Herald, APNZ play fair

Pull straying journalist back into line

The NZ Herald has given Lord Monckton the floor to allow him to rebut the ridiculous criticisms of him by a bunch of so-called Kiwi scientists. Or perhaps it was a bunch of merely shallow scientists who were journalistically ambushed and their comments taken out of context. Who knows?

The culprit was the leftist idealogue employed by the APNZ as the “journalist” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) Kurt Bayer. I notice Bayer’s byline, which accompanied the original article, has been removed from today’s story, no doubt as part of his punishment for treating a subject with complete, premeditated disdain. His only concern was clearly the advancement of a private agenda.

Under the heading “Climate change sceptic rejects criticism as ‘hate speech'” the NZ Herald has published an APNZ response to Lord Monckton’s complaint about the APNZ’s woefully innaccurate and shamefully unbalanced article in last Tuesday’s Herald.

Today’s article says:

Lord Christopher Monckton has rejected criticism of his views about climate change as his public speaking tour of New Zealand continues.

It then goes on to quote much of Christopher’s remarkably moderately-phrased written complaint verbatim.

Well done, them.

Christopher’s well-attended presentation last night in Northcote was stunning. I look forward to more of the same in central Auckland tonight.

29 Thoughts on “Herald, APNZ play fair

  1. David on April 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm said:

    Very good. Not having the ability to comment on his words will most likely cause the usual suspects to get all upset. Still, no doubt we will soon see a rant on “how can they publish that” etc

  2. Mike Jowsey on April 5, 2013 at 2:00 pm said:

    Jolly good show, what. Very good publicity too!

  3. Manfred on April 5, 2013 at 3:33 pm said:

    Refreshing. Although, in the face of incontestable bias, where else is there to go when the drama is called?

  4. John in NZ on April 5, 2013 at 4:45 pm said:

    Well done your lordship.

    I just read the article online. Where was it in the print version? Was it hidden?

    I am looking foreward to hearing him when he speaks at Hamilton on Monday.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on April 5, 2013 at 5:03 pm said:

    >”…no doubt we will soon see a rant on “how can they publish that” etc”

    Greenpeace Cindy was sniffy and miffed by the complaint so I imagine the Herald publishing it will elicit further impugning when the realization sets in of how many “eyes” have been on it:-

    cindy April 3, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    so typical of a bully. Threaten your adversaries.


    On the subject of rants, serial warmist ranter at JoNova – Nice One – has now become known as NOise.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on April 5, 2013 at 5:27 pm said:

    I suspect Kurt Bayer will not be at all pleased by the two hotlinked insertions now appearing in his article:-

    1) Read the latest: Climate change sceptic rejects criticism as ‘hate speech’

    2) Lord Monckton has rejected the claims as ”hate speech”.


    Tends to detract from his theme a little.

  7. Huub Bakker on April 5, 2013 at 7:01 pm said:

    Although I notice that the picture of him in the latest story is captioned “British Climate Change Denier Christopher Monckton…” so they aren’t backing off that much.

  8. Gary on April 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm said:

    Suerperb speaker , Lord Monckton was also interviewed at around 0615 this morning on TV3. No doubt about it the ETS needs to be buried.

  9. But Magoo , it is the usual muck raking just attacking the messenger not the message. The reporter has obviously been fed all this from an activist of some kind. They don’t seem to be able to trip him up on facts about what he saying in his talks. They have had plenty of time to get it all together given he has been in Aussie for some time, so their mates over there could have easily passed on what to question on. They fail again.
    BTW when you have a Andrew Tait ,NIWA climate scientist saying this ( from this mornings Dom Post ) ” It’s very difficult to say ‘ Drought is coming’ You only really only see it when it’s already there” — how are we meant to take anything about AGW seriously ?

  10. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm said:

    Expert Reviewer’s Comments on the Second-Order Draft
    of the Contribution of the Climate Science Working Group
    (WG1) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013)
    of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    Memorandum by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
    Science & Public Policy Institute, Washington DC: http://www.sppinstitute.org

    General comments on the draft of WG1’s contribution to AR5

    Comment #1: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0
    To restore some link between IPCC reports and observed reality, the
    report must address – but does not at present address – the now pressing
    question why the key prediction of warming in earlier IPCC
    reports have proven to be significant exaggerations.

    Reason: The IPCC’s credibility has already been damaged by its premature adoption
    and subsequent hasty abandonment of the now-discredited “hockey-stick” graph as
    its logo; by its rewriting its Second Assessment Report after submission of the
    scientists’ final draft, to state the opposite of their finding that no discernible human
    influence on climate is detectable; by its declaration that all Himalayan ice would be
    gone in 25 years; and by its use of a dishonest statistical technique in 2007 falsely to
    suggest that the rate of global warming is accelerating. But the central damage to its
    credibility arises from the absence of anything like the warming it had predicted.

    Example: In 1990 the IPCC’s central estimate was that warming would occur at 0.3
    K/decade and that by now some 0.6 K warming would have occurred. Since then
    observations show warming has occurred at 0.14 K/decade and 0.3 K warming has
    occurred. There has been no global warming for 16 years.

    >>>>>> #2 – #104


  11. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 1:58 pm said:

    Comment #83: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-11, line 27, to page SPM-11, line 29

    To reflect uncertainties in the sign and magnitude of net temperature
    feedbacks, replace “Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range
    2 Cº to 4.5 Cº, and very likely above 1.5 Cº. The most likely value is near
    3 Cº” with “Sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration
    where temperature feedbacks are net-zero is <1.2 Cº. Some studies have
    estimated that sensitivity may be as low as 0.7 Cº, implying net-negative
    feedbacks. Other studies assuming net-positive feedbacks estimate that
    equilibrium sensitivity is 2 Cº to 4.5 Cº. Data are insufficient to
    determine either the net impact of feedbacks – the major source of
    uncertainty – or final climate sensitivity.”

    Reason: Numerous studies are finding temperature feedbacks net-negative and
    climate sensitivity low. These studies are not adequately reflected in the IPCC’s
    reports, which ought to take a more neutral and honest view of the increasing
    likelihood that climate sensitivity is nothing like as high as it has previously

  12. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm said:

    Comment #76: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-10, line 36, to page SPM-10, line 39

    To reflect the models’ limitations correctly, delete “Climate model
    simulations that include only natural forcings (volcanic eruptions and
    solar variations) can explain a substantial part of the pre-industrial
    inter-decadal temperature variability since 1400 but fail to explain more
    recent warming since 1950.”

    Reason: The offending sentence, like similar statements in previous IPCC reports, is
    an instance of the fundamental Aristotelian logical fallacy of the argumentum ad
    ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. It has no evidential value and,
    therefore, no place in a scientific document. Natural variability on its own is
    sufficient to explain all recent warming (though it is possible that some of that
    warming was anthropogenic). For instance, the central England temperature record
    shows warming at a rate equivalent to 4 K/century during the 40 years 1695-1735:
    yet the IPCC’s very low estimate of solar forcing would render so large a warming
    impossible. Models underestimate natural variability.

    Comment #77: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-10, line 36, to page SPM-10, line 39

    To restore balance, amend “It is very likely that more than half of the
    ocean warming observed since the 1970s is caused by external forcing,
    mainly due to a combination of both anthropogenic forcing and volcanic
    eruptions” to read “Insofar as the ocean may have warmed since the
    1970s, it is possible that some of the warming may have been caused by
    external forcing, such as anthropogenic and volcanic forcings.”

    Reason: Measurements are inadequate to establish the extent or magnitude of ocean
    warming: even the 3000 ARGO bathythermograph buoys do no more than the
    equivalent of taking a single temperature and salinity profile in the whole of Lake
    Superior less than once a year. Furthermore, we do not have a sufficiently long data
    series to tell us whether or at what rate the ocean is warming, and there is no analysis
    of variability the considerable direct heating of the deep ocean caused by the 6000+
    subsea volcanoes. This sentence is guesswork and should be deleted.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:07 pm said:

    Re direct deep ocean heating:-

    [65] Furthermore, geothermal heating effects were not explicitly included in our assimilation, and Fukasawa et al. [2004] suggested that geothermal heating could contribute to warming of the bottom water along the 47°N section in the North Pacific Ocean, assuming that the bottom water circulation has slowed in recent decades. A slowing of basin scale bottom water circulation, through a mechanism described by Masuda et al. [2010], also plays an important role in bottom water warming even if geothermal heating cannot be ignored in the heat balance of bottom water. However, the effect of geothermal heating might add uncertainty to the estimated deep ocean changes


  14. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:14 pm said:

    Comment #69: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-9, line 31, to page SPM-9, line 33

    To remove yet another absurd claim, delete “There is high confidence
    that the global distribution of temperature extremes is represented well
    by models. The observed warming trend of temperature extremes in the
    second half of the 20th century is well simulated.”

    Reason: Yet again there is a claim that hindsight is working well. Yet it is foresight
    that matters: and there is no admission of just how badly the models have failed to
    predict the failure of the world to warm at anything like the predicted rate. The
    central implausibility in current predictions is that, after an observed warming rate
    equivalent 1.2 K/century since 1950 and a period of 16 years without any warming at
    all, the models predict 3 K/century to 2100.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:27 pm said:

    Comment #33: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-5, line 44, to page SPM-5, line 45

    To provide historical perspective, delete the sentence “It is unequivocal
    that global mean sea level is rising as is evident from tide gauge records
    and satellite data”, and substitute “Global mean sea level has been rising
    since at least 1850, but rates of increase since 1993 may be no greater
    than those observed from 1930-1950.”

    Reason: The current draft of the highlighted paragraph on sea level does not provide
    a proper historical perspective. In the Summary for Policymakers, highlighted
    paragraphs in particular must be presented in a balanced manner. It is very far from
    clear that there has been any significant acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise as a
    result of recent anthropogenic warming.

    Example: In 2011-12, sea level actually fell.

    Comment #34: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-5, line 47, to page SPM-5, line 49

    To remove a false claim of near-certainty, delete the sentence “It is
    virtually certain that over the 20th century the mean rate of increase was
    between 1.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1, and between 2.7 and 3.7 mm yr–1 since 1993.”
    Replace it with the following: “Tide-gauges suggest that over the 2oth
    century sea level rose 1.4-2.0 mm yr–1. The apparent increase to 2.7-3.7
    mm yr–1 from 1993 may in part be an artefact of the change to satellite
    altimetry in that year.”

    Reason: Sea level is sufficiently complex that claims of “virtual certainty” for rates of
    sea-level rise are unacceptable.

    Examples: Issues such as tectonic subduction, variations in the length of the day,
    and isostatic recovery following the end of the Younger Dryas cooling event are
    among those that complicate sea-level measurement

  16. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm said:

    Comment #28: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-4, line 34, to page SPM-4, line 35

    To allow for the near-total absence of temperature sampling in the deep
    oceans, delete “It is likely that the deep ocean has warmed below 3000 m
    depth since the 1990s.”

    Reason: The frequency and steric distribution of ocean temperature sampling at
    depth is altogether inadequate to allow any conclusion to be drawn about changes in
    deep-ocean temperature. The conclusion is in any event greatly complicated by lack
    of knowledge of variability in subsea volcanic activity, which heats the deep ocean
    directly. Furthermore, given that the ocean is ~1100 times denser than the
    atmosphere, it seems implausible that over as short a period as 40 years any
    appreciable warming of the deep ocean attributable to anthropogenic warming of the
    atmosphere could have occurred.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:35 pm said:

    Comment #99: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-16, line 44, to page SPM-16, line 48

    To restore balance, delete “Global mean sea level rise will very likely
    continue beyond 2100, with ocean thermosteric sea-level rise to continue
    for centuries to millennia, unless global temperatures decline. The few
    available model results indicate global mean sea level rise by 2300 likely
    to be less than 1 m for greenhouse gas concentrations below 550 ppm
    CO2-equivalent scenario but rise as much as 1-3 m for concentrations
    above 700 ppm CO2-equivalent” and substitute “Sea level is likely to rise
    for as long as temperature rises, though the relations between radiative
    forcings, warming rates and sea-level rise are uncertain.”

    Reason: Models have consistently over-predicted warming rates based on rates of
    increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations. Therefore, they are over-predicting rates
    of sea-level rise in consequence of greenhouse-gas-driven warming. These extreme
    projections may be politically attractive and financially profitable to the IPCC, but
    they are not scientific and must be deleted.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:41 pm said:

    Comment #87: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-12, line 13, to page SPM-12, line 14

    To reflect the failure of past IPCC projections, rewrite “The global mean
    surface air temperature change for the period 2016-2035 relative to the
    reference period of 1986-2005 will likely be in the range 0.4 Cº-1.0 Cº
    (medium confidence)” to read “In 1990 the IPCC’s First Assessment
    Report projected that in the 35 years to 2025 there would be 1 Cº
    warming, at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade. Warming since 1990 has
    occurred at a rate equivalent to 0.14 Cº/decade, and this far lower rate is
    expected to continue to 2035.”

    Reason: Since there has only been 0.3 Cº warming since 1990, it is extremely
    unlikely that warming to 2035 will be anything like the 1 Cº upper bound now
    envisaged by the IPCC – an upper bound that is itself less than the central projection
    of 1 Cº by 2025 that it made in 1990. If the IPCC is to retain any credibility, it must
    be explicit about its past over-projections of global warming.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 2:46 pm said:

    Comment #74: Ch. SPM, from page SPM-10, line 28, to page SPM-10, line 30

    To remove a scientific absurdity, delete “The greenhouse gas
    contribution to the warming from 1951-2010 is in the range between 0.6
    and 1.4 Cº. This is very likely greater than the total observed warming of
    approximately 0.6 Cº over the same period.”

    Reason: The 70-year period 1925-1995, peaking in ~1960, was very nearly a solar
    Grand Maximum. If climate sensitivity were anything like as high as the models are
    instructed to assume, the warming caused by the elevated solar activity would have
    persisted for two or three decades beyond 1960. Alternatively, if the solar influence is
    as small as the models posit, and if it is not amplified significantly by cosmic rays,
    then on any view it could not have caused as much as 0.8 Cº cooling since 1951, as is
    implied here. This sentence, and the underlying sub-chapter, appear to be a
    maladroit attempt to justify continued alarm about the climate in the absence of any
    evidence of warming at anything like the rate the models had predicted. It must go.

  20. Simon on April 6, 2013 at 4:47 pm said:

    What do you expect when the interviewee storms off in a huff? He seems to be extraordinarily sensitive to people querying his assertions. You can’t go around threatening to sue every time someone criticizes you. I take it that Monkton never actually got around to suing Dr Press from the Antarctic CRC?

  21. Richard C (NZ) on April 6, 2013 at 5:17 pm said:

    Querying his [climate] assertions – or was it because of this?

    “But I wanted to ask about the trots in the trenches!”

    Was that an agreed line of questioning before the interview do you think?

  22. Magoo on April 6, 2013 at 5:36 pm said:

    Doesn’t look like they asked him anything about climate change – perhaps they were too afraid of the answers such as no warming in 16-23 yrs, no tropospheric hot spot, no positive feedback from water vapour, failed computer models, etc, etc, …

  23. I emailed Michele today asking if she’d asked him any questions about climate change and how he may have annoyed her.

    If Richard C leaves off posting every Monckton comment on the AR5 they might not overwhelm our discussion of the topic. (Thanks, Richard.)

    [This comment originally posted accidentally under the name Peter Ridley; my profound apologies. – RT]

  24. Simon on April 6, 2013 at 10:35 pm said:

    Michele’s interviews are about the personality not what they are trying to promote. I’m not surprised if there were no questions about climate change. Asking left field questions is a legitimate interviewing technique to get someone to open up about themselves. It does require some good humour by the interviewee though.

  25. Simon, I do tend to agree on this point. Monckton can be his own worst enemy sometimes. Surely he realises that Hewitson is on a fishing expedition. A simple google search for Michelle Hewitson gives a series of interviews with various “controversial” figures, some who seem to be able to deal with her a bit better

    Her interviews do seem a bit formulaic though.

    This one with Ian Wishart doesn’t seem that different to the Monckton one
    (both Wishart and Monckton are “very clever” it seems)


  26. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 10:47 am said:

    >”If Richard C leaves off posting every Monckton comment on the AR5″

    A representative sample of atmosphere, climate sensitivity, ocean and natural variability comments – not “every” comment. I put them in this post by mistake, the link was in the previous post. My apologies.

    I do think however that Monckton’s AR5 comments are of much greater import and potentially far more effectual than what happened at a NZ Herald “personality” interview in the outcome of the final assessment report and what the IPCC actually presents. It is that outcome that has the greater impact on the public than some lounge room spat. Unless these silly peripheral goings on are put in the wider context they take up more mind space than what they deserve.

    I agree with Andy that Monckton doesn’t handle off-the-cuff situations very well at times and I note Simon chose to address the Hewitson interview but he didn’t say boo about the AR5 comments in full view. He obviously prefers to keep discussion on the superficial level. There’s a link at Hot Topic to a Skeptical Science pdf “Monckton vs The Scientist’s He Cites” and Taylor’s review of the Auckland University meeting and he doesn’t come out of either looking very good (assuming Taylor was accurate). All of this though is on the periphery and seeks to turn attention away from the valid aspects of Monckton’s IPCC critique.

    Again the greater issue, rather than Moncton vs scientists or Monckton vs Hewitson or Monckton vs hecklers is that in Monckton’s AR5 SPM comments he cites some 450 papers that the IPCC do NOT cite. I could compile a lengthy list too just from going through Chapter’s 8, 10 and 12. These to my mind is the greater issues in the long run,

    This from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Monckton’s luke-warm position or the IPCC’s RF and CS methodologies. But the fascinating aspect I find is that those like Monckton acting within the IPCC framework and methodologies are showing up huge misrepresentations in the assessment drafts and it remains to be seen how the criticisms will be dealt with. Thanks to Alec Rawls (another expert reviewer with publicly assessable comments) leaking the F/SOD those that have gone through at least some of the Chapters have a head start in what to look for and how to relate the comments to the assessment.

    No-one reading and focussing solely on the Hewitson interview in regard to Monckton’s “personality” would gain a clue about all this; something Simon would be content with I’m sure.

  27. I put them in this post by mistake, the link was in the previous post. My apologies.

    No problem. I can move them to the other post if you like.

    I do think however that Monckton’s AR5 comments are of much greater import and potentially far more effectual than what happened at a NZ Herald “personality” interview in the outcome of the final assessment report and what the IPCC actually presents. It is that outcome that has the greater impact on the public than some lounge room spat. Unless these silly peripheral goings on are put in the wider context they take up more mind space than what they deserve.

    Yes, well said. I think that scientific and social arguments and influences carry more or less weight with different audiences, both have strong effects and each of them must be rebutted or denied. We must be careful when we trivialise them as “silly” that we don’t overlook their social effects on our appetite for change—for change we must have. The results of the approximately 30-year UNFCCC campaign based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide have not come solely from the scientific sphere, as you know, and nor will they be undone by science alone.

    We must resist stupidity where it could be influential.

    You mention Monckton’s AR5 comments. A summary would be invaluable. I’m sure they’d find a wide readership.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 12:10 pm said:

    Yes much of MSM is personality driven now so I suppose that has to be taken into account unfortunately.

    >”You mention Monckton’s AR5 comments. A summary would be invaluable”

    I just picked out a sample up-thread that I thought typified his critique but I don’t think diluting by synopsis would be an improvement on the original comments.

    >”I’m sure they’d find a wide readership”

    I got the link from hotlink in your ‘no easy target’ post here:-

    Monckton papers

    1. CO2 mitigation
    2. AR5 expert review
    3. Logical case against panic

    The entire pdf is an easy read so maybe ‘2. AR5 expert review’ needs to be given some more prominence somehow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation