Best Blogpost From Instapundit… Ever – “SAVE THE PLANET: Eat more brie.”!

Share Button


Cheese causes global warming! But there’s good news! Some cheeses are greener than others!

Steve Zeng, a dairy researcher at Langston University, singles out feta cheese as one of the best options in terms of processing impacts and notes that chèvre, brie, and Camembert are also pretty green. Same goes for American’s top-selling cheese (mozzarella), since it doesn’t require any aging.

Lord MonCkton – The Christopher Hitchens Of Climate Skeptics?

Share Button

As many of you know, I absolutely love the provocative Brit Christopher Hitchens. He’s smart, bombastic, and has an especially acerbic sense of humor. He has absolutely no fear of calling out someone when he thinks they are wrong, cowardly,…. or stupid! Lord Monckton, whos first name is coincidently Christopher, has the same lack of fear when it comes to confronting the scientific consensus we know as climate science. Just today, he takes on Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, and blasts him for using bogus statistics and charts to exaggerate global warming during his Dopenhagen presentation (I have no love for the aforementioned Pachauri either).

There will be those who will simply dismiss Lord Monckton as a bald faced liar (who non-the-less absolve “serial” lair Al Gore of the same sins), and many will no doubt point to this post at RealClimate, issues on May 2nd of this year, as proof of malfeasance by Monckton. But hold on, is this proof of Monkton lying, or does it actually bolster the case that Monckton is more truthful than RealClimate? In the RC post, Gavin Schmidt, climate change scientist and RC author, accuses Monckton of using wrong and manipulated graphs to show that the rise of CO2 is not happening in the way that the climate models predict, which, if Monckton WAS correct would throw the projections of the models in question. Dr. Schmidt uses graphs in the post to show that Monckton is wrong and a liar. Monckton, though, seems to have proof that he is indeed correct on this matter, and the leaked CRU e-mails that, according to lazy AP journalists, show no evidence of data tampering or manipulation, prove it.  Here is video of Monckton at a recent presentation. The important part starts at about 5:50 into the vid.

Is Monckton correct, that one of the leaked e-mails affirms his contention, and shows that Dr. Schmidt is the one twisting the data? Here is the reference from the e-mail.

> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC.
This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>> Tom.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> thanks Tom,
>>>> I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post
. see:
>>>> It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
>>>> mike

Though the exact graph used by Dr. Schmidt is not specifically mentioned, this dialog in the email does appear to back Moncktons claim that the data was used in a deceptive manner to try and prove Lord Monckton wrong.

Counting the Pachauri smack-down – Lord Monckton 2, Gavin Schmidt 0.

PS. And because I am not going to pull favors for the skeptic side, where I sit, fellow skeptic Lucia, on her blog The Blackboard, does indeed also criticize Monckton for overstating the IPCC figures in another graph. Note that the Monckton graph used in Dr. Schmidt’s post is not the same one that Lucia dissects.