Discussion > I was Monty's Double
No, I am and my wife is too......
jones
Martin A
What I find ludicrous is that the type you describe appears shocked that even someone with a science or engineering degree should discuss climate matters unless it's to support "the consensus".
My own scientific qualifications (beyond 'O' Level) are non-existent but then so are those of most eco-activists — English appears to be the degree of choice as far as I can see while PPE has always been the choice for the ones who plan to get on in government. On the other hand I doubt I'm the only person who reckons that the "university of life", if you remember to attend the courses, can make up a fair amount of the deficit, at least to the point of being able to smell a crock of you-know-what at a dozen paces.
It's not hard to identify the Montys after a couple of postings and it would certainly help to be able to identify what throne it is they are pontificating from.
Mike Jackson
MJ
would that be Armitage or Shanks? :)
NeilC
Hi All
Well I am a climate scientist with a large number of peer-reviewed publications in the world's leading journals in my field. I have a PhD in a climate science and have taught at several of the world's leading universities.
But this is not the point. The point is why are 'skeptics' relying on non-scientists to debate with scientists?
It seems to me because the skeptic arguments are so weak that very few scientists will support them (which is why there's the 97% consensus).
Imagine this was a debate about the importance of the Higg's boson in terms of reconfiguring particle physics. Would you not find it bizarre if the BBC had a bunch of English graduates debating this with particle physicists? Are you REALLY saying this?
Monty
Monty my man, climate is a long period chaotic system and you are being disingenuous in comparing to particle physics...
You analogy shows more about your elitism and prejudices than it does about the actual subject.
Jiminy Cricket
Monty
But this is not the point. The point is why are 'skeptics' relying on non-scientists to debate with scientists?
One could rephrase this as:-
But this is not the point. Why does the MSM employ non-scientists to put forward their point of view and not debate with sceptics, for example the BBC?
SandyS
Great title of thread!
Richard Drake
Hi Jiminy Cricket: my point clearly stands. A complicated (and complex) science needs years of training to even begin to understand it (like all sciences). Which is why it is ludicrous when English graduates pontificate about something they haven't got a chance of understanding.
Another thought experiment: if this was a debate about latest thinking in the science of genetics, would you expect the BBC to have a debate between the world's leading geneticists and an English or classics graduate? Of course not.....so why is climate science different?
Monty
... a climate science... Dendrochronology perhaps?
"I...have taught at several of the world's leading universities."
Excuse my scepticism, but something does not ring quite right there. several? So three or more?
If "taught" meant "gave an invited lecture" or "gave some tutorial classes as a research assistant" I'd just about buy it.
But if it means "I held a lecturer/senior lecturer/reader/prof post at several of the world's leading universities" (eg Cambridge, Edinburgh, Princeton, Stanford,....) then what you say does not match up with normal academic career progression.
splitpin
Hi splitpin: No...not dendrochronology.
No, not three universities...two. One is in the top 5 universities globally ; the other is in top 100 globally and my department in the top 10 globally.
I have held senior tenured positions for 25 years.
Thanks.
Monty
Anyway....enough of me. Back to my post.
I said: "my point clearly stands. A complicated (and complex) science needs years of training to even begin to understand it (like all sciences). Which is why it is ludicrous when English graduates pontificate about something they haven't got a chance of understanding.
Another thought experiment: if this was a debate about latest thinking in the science of genetics, would you expect the BBC to have a debate between the world's leading geneticists and an English or classics graduate? Of course not.....so why is climate science different?"
Anyone disagree with this?
Thanks.
Monty
Monty
As a real climate scientist can I pose a theoretical problem to you?
If you had 7,000 actual data measurements of A and 7,000 actual data measurements of B (both 7,000 measurements of A and B are the same time periods) and the trend of A was upward and the trend of B was downward how would you describe the relationship between A and B?
NeilC
Monty
The minute anyone mentions the phrase "97%" we know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Do we need to remind you just how Anderegg and Doran & Zimmerman (I won't insult your intelligence by mentioning Cook) finally came up with that figure?
Doran & Zimmerman's own summary of their paper admits that the figure is 97% of 77 out of a total of 10,000 surveyed of which 3,000 replied.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.That's not cherry picking, Monty, that's blatant manipulation and the end result is equivalent to saying that 97% of 0.77% of Catholic priests believe in God.
Now I can quite understand that you are reluctant to "come out" on this blog because you would be immediately taken to a dark room by the Climate Stasi and subjected to a "re-education" course but is there any way you can tell us which bit if climate science is your expertise (don't say "all of it" because that will instantly mark you down as a fraud) and what conclusions you personally have come to and more importantly based on what observations.
After that we can move on to why you think a degree in some unspecified "climate-related" (whatever that is) discipline makes you and your colleagues infallible all of a sudden.
Mike Jackson
Why is climate science different?
When I'm not pressed for time, I'll elaborate. But for starters, just a few of the reasons that climate science is different:
- Its practitioners do not appear to use the scientific method
- It regards the output of unvalidated computer models as evidence
- Many of Its practioners seem to have objectives other than understanding nature
Martin A
Monty, you little hiatus denier you. Why not have a look at Skeptical Science's trend calculator? For default AR1 (I presume) autocorrelation I'll give you three trends -
1. GISS (Land/Ocean) - 0.106±0.111 °C/decade (2σ) 1996-2014 (18 years)
2. BEST (Land) - 0.223±0.240 °C/decade (2σ) 1996-2014 (18 years)
3. RSS (Satellite) - 0.114±0.125 °C/decade (2σ) 1990-2014 (24 years)
Does the fact that the lower confidence level is <0 mean that the null hypothesis of zero trend is contained within the full confidence interval (at alpha=0.05). If so, does this tell you anything about the null hypothesis? And the statistical significance of the trend? Is that what Professor Phil Jones was talking about some years ago? Did Dr Santer mention something about 17 years or not?
I don't doubt your qualifications. Well done. It's just that you are batting on the same team as the likes of our Australian Professors Lewandowsky (psychologist - I think), Hamilton (ethicist) and Flannery (mammalogist) whose sum total expertise in the physics of the climate I could scratch on the back of a sixpence with a crowbar. But that's all we hear down here. Anyway, check the above figures and see what you get.
BTW - you're not the only person with a PhD who comments here so putting (sic) after a commenters name is rather boring if not exhibiting a fair dose of intellectual snobbery.
GrantB
No, not three universities...two.
Thanks.
Mar 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM Monty
Monty, thanks for that. So not "several", in fact.
several // det., pron., & adj.
det. & pron. more than two but not manyC.O.D.
splitpin
Indeed, "why is climate science different?" should not be the rhetorical question Monty states. It is the right question and demands an answer. Why should climate science be allowed to deviate from the scientific method?
Simon Hopkinson
OK...I can see this 'Discussion' is going nowhere.
I'll leave you with this. Imagine the BBC had a debate about climate change and had Richard Lindzen on the 'skeptic' side and an English graduate representing the 'warmists'. How would you 'skeptics' react?
You can just imagine the hilarity at WUWT and Bishop Hill can't you....you'd all be sneering about an English graduate possibly debating with a meteorologist like Lindzen.
Odd, then when the opposite occurs!
Thanks.
Monty
Firstly great idea ..as soon as the troll drives the talk off topic we should move to a discussion thread.
"Climate scientist my arse, he is", was my instant thought as He didn't demonstrate much understanding of science at all..
Oh he's now run away
Attack, to disrupt us rather than defend his own arguments, is the normal troll MO
stewgreen
On the hiatus figures I quoted above; any comment Monty?
Thanks
GrantB
Monty made me realise I'd left one fallacy off my list.. the warmist hallmark of PROJECTION, whatever negatives they accuse us of is what they are actually doing themselves.
..... by saying things like this again and again
"(Actually, knowing the sort of people on these sort of blogs, I guess the answer is Yes!"
He appeared to be saying "you people are all dogmatic nutters, no appeal to reason will make you change your minds"
- When he says that he is of course projecting himself. It's obvious dogmatism is his flaw, and almost entirely only asked questions, rarely and selectively answering any.
stewgreen
FWIW, I have no confidence is the quality of teaching or research at British universities - e.g. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/14/richard-milne-on-the-divergence-problem.html
lapogus
Cat got your tongue Monty. C'mon, just do it, you know you want to. Put your helmet, pads and box on and face the bowling. Or at least send on a substitute while you get some treatment.
GrantB
Hi GrantB
What's the point? This post was about the BBC and balance. I've used three different examples on this thread (Higg's boson, genetics and a counter-example) and not one response (see above).
It's not my tongue that the cat has got!
Thanks.
Monty
The Bish, on the BBC censorship thread, requested discussion of other matters to be taken to this forum. So...
Elsewhere on BH I posted
Commenter Monty has appeared recently and, on the face of it, follows this pattern. Monty, if you read this, do you recognise yourself in the above? You seem to find it ludicrous that someone with a humanities degree should discuss climate matters. Some readers here are probably mildly curious about your own qualifications. Care to enlighten us? BSc UEA perhaps?