Saturday, August 21, 2010

{#3} Citizenschallenge v Monckton

my 2nd email to Lord Monckton 8/16/10
Lord Monckton’s 2nd reply to me 8/17/10
my response (3rd email) to Lord Monckton 8/20/10
Dear Mr. Miesler, - Answers are in the body of your email below. Since you have chosen to be impolite, these are the last answers you will receive. All further emails from this address will be auto-deleted before I see them. - Monckton of Brenchley

Lord Monckton, please don’t run and hide. You claim yourself ready to debate.
Therefore, please allow us to take part in a frank discussion.
Sincerely, Peter Miesler August 20, 2010

(ps. I sent my email by way of a new email address, so Lord Monckton did see it, whether he's willing to reply remains to be seen.)

Dear Mr. Miesler, - Thank you for your enquiry. The following essay, which appears on SPPI's blog (, should answer your questions*(8/16/10)...

Lord Monckton,
Thank you for your reply of 8/17/10.
However, the essay you shared, “What is Science Without Religion,” side stepped my actual questions. First and foremost, (regarding 5:20; 9:45; 10:45 of your 10/14/9 talk), calling up the Bible in the manner you do demands a fidelity to the notion of a Biblical six day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago. Appealing to the one literal notion of the Bible and ignoring the other seems like a cynical showman stunt.

Since I had explicitly stated, both in my email to you and in the blog posting, that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago, and since you have ignored both statements, I suggest that you read them again and then ask any elementary school teacher to explain to you the difference between 6000 and 13.7 billion years.

Again, you sidestep the actual question. The point is the cognitive dissonance between that 13.7 billion year long creation and calling down your very divine deity during your talk as you did at 5:20, 9:45, 10:45.

On a more subconscious level, it seems that placing such certainty in one’s own pronouncements with nary a gram of doubt nor respect toward the efforts of others has nothing to do with seeking scientific truths. Such an attitude seems only possible by wrapping oneself around a self serving notion of a god given “absolute certainty” which brooks no decent - that is what I’m picking at.

As for your essay, I’ve read it a couple times now and in the spirit of better digestion I have decided to share it (a condensed 850 word version... 3,070 words is a bit excessive.) with a discussion group I participate in, CFI Forum. I’m curious to see if it gets any response. I invite you to drop in and see what folks are saying, heck join in on the conversation if you want.

Dear Mr. Miesler, Since you have chosen to be impolite, these are the last answers you will receive. All further emails from this address will be auto-deleted before I see them. - Monckton of Brenchley.

Excellent example of another basic “AGW skeptics” strategy - as soon as someone honestly and clearly confronts you folks - you slam your ears shut and try to pretend that you’re above communicating with any “doubter.” Such behavior has nothing to do with science or seeking the “truth.”

In light of your umbrage, I must ask how can you justify slides such as 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 39, 81, 115, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 166 and then get so upset with anyone else’s slightest breach of decorum?

Part of being an honest seeker of truth, is the realization we are proven wrong more times than not, and the true trick is to learn to digest the new lessons rather than having to endlessly repeat the same mistakes.

Please either circulate the full version of my posting or nothing at all.

I have not and shall not change any of your wording - that you do have a right to expect and that you have my word on. However, you can not order me to only circulate your full overlong productions. This is a public dialogue you don’t own it. Besides, scientific/intellectual advance has never followed such dictums! Why not show yourself strong enough to dialogue and defend your notions in an uncontrolled venue?

... taking this personal need fulfillment to some absolute “I know the One Truth!, because of My God” level, mangles the honest pursuit of science where all must keep an inquisitive skeptical mind.

The quotation which you attribute to me is inaccurate. I neither said the words in quotation marks nor anything like them.

I did not attributed that quote to you!
That quote is by way of definitions and labeling what I am talking about.
Lord Monckton please do not misrepresent the intention of my words.

This is what I wrote: “But, taking this personal need fulfillment to some absolute “I know the One Truth!, because of My God” level, mangles the honest pursuit of science where all must keep an inquisitive skeptical mind.”

Today we appreciate the true God of time and creation is well beyond the understanding of us Earth bound sinners, filled, as we are, with our own self absorbed natures, our self serving greed and follies, and tragedies, leavened with a touch of love now and then. This does not mean the religions are wrong... it simply means there is so much more that no religion has, or can, encompass.

The Catholic understanding is that God is in and through all that exists: He accordingly encompasses all, and there is nothing that exists that He does not encompass.

Certainly God encompasses all - I was not implying otherwise. My point was that God is beyond our understanding! Seems to me, for you to present Bible quotes & stories the way you did, within the framework of what you were conveying - is pure obedience to your chosen God - but, dishonest to the integrity of a supposedly scientific discussion.

God is in your heart - but, beyond your understanding...

God is beyond the understanding of any of His creatures.

Then, why do you, Lord Monckton, so freely Appeal to the Authority of your particular one and only God of the Bible, while you were conducting a “science educational” talk?

The science is extracted from the real living Earth... which is, after all, where we come from and what nurtures and sustains us.

This is too woolly. In fact, science is - or ought to be - a rigorous process of enquiry into the nature and causes of things, based upon observation, measurement, scrutiny, and verification by other scientists skeptical of any new hypothesis. Science is certainly not confined to the Earth: nor is the Earth a living thing, though life exists on it.

“nor is the Earth a living thing?” ~ Could you clarify that? Is the Biosphere just a figment of the imagination?

I would suggest that the Biosphere of this planet is an incredibly complex interwoven organism including co-dependent “non-living” as well as “living” components, where every tendril is effected by all its surrounding tendrils? Or would you have a different way of explaining Earth’s systems?

Allow me to go one further: Is it perhaps time to perceive our planet on a level beyond the myopic Christian/right-wing imaginings of Earth being all about supplying our human want fulfillment? As your Biblical allusions at 5:20 surely imply.

As for your allusions to the Christian ethic: Why does that allow you to handle your “adversaries” with such venomous scorn, bordering on hatred? How is it you find it so easy to broad-stroke many thousands of serious scientists as frauds - as the whole of your presentation clearly implies?

This is a yah-boo question, void for want of specificity. I have identified certain specific scientists - a small number, and certainly not thousands - as having perpetrated errors some of which can be proven deliberate because they have sought to adhere to them when exposed by other scientists. I am not content that the industries and enterprises of the West should be selectively damaged or even destroyed on the basis of false scientific testimony.

"void for want of specificity” Allow me to fill in that void. See your 10/14/9 PowerPoint slides: 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 39, 81, 115, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 166.

“a small number, and certainly not thousands” Come on, a little honesty here - over 95% of real climate scientist (see Doran 2009, Anderegg 2010), who are up on the data and producing papers say that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a clearly observable phenomena occurring upon our planet. Yet, the self-certain message you project through your vitriol is that anyone claiming warming is all full of crap.

"proven deliberate - errors” You claim such things, yet never actually present a thorough examination or share the detailed results of such an examination. The charges in your 10/14/9 presentation are broad-strokes and sound bite opinions with nothing that would actually be admissible in court.
Your PowerPoint slide notes do nothing to fill in the gaps - why no links to real supporting evidence? All we have is your opinion on how “you” perceive events. That isn’t science, or justice. >

Lord Monckton, Why are you so dismissive of learning about Earth’s Biosphere - as your bitter attacks on Earth observation funding proves? Do you actually believe there is nothing outside of your bubble for you to learn from?

Again, void for want of specificity. I have not at any point dismissed the desirability of learning about the Earth's biosphere, or about the hydrosphere, cryosphere, or lithosphere for that matter.

"Again, void for want of specificity.” Allow me to quote you:

5:45 “Therefore, it is important that we do not waste money, effort, time or resources on non problems such as Global Warming. Which I shall show you that it is.”

1:30:35 “Here is the amount of money that’s been spent over the last 20 years by your government, your tax payers, your money on totally unnecessary climate research to do with global warming. Obama announced in his stimulus package another 80 billion just for the next three years on the same subject. Totally unnecessary, totally wasted.”

So again, why your broad-stroked contempt for the money spent on Earth observation science - of which you must admit our climate is a key element?

Why your eye for an eye until the whole world is blind attitude? Why can’t we all try to start learning about our climate in a serious manner rather than hiding behind politically motivated, corporate driven entertainment? Why can’t you, and your Republican backers, open your minds to real world information?

The lecture to which you seem to be referring was one for which I neither asked nor received any fee or other backing, whether State-funded or corporate-funded. I see nothing inherently better about State funding than about corporate funding: but in fact I am funded by neither.

Are you willing to disclose your funding, or self funding, documentation - so that the public might better judge the voracity of your claim? While we are at it, how about letting us see your email communications with the Minnesota Free Market Institute and the Heartland Institute folks?

Also, you totally side step the question of justifying your generally venomous tone.

“I certainly have no Republican financial backers.”

I never say “financial” did I? There is more than one form of backing.

The scientists are not the bad guys!

Some scientists are bad guys. Just because they have white coats on and put PhD after their names, they are not necessarily infinite in their perfections. I have identified certain specific errors perpetrated by certain specific scientists, and am able to prove many of those errors deliberate. That does not mean that all scientists are bad: merely that those who distorted the data so as artificially to create a bugaboo that you appear to find congenial are bad.

"... and am able to prove many of those errors deliberate."

OK! stop talking about it and prove it!
Where are your proofs?
Your 10/14/9 talk only presents your well crafted opinions - your PowerPoint presentation does nothing to fill in these gaps. You say you have proof, where is it, some details please!

Why not shut up and sit down to listen, think and learn for a while?

Your question here is childish, even by your standards. It does not deserve an answer and will not get one.

Touche’. Actually I was just daydreaming and lashing out at the encouraged embrace of Willful Ignorance that is the hallmark of the “Global Warming is a Hoax” industry.
Lord Monckton since you so often sink into hyperbole of your own... perhaps you’ll forgive me my transgression?

Some new questions in light of the posts you shared with me.
You and “a reader” had good fun joking about the frigid weather.
What does this summer say about the Global Cooling you insist is occurring?
Where are we to look for signs of your Global Cooling?
What should we make of all those happening signs that point to Global Warming?

Since the phase-transition in the ISCCP cloud-coverage record in late 2001, there has been a linear cooling trend. Ask any statistician to tell you how a least-squares linear-regression trend is calculated, then ask him to calculate the trend from January 2002 to the present, and tell you whether the trend is a warming trend, a zero trend, or a cooling trend. All of my results are readily verifiable and replicable in this way. The globe has been cooling for almost a decade.

We are talking Global Temperatures and dynamic long term trends, to try to claim that looking at “phase-transition in the ISCCP cloud-coverage” resolves the question is most disingenuous!

“then ask him to calculate the trend from January 2002 to the present”
Furthermore, you sure are selective about the start date. Why? I thought you hated resorting to the “Start Point Fallacy” why resort to it now?

“The globe has been cooling for almost a decade.”
So, Lord Monckton, what if your perception is simply wrong? Here are some of the factors that have well over 95% of genuine publishing climate scientists saying that our planet continues on a frightening warming trend:

(Murphy 2009) An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950

(Schuckmann 2009) analyzed ocean temperature measurements by the Argo network, and came to very different conclusions than yours.

What about the special supplement to the “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” Vol. 91, No. 6, June 2010 - listing ten key indicators of global temperature rise?

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.”

“Get used to it.”

What is this supposed to mean?
Heck of a way to side step these serious questions.

Lord Monckton please:
Where are we to look for signs of your Global Cooling?
What should we make of all those happening signs that point to Anthropogenic Global Warming?

No comments: