The bonkers emanations of Prof Hugh

Professor Hugh Montgomery is much given to making wild unsubstantiated comments about the terrors of climate change so it's no surprise to see him given pride of place in the ECIU's expensively produced report on the Paris conference.

Get a load of this:

What does #ParisAgreement on climate change mean for health? See our report https://t.co/1otucJ7DZB @hugh_montgomery pic.twitter.com/OtOACZgoPw

— ECIU (@ECIU_UK) February 8, 2016

Yessiree, human life on this planet is threatened this decade.

Madman.

Update on Feb 8, 2016 by Bishop Hill

Richard Betts is too polite to say that Montgomery is "talking out of his hat":

@BarryJWoods Climate change is not the "single biggest threat to health and survival in *this* decade". See IPCC. @ECIU_UK @hugh_montgomery

— Richard Betts (@richardabetts) February 8, 2016

Comments

[dennisa]

JamesG: "Some are falling into the trap of calling it climate change rather than manmade global warming."

The use of terminology was given due consideration by the Tyndall Centre in 2004, Working Paper 58.

"The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change" Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley, September 2004

"This paper….. presents a quantitative dynamic simulation model of the social construction of a quasi-reality. By quasi-reality we mean a reality that thus far is defined by expert knowledge and is surrounded by uncertainty.

Global warming (or climate change) is, without elaboration, a much debated and contested issue. Not only is it contested among scientists, but also among all those with vested interests.

We suggest that, in the realm of the public, forces act to maintain or denounce a perceived reality which has already been constructed. That is, an issue introduced by science (or media for that matter) needs continual expression of confirmation if it is to be maintained as an issue.

Science, of course, has framed the issue of climate change/global warming.

In this paper, we explore under what conditions belief in global warming or climate change, as identified and defined by experience, science and the media, can be maintained in the public’s perception.

Science in the last few decades has popularized the issue of climate change and/or global warming. The issue itself has the potential of significant ramification not only in the expression of weather events but also in changes in socio-economic policy concerning either or both of adaptation and mitigation strategies.

As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?

To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.

[stewgreen]

'Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen'
is a misquote or unsubstantiated
"If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster."
..is actually what John Houghton said in The Sunday Telegraph

Context : the shout of 'skeptics misquote' came up in 2010 , yet the quotes we are talking about were from way back ie 1994 here

[chris moffatt]

I am so confident that in 10,000 years the next ice age will have most of the upper N.Hemisphere under 2 kilometres of ice (including Oregon State's campus) that I will bet each of the 22 climate researchers that that will be the case. Just let me know where I can collect my winnings

[stewgreen]

The other quote is dealt with here WUWT

[Phil Clarke]

Quite. Announcing a disaster is very different from having a disaster.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent. "It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Pasted from <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html>

And getting rid of something is not the same as getting rid of misuse of myths about the something

 I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.

Pasted from <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/>

Shame about WHTGRITMWP, it would have a made a good slogan, maybe enough to weave a whole book around, but it's just hearsay. I guess one could do a comedy paraphrase ;-)

[michael hart]

Phil Clarke, as the commenters at WUWT reasonably ask, was he referring to a "supposed warm period" or a "supposed myth" about the warm period?
And what might a "supposed myth" have been? That it was relatively warm?

Reading it, it seems transparently obvious to me what was meant. But maybe not quite as transparent as an 'ice free Arctic by 2015'.

[DaveJR]

'Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen'

Doesn't this hark back to Schneider?

"I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

"You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment."

Meanwhile, it's quite obvious that the risk of climate disasters are hyped up in order to get noticed. The lead post is a prime example.

[Phil Clarke]

Michael - Speculate away. Knock yourself out.

What he did not say was 'We have to get rid of the MWP', nor is their any credible evidence that anyone else did.

[Dung]

Feb 9, 2016 at 7:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

It was not Schneider who said it, and if you read the books that have been recommended to you, you would know that it was said in an email to a certain David Deming by Jonathon Overpeck of the University of Arizona. Richard Lindzen of MIT confirmed the above details.

[Phil Clarke]

Ah, but memory can play tricks, the alleged email has not been produced, Deming never named the source and Overpeck denies ever saying any such thing.

Is the whole book this good?

[Dung]

So you see Lindzen as being an unreliable source ^.^

[Phil Clarke]

I think when it comes to what Overpeck did or did not write, Overpeck is the expert, no? And he was clear that 'I would never have said what he’s saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying.'

Mind you, I'm not familar with how Lindzen came to his opinion; care to share?

Deming's a bit of character isn't he?

[Dung]

Feb 9, 2016 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

The information I gave you was accurate according to Richard Lindzen and Andrew Montford, and I have never heard anyone accuse either of them of dishonesty, it is a pity you do not have a similar reputation Mr Clarke.

[Phil Clarke]

Not at all; I am just interested in the source of their opinions. What is the evidence? Nullus in Verbia to coin a phrase, or as Chris Hitchens was fond of saying, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If no evidence can be produced, I will have to assume there is none.

[Dung]

If no evidence can be produced, I will have to assume there is none.

Well you can kiss goodbye to your CAGW tripe then.

[Phil Clarke]

Evidence for AGW

[Could have picked from many more]

Silliness of the CAGW neologism.

So, as the dog conveniently ate the email we only have two decade old hearsay evidence for WHTGROTMWP, and no clue at all as to who is meant to have said it. Is that a fair summary?

[Dung]

I repeat:

In the absence of the email would not Richard Lindzen and Andrew Montford be credible sources?

[Dung]

After discrediting your reference to global/Chinese CO2 emissions I made a mental note not to bother following any more of your references, my bad I did it again.
You are not worth asking the time of day Phil, this time you sent me 'evidence for AGW'.
You sent me a reference to supposed proof that the missing heat had warmed the ocean and another reference to evidence for acidification of the oceans because they were absorbing more and more CO2.
Obviously we are dealing with a major cover up here; you were never told that the oceans absorb more CO2 when it is cold and less when it is warm. Go and have a lie down Phil and decide to post your crap somewhere else.

[Phil Clarke]

Argument from authority is rarely convincing. Frank O Dwyer asserts that

I checked the Lindzen paper cited by Montford. Lindzen’s paper does say that the author was Overpeck, however the only reference he gives in support of this is the same one that Montford gives—the same paper which Montford just stated is silent about the email’s authorship. So, far being an independent witness to events, both Lindzen’s and Montford’s claims stand on the same single piece of evidence: Deming’s original piece. And far from “confirming Internet rumours”, Lindzen is simply repeating them.

Not only does this not support Montford’s statement that Lindzen “confirmed” anything, the cite Lindzen gives doesn’t support Lindzen’s own claim either. There is no mention of Overpeck at all in the cite he gives. If such a thing had occurred in an IPCC report, the likes of Montford would insinuate that it was dishonest and hype it as a scandal.

From <http://frankodwyer.com/blog/2012/02/23/review-of-the-hockey-stick-illusion-part-1/>

And Dwyer gives links to his sources so I can check. BTW Steve McIntyre says ' the identity of Deming’s correspondent remains uncertain'

From <http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/>

[Phil Clarke]

the missing heat had warmed the ocean and another reference to evidence for acidification of the oceans because they were absorbing more and more CO2.

The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 overwhelms the warming. NASA have it right, this time.

[Dung]

I assumed that you would be a highly intelligent man Mr Clarke but I was obviously wrong.
Current levels of atmospheric CO2 are close to record lows not highs. If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main element in determining how much is absorbed by the ocean then for most of the previous 4.5 billion years there will have been more CO2 absorption than there is today.

[kim]

Heh, they tried mightily to get rid of the MWP, and are still trying. It is all part of the daft urge(need) to ignore natural variability.

Phil, the tenacity of the myth(?) is because of its underlying truth. Too bad you can't control natural variability, or myths.
==================

[Phil Clarke]

But the myth was not presented as such was it?

I see the word 'scepticism' has been redefined around here.

[amoorhouse]

Misanthropy, Misteranthropy and all the little Anthropys...