Arthur Smith is annoyed
Arthur Smith has read "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" by Christopher Monckton published in the APS Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter just a couple of months ago. Should someone of your acquaintance inquire, Arthur finds 125 errors. He separates them into
Errors or fallacies in the text are categorized and denoted under the following headings:
- Errors of fact: "Wrong"
- Irrelevant conclusions and non sequiturs: "Red Herring"
- Other errors of logic: "Nonsense"
- Errors of interpretation or misunderstanding: "Confused"
- Arguments that only work for specially selected data: "Cherry Picking"
- Other arguments that have no scientific validity: "Invalid"
- Statements that contradict or conflict with other statements in the text: "Inconsistent"
Also please note that simply itemizing errors in an article doesn't prove one way or another whether the central premise of the article is wrong or not (the "fallacy fallacy"). Monckton's central question is on climate sensitivity. The magnitude of that sensitivity is a central question of climate science as a whole, and in particular centers on the sign and magnitudes of various feedbacks to temperature increase in Earth's climate system. The most recent IPCC report (AR4, Working Group 1, 2007) presented a robust collection of evidence from physical modeling, paleoclimate, and observed recent response of the climate system for their conclusions of a temperature response to CO2 doubling of between 2 and 4.5 K, with a best estimate around 3 K. The substantial collection of errors in Monckton's article renders his arguments against this IPCC conclusion quite unconvincing.
Read the comments (one can hope)