All I find in Viscount Monckton's reply is a rehashing of the same lies...
Can you cite a specific example of an alleged lie so I can check it out? Having listened to Abraham's ad homimen bilge and Monckton's scholarly reply the only lies and misrepresentations I could find were those in Abraham's talk.
It seems the good Viscount screams about ad-hominem attacks.. yet is quite happy to launch them himself.
Monckton's 'Over-cooked prawn' comment was a joke - and hardly comparable to the unprovoked and libelous assault Abraham's launched on Monkton's honesty and integrity.
I fail to see your point about government funding.
Please let me explain:
Suppose that scientists found that climate change was a natural phenomenon - caused by natural sun and ocean cycles. Suppose they found recent warming was well within historical norms and of no cause for concern. What would happen to all those bureacrats working in the IPCC, DECC, EPA, CRU, MET office, carbon credits traders, climate research departments and green pressure groups? Not forgeting - the numerous climate profiteers and subsidy farmers featured in the IET magazine every month. What would happen to them all?
They'd all be out of a job - that's what. And no more all-expenses-paid jollies to climate conferences in Bali and the Maldives either.
Might this lead to a certain amount of confirmation bias
in alot of government funded climate research?
This fact is never acknowledged by 'believers in experts' like your good self and Mr Dalitz here. However, should a researcher receive any support from an oil company - you'll happily dismiss their research without regard, accusing them of being shills for 'Big Oil'.
The fact is that overwhelming government funding support is now behind alarmist climate research
- and he who pays the piper calls the tune. Therefore - it is imperative that all research data, code and methods are open and transparent - so they can be replicated and tested by sceptical auditors. Unfortunately - as confirmed by all the Climategate enquires - the ruling clique of IPCC activist scientists have repeatedly obstructed FOI requests for data and methods - and conspired to prevent sceptical research from appearing in the IPCC reports and the scientific literature.
However, I'm optimistic that nature and public opinion are turning against the alarmists - and I look forward to the day I can read some interesting engineering articles in the IET magazine without the constant parade of PR for subsidy farmers, climate profiteers and charlatans.