Dear Diary
Judith Curry gets wowed in between conference sessions:
Today I had lunch with Richard Muller and Christopher Monckton (!) Topics covered included Climategate, the IPCC, climate sensitivity, trend analysis. I was relatively passive, just taking it all in
What an amazing conversation.
Gee, I wonder if the subject of Nazis came up at all.
What’s this – Godwin’s Law plus ultra?
Who wouldn’t be wowed by that conversation?
Curry takes Monckton serious on the subject of climate sensitivity?!?!?!? The mind boggles.
I think Curry said she sat back and ‘absorbed’ it 😉
(fascination/horror? )
Actually I would now be really, really interested in the Curry,Muller converstion..!
Try this from Prof Muller.. validating most sceptics/lukewarmers
Prof Muller: “There’s real skepticism, valid skepticism about the degree of warming that’s caused by humans and at this meeting today…”
and this:
Prof Muller: “It isn’t whether there’s global warming; it’s how much there is. And how much of that is caused by humans? And there’s still a lot of uncertainty that and the skeptics are raising very good points on that issue.”
http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6691
Prof Muller seems to think sceptics didn’t think the earth had warmed at all in the WSJ article….
WSJ:Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer
someone remind him, most AGW sceptics/lukewarmers would agree with his thoughts in that later interview, and that is why we are sceptical, not the earth hasn’t warmed construct that AGW proponants believe of sceptics.. They seem to get this mixed up with (ie earth warming last 150 years or so, with sceptics saying last 10 years of so, temps have stalled a bit, scientist agreed and are discussing why this stall has happened,many theories)
See Judith Curry’s – Candid Comments from Global warming scientists
Looks like Prof Muller’s show is a triple popcorn show 😉
I think I know exactly how Judith felt…I once went to a reception attended by Lomborg and Monckton….surreal but very entertaining….:o)
If one reads the link Keith provides, one finds that Monckton publicly apologized for his remark saying, “I have written to Ross Garnaut to withdraw unreservedly and to apologise humbly. What I said about his opinions was unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike.” He has repeated this apology several times now.
Garnaut is the Australian government’s chief climate change adviser who recommended allowing an unelected body to set tax rates related to carbon.
However, if one examines the slide in KK’s link, one notices that Monckton is quoting Prof. David Shearman, an IPCC contributor, who has also co-authored a book, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, which makes the argument that democracy has failed and we must therefore move to an authoritarian form of government. Here’s a fuller version of the Shearman quote which can be found on p. 134 in Google Books:
Chapter 9 will describe in more detail how we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the dedication that Sparta used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times.
Government in the future will be based upon (or incorporate, depending on the level of breakdown of civilization) a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based upon their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for this task.
In Sparta the life of every individual belonged absolutely to the state. This is essentially a f a s c i s t point of view. This is what Shearman is recommending.
Monckton goes too far in linking climate change to N a z i s m and he has apologized for it. However, we find the climate orthodox frequently chafing against restraints of democracy and calling for something more like dictatorship — with themselves in charge, of course.
The fourth paragraph, “Chapter 9…” is part of the Shearman quote and should be italicized as well.
Errrm, Huxley, about that “unreserved” apology …
> Christopher Monckton: I see. And so let me just get this clear. You said that it’s been reported that I compared Ross Garnaut to a fascist?
>Wendy Carlisle: Correct.
>CM: I did no such thing. I suggest you listen to the tape and think again.
>WC: Why did you apologise?
>CM: I apologised because even the slightest suggestion that one of his opinions was a fascist opinion is, these days, regarded as intolerable in circles other than the particular circle to which I addressed it. And it shouldn’t have gone out from there, but somehow it did. And of course, in those circumstances the only thing to do…
>WC: So was your apology genuine?
>CM: It’s always genuine.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm
This is Sparta! 🙂
She seems to love the celebrity scene.
And your ipcc friends watch too much tv.
I went to University with Will Carling and Nasser Hussein.
Whaddya mean you don’t know who they are! 🙂
The ease with which Dr. Curry’s is ‘wowed’ time and again and too often by ‘skeptical’ fluff (“Thanks! I had not seen that!”) , is itself *wowing*.
Barry Muller attempts snark@4:
Prof Muller seems to think sceptics didn’t think the earth had warmed at all in the WSJ article”¦. ”
Prof Muller was certainly right to address the very vocal skeptics – including politicians elected to high office — who have a history of ‘doubting’ whether the climate is warming *at all* and the startling percentage of the public who even at this late date think the climate may not be warming *at all*. So deal with it.
#3 “Curry takes Monckton serious on the subject of climate sensitivity?!?!?!? The mind boggles.”
You miss the key point. Muller takes Monckton seriously enough to have lunch with him. A far cry from the days of pre-Climategate shunning.
Of course, this could just be more of Muller’s pretending-to-be-a-skeptic act.
As fascinating as a Monckton lunch at a small skeptic gathering noted in Curry’s diary might be, of orders of magnitude greater interest is this recent conference.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/conference-conversations/