. 83
    Adam Gallon says:

    Instead of jumping up & down about our dear Lordship, what about some real scientific criticism?
    I see your blog roll ignores Dr Roy Spencer’s, this posting deserves close scrutiny.

    [Response: The idea that Spencer is the only person in the world looking at satellite data for data on sensitivity is laughable. And what do you suggest that we criticise? This posting is pure declamation, not science. If he ever posts his mysterious paper for anyone to actually see, then maybe we could have a discussion. His track record does not make us hopeful. – gavin]

  34. 84
    steve says:

    Chris you say Miskolci is intentionally misrepresenting and then you say he believes. Either he is lying or he believes what he is saying. Having read some of his comments here at RC I happen to believe that he believes he is right. The arguments over if he is right or not get a little bit over my non scientist head but wasn’t there a study recently showing that water vapor has actually been decreasing with increasing co2. Isn’t the argument that this isn’t actually happening based entirely on our lack of confidence in the data? Any idea when we might have data we can trust?

    [Response: In the absence of looking at any data, any random theory can be thought about, but we have many, many sources of data – both of radiative quantities and trends in water vapour – and there is no data that supports the idea that water vapour goes down with warming – none! It goes up when there is a warm El Nino event, it goes down when there is a cool volcanic event, it increases over time if there is a long term warming trend – both near the surface and in the troposphere. Even in the upper troposphere the specific humidity increases (though not quite enough to maintain constant relative humidity). There is a whole section (3.4.2) on this in the IPCC AR4. – gavin]

  35. 85
    Theo Hopkins says:

    We here in the UK take our excenric aristocrats like Monckton with a large pinch of salt. They are part of our traditions alongside warm beer, cricket on the village green and shouting loudly to foreigners in English so such foreigners may better understand what we are saying.

    Monckton = delightful nut case.

    Relax ;-)

  36. 86
    Nick Barnes says:

    2×560 = 1120, not 1320. ITYSBT.

    [Response: oops. thanks – gavin]

  37. 87
    Adam Gallon says:

    Re my comment post #83
    “[Response: The idea that Spencer is the only person in the world looking at satellite data for data on sensitivity is laughable”

    Where, pray, do I suggest this?

    [Response: That’s what he claims in the post you want us to discuss. Did you not even read it? – gavin]

    As to some real scientific criticism, how about doing a post on how climate models currently treat clouds, what effects they have and what assumptions are being made and why?

    [Response: That’s not a terrible idea. Let me see if I can find a volunteer…. – gavin]

  38. 88
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Walter Manny says, “The problem with that, Walter, is that the AGW scientific community has attached itself, rightly or wrongly, to the environmental political movement, which is as famous for its dour, humorless worldview as anything else.”

    Walter, I don’t think that is a fair criticism. Rather environmentalists presented themselves as supportive while the political right was villifying climate scientists, actually subpoenaing them before committees led by the likes of Doolittle and Delay (no you can’t make this stuff up!). The science has always been there for both the right and left to embrace. Scientists would have been very receptive to constructive suggestions from the business community on how to address climate threats. The fact that the political right and business interests have been short on ideas and long on criticism says a lot more about the right and the state of American capitalism than it does about the science. Al Gore owes his Oscar and Nobel Prize more to the denialism of the right than to his understanding of the science.

    The thing that you and others have to realize is that these threats are real and that they aren’t going away. The only thing going away is your ability to influence the mitigations adopted for the threats.

  39. 89
    Hank Roberts says:

    > the environmental political movement …
    (As if there’s only one)
    > famous for its dour, humorless …

    “Too much proximity to folly tends to make it seem normal …”

    “… the beauty and existence of the natural world should be sufficient justification in itself for saving it all. If this argument fails to interest the exploitative and cannot convince the indifferent, then we must appeal to deeper emotions …”

    ” … A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

    “… This is what you shall do: Be loyal to what you love, Be true to the Earth, and Fight your enemies with passion and laughter ….”

  40. 90
    Mark says:

    “The problem with that, Walter, is that the AGW scientific community has attached itself, rightly or wrongly, to the environmental”

    Citation needed.

  41. 91
    Mark says:

    “Maybe you “need” nicotine patches because they can be manufactured and sold at a profit?”

    Why then did nicotine patches reduce the readdiction rate?

    The chemists working for Philip Morris said that nicotine was addictive. Why do you think they and the medics against PM are wrong and you are uniquely right?

  42. 92
    thingsbreak says:

    @87 (gavin):

    Dyson was also ranting a bit about GCMs and clouds (& parametrizations generally) at a CATO event last week:

    I’m resisting the temptation to link to the Abe Simpson news clipping, but only barely.

    [Response: Did he actually have anything substantial to say or was it more of the same? – gavin]

  43. 93
    Neil McEvoy says:


    Can you say when the lower 95% limit on your 2002-baselined graph moves definitively above zero?

    [Response: 2020. Although it’s within +/-0.03 of zero from 2014 on. – gavin]

  44. 94
    Son of Mulder says:

    Well I just did a least squares fit to monthly global hadcrut3 and it came out looking like Monckton’s graph. As 2002 was a trend peak for hadcrut3 it’s not unreasonable to start there in looking at the down trend, which is what Monckton has done. What’s all the fuss about? The IPCC predictions were modelled a while ago now without such up to date data. I’m sure the models can be updated to retrofit… but will it improve them going forward? I look forward to finding out in a few years.

    [Response: The fuss? Maybe in your field of work making up data to put on graphs is ok, but it tends to be frowned on in scientific circles. The criticism is not directed at the data points themselves, but at the cherry picked start date and the made-up ‘IPCC’ projections. But if that’s ok with you, perhaps I should start showing graphs starting in Jan 07 and showing a remarkable increase in temperatures at rates that are over 3 times the mean of the models? – gavin]

  45. 95
    Rod B says:

    James (78), “…lots of people have quit…” should read tens of millions…

  46. 96
    Jim Eager says:

    Re Ray @88: “The thing that you and others have to realize is that these threats are real and that they aren’t going away. The only thing going away is your ability to influence the mitigations adopted for the threats.”

    Exactly, Ray. As the saying goes, “decisions get made by those who show up,” and the right has made it their mission to not only not show up, but to prevent the meeting from even convening. Well, the meeting is now under way, and the right is still only trying to disrupt it. F*’em.

  47. 97
    Rod B says:

    Mark (91, et al), because, as I said, “addiction” has been dumbed down to meet political objectives, and no chemist or scientist in the tobacco realm who abhors his own lynching would say anything but… It’s clearly the only PC thing acceptable.

  48. 98
    Jim Eager says:

    Re: Son of Mulder @94: “As 2002 was a trend peak for hadcrut3 it’s not unreasonable to start there in looking at the down trend…”

    There’s your first problem right there: you’re not looking at a trend in climate.

    Your second is thinking that you know anything about statistical analysis.

    “What’s all the fuss about?”

    As Gavin said, in science cherry-picking and making sh*t up is frowned upon. I know, kind of antiquated in our age of ‘padded’ resumes, claims of being IPCC ‘expert reviewers’, Nobel prize holders, and members of the House of Lords.

  49. 99
    OLympus Mons says:

    will you hold Al Gore in the same standards you seem to demand of Monckton? in this case how does he, Al Gore, rates on it?
    Thank you.

  50. 100
    Barry Foster says:

    Certainly the public perception is that of Monckton’s graph. And the scare stories that surrounded the Arctic situation in 2007 and 2008 certainly added to this perception – that is enhanced on many web sites such as this one.

    However, it seems to be (based on current evidence and not computer models) that alarming climate change is a myth. Just as it seems to be that this year’s Arctic ice extent will not even worry the BBC (although they are unlikely to report on it if it turns out to be a record-build).

    I can’t be alone in finding that we seem to want to worry ourselves. I’ve no doubt that ‘Swine Flu’ will turn out to be a mild one that should never have worried the world. Climate change, despite its initial ‘promise’ of doom seems to have been way-overblown. Looking at the graph of global temperatures for the past 20 years I cannot for the life of me see what worries some people here. With some predictions of a strong link with the PDO comes forecasts of falling temperatures for the next 20 years. The caveat is that these are yet again – guessed, just as alarming warming was. So far that ‘warming’ guess has turned out to be incorrect.

    The public have been told that the world will fry, and that is why Monckton’s graph will sit very comfortably in the minds of people. The warming-worriers are to blame for that. Whether or not his graph is factual has become irrelevant. The science of this went out of the window when computer models were brought in. We were no longer saying what is happening, but what we think will happen. As I cannot remember anyone 10 years ago telling me that by 2009 the global temperature would have fallen by 0.03 degrees C (that’s what my calculator says) then I conclude that we are in the realms of appealing to the public’s mind, rather that actuality. And many people reading this are to blame. As Pete Best (the first contributor here) intimates, lessons should have been learned.

    RIP science.

    [Response: Your argument seems to be that scientists who honestly present their results and have them assessed in reports put out by the National Academies and the IPCC are responsible for Monckton’s making stuff up? Interesting logic. – gavin]