Saturday, May 23, 2015

WUWT? and Monckton Caught Lying

Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton, two of the most notoriously deceitful deniers, have been caught lying - and it was their own work that did it.

Anthony Watts is a TV weatherman (not even a meteorologist) who runs the anti-science blog Watts Up With That? and has been famous for a considerable time for the way he uses false arguments and false data to deceive people about global warming and climate change. He receives funds from the Heartland Institute, which means he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. Here is what I said about Watts in a submission to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge:

Watts is one of the people that I automatically reject as a source of information - and for very good reason. First, he receives funds from The Heartland Institute. This is an organization whose very own internal documents show they fund people for the directed purpose of undermining climate science. That is enough for me to reject him and I use that standard on a routine basis. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source. 

But, there is more. My take of the evidence is he fabricates his results. That would be consistent with being affiliated with Heartland. Take a look at a review of some of his work here.

Finally, consider this: When Richard Muller questioned the global average temperature results from the international teams, he set up his own team to examine the question using completely different data. Watts said this:

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
But, when the Berkeley Earth team confirmed the results of the international teams, Watts rejected those results and was quoted by the NY Times:
"Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."
Really!!?? Global warming isn't real because there were some spelling errors???!!!!
For a very revealing video on Watts, I recommend The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial “Crock of the Week.” It is an amazing video and article on Watts. It truly shows just how anti-science he is.

The other well know anti-science denier, Christopher Monckton, is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary title established in 1957 for the current Lord's grandfather. That part is true, many (if not all) of his other claims are false. He has made claims to being a member of the House of Lords, but he isn't. He has claimed to have been a science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, but he was actually an economics adviser. At one time, he claimed to have won the Nobel Prize in Physics, but when he was quickly caught in this lie he claimed it was all a joke. He has made claims to having discovered the cure for many diseases, including Graves' disease, AIDS, MS, the flu and the common cold. His education consists of a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism, so he has no scientific qualifications, but he continues to present himself as an expert on the subject. Here is a video of a real scientist responding to some of Monckton's claims. It is a narrated PowerPoint presentation and is about 73 minutes long. Here are some very well made videos about Monckton and his claims:

What we have established is Watts and Monckton are two people who have no climate science qualifications, but have managed to promote themselves as being smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. How did they do this? Through lies, false data, false arguments and with the help of fossil fuel money. Is it any wonder that they would get tangled up in their own lies?
Well, it's happened. 
Monckton and Watts have teamed up for years to produce graphics showing there has been no global warming. See here for one example. This particular lie consists of the ever popular claim that there has been no warming for [insert number here] years. Of course, this is a total falsehood and I have addressed it many times. Here's one example. Certainly, one of the reasons this claim is false is because it selectively picks the pertinent years to use. I showed examples in the referenced link of how even a small change in the selected years makes a huge difference.
But now, they have really been caught in the lie. OutOnALimb of the Daily Kos has published an excellent piece revealing how they cherry pick their data. It turns out they have published numerous versions of this plot and they have changed the start and end dates to get the desired results! What's up with that?

Monckton has been forced to change his end points to keep getting the desired results. The reality is, if his claim of no warming was true, there would be no need to change the end points.

So, if there is no need to change their endpoints, why did they? The reason is because the data does not support their claims. In other words, they have been lying about it.

What's up with that?


  1. An excellent expose. What Monckton and other deniers are, is comparable to being midway hustlers at county fairs---they frequently give an impressive sounding rattle trap spiel filled with falsehoods and errors---some of which must be quite embarrassing. And when Monckton responds to criticism by simply altering the words he previously used, his brazen hustling becomes so painfully obvious.

    I enjoyed the short videos explaining some of the outrageous deceptions used by Monckton, as well as some devices used by his fellow deniers. Nothing is quite as absurd as a denier who works as a local weather but does not even have a BS in meteorology? Or like Moncton, whom after being caught in his own lie about being an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, then tries to backpedal by claiming that he was only joking? Ha Ha, Lord! Why should the future survival and health of mankind be of any real significance? Just go on offering your verbal teddy bears, as prizes for trying to beat a game that you know full well, is actually being rigged---by yourself and your fellow con-men---er deniers, er---scientists?

  2. If I'd known you were going to do a piece on Monckton, I would have sent you this a little sooner. It's a little graphical thing I put together based on his "No warming in [fill in the blank] years" chart that has reverberated far and wide across the deniers' online echo chamber/house of mirrors. My inspiration was Tamino's brilliant Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise. What I did was embed Monckton's graph showing no warming into a graph of the full RSS data set, taking care to make sure everything lined up perfectly. Clearly, during entire period of the "pause" the temperature was elevated above the trend of previous years. Monckton not only cherry-picks the dataset (RSS) and the time period, but he doesn't tell you that the entire thing represents a surge, not a pause. Anyway, here it is:

  3. That seems to point out the absurdity of the "no warming in ___ years" ruse even more clearly and concisely than the explanation in the Daily Kos article!

  4. Thanks. The Tamino article I provided a link to is really brilliant, and once I read that, it became obvious that I could build that chart with a little knowledge of Excel and Photoshop. The Daily Kos article did show how Monckton cherry-picked his start and end months, which I hadn't realized he was doing. I mean it's really slimy not starting and ending at the same point in the year, no matter how bad the rest of it. (By the way, I've never posted at Kos. Do you know if is possible to post graphics there? I couldn't even find a place to post anything. Maybe I need to register before that becomes visible. Or else the comments on that article are closed. When I get the energy, I'll have another look.)

  5. Re posting to Daily Kos--I've never posted there either, but it appears you do need to register. Then you can post a diary entry that can include uploaded images. At least that's what it looks like to me.

  6. Thanks. I should have been able to figure that out for myself. Just a little tired ...

  7. Very nice piece of work. The only way to get the 'plateau' is to take an average greater than the trend. This is actually pretty sound proof of the reality of continued global warming. You need to get this circulated around as much as you can.

  8. Thanks. I post it in comments wherever as possible. Did you notice our sleazy friend Tom had an article on the weekend in the Toronto Sun. And the Augusta Free Press published a rebuttal to the one he did there. I posted comments underneath both, so you can find both by following my history. The Sun closed their comments section half an hour after some jerk claiming to be a "climate researcher", but whose main source of info is WUWT, replied to me, so I was unable to counter his assertion that NOAA publishes "junk science."

  9. I saw the articles. It is unfortunate the media still feels the need to publish something like that. Just because someone has the right to say nonsense doesn't mean they have a right to get published.

    I looked up Gary Mount and found his twitter account. He's a real nut case.

  10. I made a posting about your plot.