Recently, formerly respected writer Matt Ridley has been making a fool of himself with absurd and scientifically unsupported commentary on climate change. Recently he wrote something for the Wall Street Journal, “Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change,” that serves as an example of this.
Professor John Abraham has also provided an item for the Wall Street Journal that addresses Ridley’s goof. As Abraham puts it, “Matt Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future (“A Reprieve From Climate Doom,” Review, Sept. 14). He also claims that the temperature rise will be beneficial. I was an expert reviewer of the report.”
Read John’s full letter to the WSJ here. In it you’ll find the link to Ridley’s piece.
Climate science denialist Christopher Monckton wrote a post at WUWT blog in which he describes the non-existent stall in global warming. At the end of the post he writes:
Meanwhile, enjoy what warmth you can get. A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.
My friend and Colleague, John Abraham of St. Thomas University (he blogs here) wrote the following letter:
Dear Mr. Monckton,
I understand that you’ve claimed Earth’s temperatures will likely decrease by 0.5 oC in two years, but most certainly by 2020. Specifically, you stated this on a website:
“Meanwhile, enjoy what warmth you can get. A math geek with a track-record of getting stuff right tells me we are in for 0.5 Cº of global cooling. It could happen in two years, but is very likely by 2020. His prediction is based on the behavior of the most obvious culprit in temperature change here on Earth – the Sun.”
Here is the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/the-200-months-of-the-pause/
I am calling your claim. I challenge you to a $1000 bet on both. Specifically,
1. I challenge you to a $1000 bet that the Earth temperature will not drop 0.5 C in two years
2. I challenge you to a second $1000 bet that the Earth temperature will not drop 0.5 C by 2020
Let’s keep stipulations as few as possible. My only requirement is that any major volcanic eruptions would make the bet void. I will let you choose the temperature dataset (NASA GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT4). Any reputable data set of land-ocean surface temperatures. I will let you choose the starting year of 2012 or 2013. Obligations to pay can be based off our word and the publicity of this challenge. If you require payment to be sent to a third party ahead of time, I will gladly oblige.
Please respond at your earliest convenience, I am anxious to finalize this agreement. Please be assured that if you decline this wager, I will make your declination public.
Can we agree to donate the money to a charity that deals with climate issues. Selected by winner of the wager.
Cheers, As Always
Dr. John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
Monckton’s public reply is as follows:
One Rabett says someone wants to take a bet with me about whether the world will cool by 0.5 K before 2020 is out. However, it was not I but another who forecast that. In an earlier posting I merely reported the forecast, which is one of a growing number that find cooling more likely than warming in the short to medium term. To make any such bet symmetrical, there would be no payout if the temperature fluctuated by less than 0.5 K in either direction by 2020 compared with today. The bedwetters would win if the temperature rose by 0.5 K; the army of light and truth would win if it fell by 0.5 K.
However, the creature seeking cheap publicity by offering the bet has, I discover, been part of an organized (and probably paid) campaign to prevent skeptics such as me from being allowed to speak at various universities around the world to which we are from time to time invited. Evidence is being gathered, since in Scotland tampering with the right of academic freedom in this characteristically furtive way, particularly with the wildly malicious claims the perpetrator and his little chums have apparently been making, would be held to constitute a grave libel.
I had hoped to sue the defalcating nitwit in the U.S for an earlier malicious attempt by him to assert that I take a skeptical line because I am paid to do so (if only …). However, the lawyers whom I consulted, after having a good look at the case, concluded that, though what this inconsequential little creep had said was unquestionably libelous, as well as displaying an exceptionally poor grasp of elementary science and even of arithmetic, I did not have title to sue because, in the US, I am counted at law as a “public figure” and the jerklet is not. If he were a public figure, I could sue him. If I were not a public figure, I could sue him. But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate.
EVIDENZ BEING GATHERED PEOPLE!!!
What a pompous lying ass. A gentleperson’s bet over a disagreement that would raise a bit of money for charity responded to by a threat of a law suit.
Let this be a warning to you, if you are a person of any kind, a journalist, a scientist, an institution, anything: Don’t approach this guy Monckton. He’ll sue you if you sneeze. HE WILL GATHER EVIDENZE!!!!
Here’s what’s funny. Look up defalcating. Here in his comment Lord (but he’s a fake lord) Christopher Monckton just called John Abraham a criminal. Explicitly. In the UK you can sue someone for that.
EVIDENZ WILL BE GATHERED!!!!
Anyway, that’s over with.
Perhaps this would be a good time to donate to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund!!! HERE