With all the record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather lately, Anthony Watts is reduced to published a load of vague unsubstantiated codswallop claiming climate science papers are a "scam". That and claiming that 13,000 years ago there was an even bigger glacial maximum than the last glacial maximum, which so far no-one is aware of except Anthony and his tame cartoonist called Josh. (I'm not certain that they are even aware that this is what they've claimed.)
Christopher Monckton has added to the doozies at WUWT by claiming that climate scientists are committing fraud (archived here). He wrote about a case in the UK and leaped off that in a fit of illogic to claim that public authorities have received reports of fraudulent papers by climate scientists.
Has Christopher finally come through with his multiple threats of vexatious litigation against scientists? I'd say the chance of that is between Buckley's and None.
Yep. I call woo. BS. More batshit crazy from Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton.
Christopher wrote, hinting in his conspiratorial fashion that he just knows there must be nefarious goings on in the world of climate science:
It remains to be seen whether the public authorities, as they gradually awaken to the reality that “global warming” is not a global crisis but a global scam, will follow up reports they have received of fraudulent misrepresentation by climate “scientists” in academic papers.
So far, the authorities are proving reluctant to prosecute scientific scamsters for publishing bogus results in the learned journals, because they still adhere to the misguided belief, explicitly ruled out by a change in the law of the United Kingdom some years ago, that one must be able to quantify the amount of money gained by the fraudsters or lost by their victims before one can prosecute.
Is Christopher Monckton pleading to be sued?
The article reads to me that Christopher is asking to be sued. He's made misrepresentations in scientific papers - yes, more than one - discussed here and here for example. Whether his misrepresentations constitute fraud or not is something I'll let you ponder. It could instead be argued that his public engagements were for profit, and that the way he's misrepresented science in his talks is how he scammed the public.
Christopher went further, but with no specifics, just vague unsubstantiated allegations of fraud in scientific papers, writing:
But, even where the police acknowledge that a false representation has been made in a scientific paper, and even where they also acknowledge that either the perpetrators have made money or their victims have lost money, they continue to regard academic research as somehow sacrosanct, and, in at least one case, they have ducked out of investigating a scientific fraud in a published paper on the ground that they could not quantify exactly how much the scamsters had made for themselves, or exactly how much they had cost taxpayers.
That's not only a misrepresentation, it reeks of Christopher wanting to bignote himself with all his as yet unrealised threats to sue scientists for pointing out all Christopher's misrepresentations.
Christopher makes another generalised non-specific call which I read as him wanting to criminalise scientific research, writing:
I suspect that the only way to persuade the police and prosecutors to do their duty and move against those who have made downright false claims and have wilfully misrepresented their results at taxpayers’ expense is to shame them by instituting successful private criminal proceedings against one or two of the worst offenders.
Just who are these "worst offenders"? Does Christopher count himself among them? Except in rare cases, scientists who commit fraud are found out sooner or later. There was Andrew Wakefield for example, who faked results that stoked the anti-vaxxer idiots. His fraud was discovered and he was shamed.
Not happy with making vague allegations against no-one in particular, Christopher wrote the following, which given his habit of making up stuff, I reckon he just made up to make himself look important. If he were writing about a real event it would have been public information and he'd have no reason not to give specifics. He claimed:
By chance, in an unrelated field I once had to exercise this right. A dozen ago, when some consultancy clients of mine were being bullied by a corrupt public authority, that authority made the mistake of circulating a false report to Ministers. However, I had formerly worked at 10 Downing Street, and a copy of the report reached me. I went to London and appeared before the magistrates. Thereupon, heads rolled right across Whitehall.Okay, Christopher what was the case? Why don't you tell us how you rolled heads, whose heads were rolled, what was the hearing about, and what you said that caused whoever to bring out the guillotine? Surely it's public knowledge and given your ego, you'd want to boast about it.
There's more. Christopher darkly hints at more nefarious goings on, in another unspecified claim against other unspecified people, writing:
I have been making steady progress in preparing the first of two or three index cases in which scientific “researchers” or the “universities” that shoddily provide cover for them have committed open scientific frauds. It will only be necessary to succeed in one or two of these cases and the rest of the scamsters will realize the game is up and will run for cover.
What index cases? What field of research? What universities would they be?
Codswallop. Complete and utter bollocks as the Brits would say.
Anthony Watts is in a lull. He can't find anything but "it's cold in Greenland" with which to refute climate science, so he wheels out his trusty potty peer to make puffed up claims that have not a shred of substance to them.
From InfoWars to WUWT - a promotion or a demotion?
When I first came across this (but before archiving, unfortunately), there was more to be had in the "thoughts" at WUWT. Some of the commenters were not at all impressed with Christopher touting his wares at the uber-conspiracy blog InfoWars. Those comments are no longer at WUWT, however there was some discussion about the anti-US sentiment at InfoWars which seemed to be a bigger problem for WUWT-ers than the fact that it's one of the bigger conspiracy websites around.
Here are some archived pages of Christopher resorting to InfoWars for want of any credible place to go:
This is no more credible:
There are lots more articles where Christopher Monckton has peddled his wacky conspiracy theories at InfoWars.
Who to believe (scratches head)? 375 leading scientists or a potty peer from InfoWars?
From the WUWT comments
It was nice to see comments at WUWT pointing out that the person that Christopher used as an excuse to attack science, was given the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. For the rest, apart from the missing comments complaining about, and supporting, InfoWars, there wasn't much to see except for the usual conspiratorial thinking.
September 21, 2016 at 6:50 am
It is more difficult than that.
Given the reliance placed on consensus ‘science,’ it is all but impossible to claim that loss has been sustained as a consequence of any one individual paper. A paper may recklessly set out flawed science, but if Government policy is based upon consensus, no one individual paper can be said to be the cause of Government policy and/or the loss. The innocent victim may well have sustained the same or similar loss even without the offending paper being published in view of other (similarly flawed) papers having been published by someone other than the Defendant hauled before the Court.
References and further reading
Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet - by Barry Bickmore
A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton, excellent and thorough debunking of Christopher Monckton's nonsense, by John Abraham
Pause needed in global warming optimism, new research shows - article by Dana Nuccitelli at SkepticalScience.com
The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming - article by Dana Nuccitelli at SkepticalScience.com
Climate Misinformer: Christopher Monckton - selection of wrong quotes from Christopher Monckton compiled at SkepticalScience.com
From the HotWhopper archives