Hello Malcolm (and others reading this),
I highly recommend the website, realclimate.org, run by climate scientists.
They regularly look at disinformation in the media on climate change. As
regards the Monckton articles in the Sunday Telegraph, this debunking is
well worth reading:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
And, if I might plug Media Lens, the messageboard there quite often
discusses such matters and/or has useful links:
http://www.medialens.org/board/
best wishes,
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Levitt" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Monckton article
> Is there anyone out there who is preparing a detailed analysis/criticism
> of the Monckton articles?
>
> I, for one, would like to see a decent climate scientist address his
> points one by one. He has done
> a thorough job and deserves a detailed response, based on scientifically
> proved and sourced facts.
> It may be a laborious piece of work, but it should be done.
>
> The criticisms I have seen so far rely too much on who he is (a rich
> aristocrat who used to advise
> Margaret Thatcher), where it is published (the Daily Telegraph instead of
> Nature), and a few
> obvious blunders he has made (1421, for example), which are not really of
> great importance. If his
> work is that flawed, it should not be difficult for someone who knows
> these things to disprove it
> beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> Personally, my mind is still open. I think it is unlikely that the
> scientific community and parts of
> the political world could be convinced of anthropogenic global warming out
> of some sort of mass
> hysteria, but I cannot exclude it either. I'm a scientist on the "hard"
> physical end, and I know that it
> can be quite easy to misinterpret even reproducible experimental data,
> never mind statistical
> analyses of past climate. It is not impossible that Monckton, as a climate
> outsider, has really made
> a valuable contribution, and so far I'm not convinced by the criticisms
> I've read. The George
> Monbiot one in the Guardian this week is disappointing, making much out of
> the fact that
> Monckton does not have a science degree (this is not so different from
> dismissing critics of the
> Iraq invasion on the grounds that they are not military or political
> professionals).
>
> Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently qualified in the field to judge most of
> Monckton's arguments
> myself. Is anyone aware of a good-quality science criticism, that
> concentrates on the facts? Like
> them or not, Monckton's articles are really bugging me.
>
> all the best
> malcolm
>
|