Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ – plus Hadfield’s response

UPDATE: Below is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. Comments are open. – Anthony

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Various You-Tube videos by a former “science writer” who uses a speleological pseudonym “potholer54″ sneeringly deliver a series of petty smears about artfully-distorted and often inconsequential aspects of my talks on climate change. Here, briefly, I shall answer some of his silly allegations. I noted them down rather hastily, since I am disinclined to waste much time on him, so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.

For fuller answers to these allegations, many of which he has ineptly and confusedly recycled from a serially mendacious video by some no-account non-climatologist at a fourth-rank bible college in Nowheresville, Minnesota, please see my comprehensive written reply to that video at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org. The guy couldn’t even get his elementary arithmetic right – not that the caveman mentions that fact, of course.

The allegations, with my answers, are as follows:

“Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” I did.

“Monckton says he wrote a peer-reviewed paper. He didn’t.” The editors of Physics and Society asked me to write a paper on climate sensitivity in 2008. The review editor reviewed it in the usual way and it was published in the July 2008 edition, which, like most previous editions, carried a headnote to the effect that Physics and Society published “reviewed articles”. Peer-review takes various forms. From the fact that the paper was invited, written, reviewed and then published, one supposes the journal had followed its own customary procedures. If it hadn’t, don’t blame me. Subsequent editions changed the wording of the headnote to say the journal published “non-peer-reviewed” articles, and the editors got the push. No mention of any of this by the caveman, of course.

“Monckton says the Earth is cooling. It isn’t.” At the time when I said the Earth was cooling, it had indeed been cooling since late 2001. The strong El Niño of 2010 canceled the cooling, and my recent talks and graphs have of course reflected that fact by stating instead that there has been no statistically-significant warming this millennium. The caveman made his video after the cooling had ended, but – without saying so – showed a slide from a presentation given by me while the cooling was still in effect. Was that honest of him?

“Monckton says Greenland is not melting. It is.” Well, it is now, but for 12 years from 1992-2003 inclusive, according to Johannessen et al. (2005), the mean spatially-averaged thickness of Greenland’s ice sheet increased by 5 cm (2 inches) per year, or 2 feet in total over the period. The high-altitude ice mass in central northern Greenland thickened fastest, more than matching a decline in ice thickness along the coastline. Since 2005, according to Johannessen et al. (2009), an ice mass that I calculate is equivalent to some six inches of the 2 feet of increase in Greenland’s ice thickness over the previous decade or so has gone back into the ocean, raising global sea levels by a not very terrifying 0.7 millimeters. According to the Aviso Envisat satellite, in the past eight years sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to just 2 inches per century. Not per decade: per century. If so, where has all the additional ice that the usual suspects seem to imagine has melted from Greenland gone? Two possibilities: not as much ice has melted as we are being told, or its melting has had far less impact on sea level than we are being invited to believe.

“Monckton says there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. There is.” No, I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009. The caveman, if he were capable of checking these or any data, would find this to be so. In fact, he knew this to be so, because the slide I was showing at that point in his video, taken from the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere monitoring program, shows it. Of course, the slide was only in the background of his video and was shown only for a few seconds. Since that particular talk of mine the Arctic sea ice has declined again and came close to its 2007 low in 2011. But it is arguable from the descriptions of melting Arctic ice in 1922 that there may have been less sea ice in the Arctic then than now.

“Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly. For most of that long period, global temperatures were about 7 Celsius degrees warmer than the present: yet CO2 concentration has inexorably declined throughout the period.

“Monckton says a pre-Cambrian ice-planet shows CO2 has no effect on climate. It doesn’t.” No, I cited Professor Ian Plimer, a leading geologist, as having said that the formation of dolomitic rock 750 million years ago could not have taken place unless there had been 300,000 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere: yet glaciers a mile high had come and gone twice at sea-level and at the Equator at that time. Professor Plimer had concluded that, even allowing for the fainter Sun and higher ice-albedo in those days, the equatorial glaciers could not have formed twice if the warming effect of CO2 were as great as the IPCC wants us to believe. At no point have I ever said CO2 has no effect on climate, for its effect was demonstrated by a simple but robust experiment as long ago as 1859. However, I have said, over and over again, that CO2 probably has a much smaller warming effect than the IPCC’s range of estimates. The caveman must have known that, because he says he has watched “hours and hours” of my videos. So why did he misrepresent me?

“Monckton said there had been no change in the Himalayan glaciers for 200 years. There has.” No, I cited Professor M.I. Bhat of the Indian Geological Survey, who had told me on several occasions that the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change”: indeed, it is the opposite, for advance and retreat are both changes. Why did the caveman misrepresent me?

“Monckton says only one Himalayan glacier has been retreating. Many have.” No, I mentioned the Gangotri and Ronggbuk glaciers as being notable examples of glacial retreat in the Himalayas caused by geological instability in the region. To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating. Why did the caveman misrepresent me? It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that permeates the caveman’s cheesy videos. He has not the slightest intention of being accurate or fair. If he had, he would surely have mentioned that the IPCC tried for months to pretend that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035. The IPCC’s own “peer-reviewers” had said the figure should be “2350”, not “2035”, but the lead author of the chapter in question had left in the wrong figure, knowing it to be unverified, because, as he later publicly admitted, he wanted to influence governments.

The caveman says I misquoted the lead author who had left in the erroneous date for the extinction of the Himalayan glaciers, but here is what that author actually said in an interview with the Daily Mail: “We thought that if we can highlight it [the erroneous date], it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” For good measure, he said I had misquoted Sir John Houghton, the IPCC’s first science chairman, who had said that unless we announced disasters no one would listen.

Sir John, too, tried to maintain that I had misquoted him, and even menaced me with a libel suit, until I told him I had a copy of the cutting from the London Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995, in which he had said, “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster”, and that I also had a copy of an article in the Manchester Guardian of July 28, 2003, in which Sir John had luridly ascribed numerous specific natural disasters to “global warming”, which he described as “a weapon of mass destruction” that was “at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism”. Perhaps the caveman didn’t know any of this, but here’s the thing: I do not recall that he has ever bothered to check any of his “facts” with me (though, if he had, I wouldn’t have known because he lurks behind a pseudonym and, even though I am told he has revealed his identity I have no time to keep track of the pseudonyms of people who lack the courage and decency to publish under their own names).

“Monckton says Dr. Pinker found that a loss of cloud cover had caused recent warming. She disagreed.” No, I drew the conclusion from Dr. Pinker’s paper, and from several others, that cloud cover does not remain constant, but waxes and wanes broadly in step with the cooling and warming phases respectively of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I did not misrepresent Dr. Pinker’s paper in any way: I merely used it as a source for my own calculations, which I presented at the annual seminar on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists in 2010, where they were well received. Less cloud cover, particularly in the tropics, naturally warms the Earth: the point is surely uncontroversial. If one removes the influence of this natural warming phase from the record since 1976, it is reasonable to deduce that climate sensitivity based on that period is much lower than the IPCC thinks. Strictly speaking, one should study temperature trends in multiples of 60 years, so as to ensure that the warming and cooling phases of the PDO cancel one another out.

Frankly, that’s quite enough of these dull allegations. There are others, but they are all as half-baked and dishonest as these and it would be tedious to deal with each one. You get the drift: the caveman is a zealot and we need not ask who paid him to watch “hours and hours” of my YouTube videos to realize from these examples that his videos are unreliable. More importantly, it would interfere with my research: I hope shortly to be in a position to demonstrate formally that climate sensitivity is unarguably little more than one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. My objective is to reach the truth, not to distort it or misrepresent it as the caveman has done.

He concludes by challenging his small band of followers to check the scientific literature for themselves to establish that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is “largely responsible”. Of course the Earth has been warming since 1750: I have at no point denied it, though that is the implication of the caveman’s statement.

And of course there are scientists who say CO2 is “largely responsible” for the warming: that is the principal conclusion of the IPCC’s 2007 report, reached on the basis of a fraudulent statistical abuse: comparison of the slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines on the global-temperature dataset falsely to suggest that “global warming” is accelerating and that it is our fault. Not that one has ever heard the caveman utter a word of condemnation of the IPCC’s too-often fictional “science”. But it is also reasonable to mention the growing band of scientists who say CO2 may not be “largely responsible” but only partly responsible for the warming since 1950. Would it not have been fairer if the caveman had pointed that out?

Climate skeptics have come under intensive attack from various quarters, and the attacks have too often been as unpleasantly dishonest as those of the caveman. Also, there is evidence that someone has been spending a lot of money on trying malevolently to discredit those who dare to ask any questions at all about the party line on climate.

For instance, after a speech by me in in the US in October 2009 went viral and received a million YouTube hits in a week (possibly the fastest YouTube platinum ever for a speech), a Texan professor who monitors the seamier side of the internet got in touch to tell me that someone had paid the operators of various search engines a sum that he estimated at not less than $250,000 to enhance the page rankings of some two dozen specially-created web-pages containing meaningless jumbles of symbols among which the word “Monckton video” appeared.

These nonsense pages would not normally have attracted any hits at all, and the search engines would normally have ranked them well below the video that had gone platinum. The intention of this elaborate and expensive artifice, as the professor explained, was to ensure that anyone looking for the real video would instead find page after page of junk and simply give up. The viral chain was duly broken, but so many websites carried the video that more than 5 million people ended up seeing it, so the dishonestly-spent $250,000 was wasted.

At one level, of course, all of this attention is an unintended compliment. But no amount of sneering or smearing will alter two salient facts: the Earth has not been warming at anything like the predicted rate and is not now at all likely to do so; and, in any event, even if the climate-extremists’ predictions were right, it would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective to wait and adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences of manmade “global warming” than it would be to tax, trade, regulate, reduce, or replace CO2 today.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

==========================================================

Note: for anyone who wishes to see what this is about, you can see “potholer54” aka Peter Hadfield on Monckton at YouTube here  – Anthony

UPDATE: Here is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. – Anthony

Response from Peter Hadfield:

In January, Christopher Monckton criticized me on WUWT after I made a series of videos exposing errors in most of his claims. I have asked Anthony Watts for the opportunity to respond in kind, so that we can put Mr. Monckton’s verbatim assertions up against the documentary evidence he cites.

At first I was puzzled as to what Mr. Monckton was responding to in his WUWT guest-post, because he failed to address any of the rebuttals or the evidence I showed in my five videos. Then I realized he must have watched only the last video in the series, including a light-hearted 30-second ‘mistake count’. So in this response I am going to deal with what Mr. Monckton actually said, as shown and rebutted in my videos, rather than what he thinks I think he said, and what he thinks I rebutted.

Mr. Monckton doesn’t claim to be an expert, and neither do I. All I can do is to check and verify his claims. So the question is whether Mr. Monckton has reported the sources he cites accurately in order to reach his conclusions. I have made it very easy for you to check by playing clips of Mr. Monckton making these assertions in my videos, then showing images of the documentary evidence he cites. Since this response is text I will write out Mr. Monckton’s assertions verbatim and quote the documentary sources verbatim (with references in the body of the text.)  References to the relevant video (linked at the bottom) and the time on the video where they are shown, will be shown in square brackets.

ON THE COOLING EARTH:
Since Mr. Monckton failed to address the evidence, but implies I was duplicitous in my timing, let’s see what my video actually showed. In a speech given in Melbourne in February 2009, Mr. Monckton said: “We’ve had nine years of a global cooling trend since the first of January 2001” [Ref 1 - 4:06] –  and St. Paul in October 2009: “There has been global cooling for the last eight or nine years” [ibid.].

So in my video, the period Mr. Monckton was talking about was clearly identified in his own words, as well as in the graphs he showed, and I showed the dates the speeches were made, and the studies I cited covered the same period.
["Waiting for Global Cooling" - R. Fawcett and D. Jones, National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, April 2008]
["Statisticians reject global cooling" -- Associated Press 10/26/2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/]

ON THE MELTING OF GREENLAND:
Again, let’s deal with what Mr. Monckton actually said, which is what I rebutted. In a speech in St. Paul in 2009, Mr. Monckton cited a paper by Ola Johannessen, and told the audience: “What he found was that between 1992 and 2003, the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet increased by two inches a year.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM 11:40)

No, he found no such thing. Johannessen said he only measured the interior of Greenland above 1,500 metres [1 – 11:59] In fact, he specifically warns that the very conclusion Mr Monckton reaches cannot be made: “We cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes… for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely…. ” ["Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland" Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005]

ON THE LOSS OF ARCTIC ICE:
Mr. Monckton claimed there is no long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic, and I rebutted this with studies showing a decline in Arctic summer sea-ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1979. [1 – 8:20 onwards]

Mr. Monckton’s response: “I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009.”

So, as I said, he did not tell his audience there had been a 30-year decline. Quite the opposite – he said there was no long-term decline. Mr. Monckton showed his audience a slide covering just three years, referring to the 2007 low as a “temporary loss of sea ice” which had recovered by 2009. Then he told them: “So we’re not looking at a sort of long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic.”  [1 – 8:27]

ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SINCE THE CAMBRIAN:

Mr. Monckton’s conclusion about a lack of correlation rests entirely on a graph showing CO2 concentration and temperature over the last 500 million years [3 – 0:04]. The graph uses temperature data from Scotese and CO2 data from Berner. Neither researcher supports Mr. Monckton’s ‘no correlation’ conclusion. On the contrary, Berner writes: “Over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the greenhouse effect.” ["Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time" -- R. Berner and Z. Kothavala, American Journal of Science, Feb 2001]

How so? Because paleoclimatologists have to factor in solar output, which has been getting stronger over time [3 – 4:45]. If the rising curve of solar output is compared to global temperatures over the phanerozoic (500 million years) there is a similar lack of correlation. But it would be absurd to draw the conclusion that the sun therefore has no effect on climate.

So when gradually rising solar output is taken into account there is a very clear correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, and the source of Mr. Monckton’s data points that out. So does another senior researcher in the field ["CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate" -- D. Royer et al, GSA Today, March 2004].

ON THE PRE-CAMBRIAN ICE PLANET:
Again, let’s look at what I showed in my video, which was a clip of Mr. Monckton himself, speaking in a debate:

“750 million years ago, a mile of ice at the equator, ice planet all round, therefore at the surface 300,000 ppm of CO2. Will you tell me how that much CO2 could have been in the atmosphere and yet allowed that amount of ice at the equator?” [3 – 5:17]

Since Mr. Monckton thinks this is a puzzle for climatologists, let’s go through the well-understood explanation step by step.

Mr. Monckton agrees with the experts that the frozen planet was due to very weak solar output (about 8% less than today.) And he agrees that the high albedo (reflectivity) of this white surface would have reflected most of what little solar warmth the Earth did receive.

But he doesn’t seem to accept that volcanoes would have continued releasing CO2 into the atmosphere of this frozen planet over millions of years, and that this eventually warmed the planet enough to unfreeze it ["CO2 levels required for deglaciation of a 'near-snowball' Earth" T. Crowley et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2001]. He cites no peer-reviewed research showing why paleoclimatologists are wrong. (No, the opinion of “a leading geologist” is not the same thing.)

ON HIMALAYAN GLACIERS:
Mr. Monckton writes in his WUWT response:  “the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change””

Then let’s look at what Mr. Monckton actually said to his audience in St. Paul:

“The glaciers are showing no particular change in 200 years. The only glacier that’s declined a little is Gangoltri.” [3 - 10:20]

So is it a pattern of advance and retreat? Or no particular change? Or only one glacier retreating? Which?

In his WUWT resp  onse, Mr. Monckton went  on to say: “To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating.”

But you DID say it, Mr. Monckton. Here it is again: “Only one of them [Himalayan glaciers] is retreating a little and that’s Gangoltri.”

ON MISQUOTING MURARI LAL:
Speaking about Murari Lal, the man behind the IPCC’s 2035 disappearing glaciers fiasco, Mr. Monckton told his audience there was: “….an admission that he [Lal] knew that figure was wrong but had left it in anyway because he knew that the IPCC wanted to influence governments and politicians.”[4 - 3:50]

This is not even borne out by Monckton’s own source, cited in his response, which is a quote from Lal in the Daily Mail about the 2035 date: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” Nowhere does Lal say he knew the figure was erroneous.

MISQUOTING SIR JOHN HOUGHTON:
Mr. Monckton claims Houghton wrote this in the Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995:  “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.” [4 - 5:50]

And I maintain Houghton wrote:  “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.”

Who is right? Well, both Mr. Monckton and I have exactly the same source [Sunday Telegraph, September 10, 1995],  but I actually show an image of it in my video [4 - 7:24]. Take a look. Even though it turns out my quote is correct and Mr. Monckton’s is clearly a gross misquote, he still insists in his WUWT response that he got the quote right.

ON HIS CLAIMS ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE SUN…
Mr. Monckton showed and quoted an extract from a paper by Sami Solanki: “The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episodoes on to come.” [5 - 1:21 onwards]

That could suggest the sun is a likely culprit for recent warming. But why didn’t Mr. Monckton tell or show his audience what Solanki wrote in the very next line?

“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.” ["Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years" -- S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004]

ON THE ROLE OF THE SUN IN RECENT WARMING:
Mr. Monckton said: “The solar physicists – you might take Scafetta and West, say, in 2008, they attribute 69% of all the recent global warming to the sun.” [5 – 3:48]
No, they don’t. In my video [5 - 4:32] I showed the actual document Mr. Monckton refers to (an opinion piece) where Scafetta and West wrote: “We estimate that the sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in the Earth’s average temperature.” ["Is climate sensitive to solar variability?" Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, Physics Today March 2008]
I hope we all understand the difference between “69%” and “as much as 69%.” But what about all those other “solar physicists” who purportedly support Monckton’s position? Well, they don’t. Solanki’s figure is up to just 30%, Erlykin less than 14%, Bernstad 7%, Lean ‘negligable’and Lockwood –1.3% [5 -- 4:40]
[4:41 "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"-- S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Journal of Geophysical Research, May 2003]
[“Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature”
A.D. Erlykin et al, Physics Geo 2009]
["Solar trends and global warming" -- R. Benestad and G. Schmidt, Journal of Geophysical Research” July 2009]
["How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006" J. Lean and D. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, Sep 2008]
["Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise" -- M. Lockwood, June 2008]

Mr. Monckton then asserts that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) agrees with this conclusion  (that the sun is largely responsible for recent warming.)  After he had been confronted during a TV interview with the plain fact that it didn’t [5 - 5:49 "Meet the Climate Sceptics" BBC TV Feb 2011], Monckton gave a reason for the error in his WUWT response:

“I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr. Abdussamatov’s name.”
Maybe so. But that doesn’t explain why Mr. Monckton continued to make exactly the same claim elsewhere. At St. Paul he said:

“Most solar physicists agree [that the sun is largely responsible for recent warming]. The International Astronomical Union in 2004 had a symposium on it, they concluded that that was the case.” [Monckton rebuttal – WUWT 16:27]
And in his film ‘Apocalypse No!’ a slide headed ‘International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004’ was shown to an audience, along with its main conclusions. Third on the list, Monckton read: “The sun caused today’s global warming.”

Monckton  told the audience: “This is not my conclusion, this is the conclusion of the International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004. This is what they said, this is not me talking here.” [Monckton rebuttal – WUWT 16:34]

Mr. Monckton has to accept that this claim is completely spurious. This is why he dislikes detailed examinations of his sources. While he takes every opportunity to debate on stage, where his speaking skills are essential and his assertions can’t be checked, an online debate is far tougher, because every paper and fact CAN be checked. So come on, Mr. Monckton, let’s debate this on WUWT to see which of us has correctly read your sources.

The rebuttals I made are not “inconsequential aspects of my talks” as Mr. Monckton claims; they include almost every major topic he covers, from the melting of Arctic and glacial ice, to the role of the sun and the correlation between CO2 and temperature. His only recourse in his WUWT response was therefore to call me names, attack my character and my competence, and question my financing and my motivation… anything but answer the documentary evidence I presented. And then he adds one more error — a ridiculous claim that I asked my “small band of followers” to “check the scientific literature for themselves to establish that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is “largely responsible.”

Since I can’t establish that myself, I certainly wouldn’t advise other amateurs to have a go. So I ask Mr. Monckton to cite the source for this claim, sure in the knowledge that once again we will see a yawning gap between what the source actually says (in this case, me) and what Mr. Monckton claims it says.

References: (Hadfield’s own videos)
1 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
2 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
3 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
4 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
5 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

881 Responses to Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ – plus Hadfield’s response

  1. trbixler says:

    Christopher
    Funny how “potholer” has not taken the time to go after Mann and YAD061. Funny how he has not gone into Mann’s splicing techniques Funny no mention of GISS adjustments. No mention of CRU’s dog eating the data under Jones direction. Just a no fact attack on you via YouTube, He seems to pine for the limelight.

    Thank You for all of your efforts.

    Terry

  2. nofreewind says:

    Regarding Greenland melting. Rutgers U seems to think it is turning white.
    http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/10/rutgers-university-greenland-snow-cover-expanding-since-1967-turning-white/

  3. newtlove says:

    Lord Monckton,
    I realize that you’re a Peer, or a Blue-Blood line Royal, but you are a bona fide Lord.

    So, how many peers does The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley have, and could they muster a decent peer review for a science mag? I don’t want to spark class envy or class warfare in the scientific ranks, but few have enough standing to hold your coat tails.

    As a tough-as-nuts US DoD scientist specializing in Modeling, Simulation, & Analysis, and also a (former active duty) US Marine, I salute you! You are a valiant warrior!

  4. newtlove says:

    Oops! I meant “not a Peer, or a Blue-Blood Royal” My lost word throws the whole post out of whack!

  5. R. Gates says:

    Lord Monckton said:

    ” I hope shortly to be in a position to demonstrate formally that climate sensitivity is unarguably little more than one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate.”

    ______
    I shall very much enjoy reading or watching your demonstation of this. Especially, I will be interested in how you can conclude that transient sensitivity is “nearly equal” to equilibrium sensitivity, and hope that you show all your various research into the various potential long term earth systems that will affect eventual equalibrium sensitivity. As we don’t yet even know (and likely won’t, as CO2 levels continue to climb as several ppm per year) what the equalibrium sensitivity is to 390 ppm, we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2. Certainly there no simple scaling factor that you can plug into a formula that will let you know what a final equalibrium sensitivity is as the respsonse to each little nudge that we give the atmosphere is non-linear, and likely to be, much like the entrance to and exit from the Younger Dryas, a jump to a new state.

    At any rate, I shall look forward greatly to your paper on sensitivity, and hope greatly that you are not simply talking about transient sensitivity, as it not the most important part of the issue.

  6. Ralph says:

    The potholer-caveman would not be called ‘A Physicist’ would he? Sounds like the same level of expertise to me….

  7. DirkH says:

    It’s a propaganda war, probably financed by Big Green.

    German subsidized wind energy broke a record in electricity production in NOV/DEC 2011, nearly toppling the Czech grid over as we were swamping them with the surplus production. A lot of vested interests.(*)

    Warmism is a billion dollar business due to the renewables subsidies; and they will keep fighting tooth and nail against anyone who threatens their revenue.

    (*) German pro-wind power article celebrating it:
    http://www.feelgreen.de/stuermische-tage-rekord-fuer-die-windenergie/id_52945244/index
    Lubos with the Czech perspective:
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/canada-greece-iran-germany.html#more

  8. perlcat says:

    Lord Monckton, you don’t suffer fools gladly, and it is a pleasure to watch you open the can of logic whoop-ass on the caveman. I’d say you nuked him back to the stone age, but I believe that was his starting point.

  9. Why do I find potholer so hard to listen to?

  10. JeffT says:

    Just brilliant (as usual) Lord Christopher,
    There are two visuals that spring to mind, that throws mud in the eyes of the warmistas when the melting of Greenland is brought up:-
    Glacier Girl, a P38 ditched in 1942, buried under 25 storeys of ice in Greenland
    http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
    DEW line stations buried under ice in Greenland (Watts Up With That)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/
    Jeff

  11. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Only $250,000 to silence Lord Monckton! seems much too small an amount. Cheap skates will have to try harder. 8-) pg

  12. RockyRoad says:

    R. Gates says:
    January 11, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    … As we don’t yet even know (and likely won’t, as CO2 levels continue to climb as several ppm per year) what the equalibrium sensitivity is to 390 ppm, we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2. Certainly there no simple scaling factor that you can plug into a formula that will let you know what a final equalibrium sensitivity is as the respsonse to each little nudge that we give the atmosphere is non-linear, and likely to be, much like the entrance to and exit from the Younger Dryas, a jump to a new state.

    So R., you’re telling us NONE of your sacred models attempt this? I can’t believe it!
    (Note: if they do not, then those models are worthless, are they not?)

  13. James Sexton says:

    Christopher, well done as usual. Of course, most of this has already been rebutted. Potheader was never taken seriously, at least by rational people.

    Now, I’ve come up with something which may interest you and the people here. Using Colorado University’s technique, to wit, integrating various scientifically derived datum, to give us sea level rise, We can see it manifested here….. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_global.png, I’ve devised a true decadal temp signal using the same methodology. We can see it here….. http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/image_thumb11.png?w=574&h=420 My goodness! There must have been a shift of some sort and now the earth’s temps is inversely correlated to atmospheric CO2!!!!!

    Seriously though, if the ice in Greenland is melting as they claim, then [that] water went somewhere. I believe many of us have been looking in the wrong place for the answers. Now, I’ve heard that some scientists have posited that the extra water manifested itself as rainfall, but only on terra firma and that we’ll see the sea level rise later. I don’t believe this to be the case. I think the atmosphere holds a variable amount of water. And I believe it is held in different forms in the atmosphere. Sadly, I’m at a loss as to how to proceed with the hypothesis.

  14. Mike Jonas says:

    R Gates – you say “As we don’t yet even know (and likely won’t, as CO2 levels continue to climb as several ppm per year) what the [equilibrium] sensitivity is to 390 ppm, we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2.“.

    BS. It’s given in the IPCC report.

  15. tokyoboy says:

    R. Gates says: January 11, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    “equalibrium sensitivity.”….”equalibrium sensitivity”…….”equalibrium sensitivity”….

    Even in Japan nobody around me (in chemistry/chemical engineering) writes “equalibrium” for “equilibrium”. Let me suspect that your major is far from natural science/engineering, though that doesn’t affect the quality of your comments.

    [Usually, readers try not to criticize/criticise misspelling errors.. 8<) That is, unless you want to pay the mods more .... Robt]

  16. J.H. says:

    Once again Christopher Monckton is both informative and entertaining…… He is the bane of the ecofascists. They handle the truth so poorly, that any mention of it offends them greatly. As for poor ol’ Caveman, he digs his pothole ever deeper in desperation…. Facts young fella, you need facts. No point digging past them…..;-)

  17. Robert Brown says:

    I think you may have to wait in line — it sounds like a number of studies are finally being actually accepted for publication that indicate that the data so far already suffices to exclude the extreme limit of the climate sensitivity, and at this point the only question is determining the new best upper bounds. 1/3 sounds about right, given recent WUWT publications and discussions. But that’s still just an upper bound, pending models that actually work.

    I also completely agree with your final conclusion. Even if you are wrong, and climate sensitivity is larger, doing “nothing” except continuing to support the technological development of improved e.g. solar technologies is enough to stave off almost any plausible future disaster. Solar PV technology is within a decade of break even to win a bit in favorable geographical zones already, and sheer economics will push carbon-based fuel utilization long before we hit any critical point if we do nothing but help the basic science and pilot projects along (the same way that we do many other areas of potential value in science and engineering).

    rgb

  18. Richard Graves says:

    Hi pothoer54,(who must read this blog) Please consider changing you name to mm54 (monckton’s mincemeat54) Mind 54 is an underestimate of course but we can’t get everything right can we?

  19. R. Gates says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    January 11, 2012 at 9:44 pm
    R Gates – you say “As we don’t yet even know (and likely won’t, as CO2 levels continue to climb as several ppm per year) what the [equilibrium] sensitivity is to 390 ppm, we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2.“.

    BS. It’s given in the IPCC report.
    ——–
    That was a good one…funny stuff.

  20. Anna Lemma says:

    Sneering at bible colleges is just a ….cheap, cheap shot. Ditto the reference to “Nowheresville”.

    I wish Monckton would let us know which American “bible colleges” are the sources of criticism against him. Last time I checked, such criticism has come from such secular and high-toned schools as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.

    When “Mr. Blifil” gets done sniffing into his perfumed hanky, I hope he will deign to reply.

    Methinks the learned and lordly Monckton does not understand that we colonials do not take kindly to HEREDITARY (aka genetically debilitated and socially/politically) English “nobility” pissing all over us Yanks.

    So FRACK YOU, sir! by which, of course, I mean “inject copious amounts of high-pressure water up your anus, sirrah!”

    (which is a shame, inasmuch as Monckton’s arguments “on the merits” against the AGW crowd are spot-on).

    but — next time you folks here on WUWT deal with him, remember this: he’s a snob. A solid-gold electro-magnetic English upper-class-twit snob. Genuflecting in his direction only makes him despise you more.

  21. r.murphy says:

    As a committed believer that freedom of religion, speech, conscience etc is a human right I am obligated to participate in this debate. Daily the media inundates us with a campaign of fear that the climate future, and thus the world, is doomed by human success. While pollution, gluttonous consumerism, and the incredible greed of the elite class are serious threats, the efficient use of fossil fuels possibly leaving us with a slightly warmer and more productive planet, should properly be regarded as blessings. The debate is deadly serious, if the UN are permitted to lead us to their future, humanity can only weaken and diminish. It is our duty to always fight for our childrens future.

  22. R. Gates says:

    RockyRoad says:
    January 11, 2012 at 9:36 pm
    R. Gates says:
    January 11, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    … As we don’t yet even know (and likely won’t, as CO2 levels continue to climb as several ppm per year) what the equalibrium sensitivity is to 390 ppm, we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2. Certainly there no simple scaling factor that you can plug into a formula that will let you know what a final equalibrium sensitivity is as the respsonse to each little nudge that we give the atmosphere is non-linear, and likely to be, much like the entrance to and exit from the Younger Dryas, a jump to a new state.
    So R., you’re telling us NONE of your sacred models attempt this? I can’t believe it!

    (Note: if they do not, then those models are worthless, are they not?)
    ———–
    They do not do so exceptionally well, IMO, but it doesn’t make them “worthless”– except perhaps in the minds of skeptics. Earth-system or true equilibrium sensitivity taking all slow feedbacks into account along with any potential jumps to new climate states is impossible, as even the full feedbacks of just one part- such as clouds, is so impossible complex that we may never get a handle on all the details. But the models are still useful. Personally, I think the best combination is looking at any data we can from time periods with similar CO2 levels to our own, and the comparing those finding to what the models say might exist in such time periods. By studying the paleodata, we are in essence aleady looking at the final equilibrium sensitivity to a given forcing. We may not know the exact path the climate system took to get to the equilibrium point, but if the paleodata begins to merge with what the models say, we might be capturing most of the feedbacks.

  23. Anna Lemma says:

    A minor correction: I should have said , “Genuflecting in his general direction only makes him despise you more.”

  24. a jones says:

    Anthony I am going to be fairly blunt here and if you or the Mods choose to strike this post I will not take it amiss. It’s your blog.

    Before starting I would remind you that in most jurisdictions based on English law, which includes the USA, there is a distinction between defamation, I cannot call XYZ a crook, it is against the law, but I can say XYZ is a twerp because that is mere Vulgar Abuse and is not actionable.

    So I am going to choose my words very carefully.

    It happens that I know both these persons although of course of latter years we only meet occasionally in passing in some bunfight or another in London Town. And I seldom visit London Town these days.

    Monckton is actually a very clever man, perhaps too clever for his own good. He always had a rather inflated view of his own importance.That he now goes about the world preaching his doctrine does not bother me. Did not Al Gore do it before him? And if he makes a penny or two, well that is show business.

    As for potholer 54. Do you not love that beautiful BBC accent?. And the splendidly polished manners? Not to mention his elegant nitpicking and supposed precision. The epitome of a balanced report you might say. If you belong to the BBC, or possibly the Guardian.

    Well let me tell you this boy is a **** of the very first water. A nastier piece of work you would have to go a long way to find. Forget the superb diction, the apparent courtesy, the overall air of being reasonable. There are such creatures upon the face of the earth, I imagine there have always have been, and always will be.

    It reminds me of a wonderful Punch cartoon,a humorous English magazine, some hundred years ago, At that time there was much concern amongst the upper and middle classes about what you in the USA would call the yellow press. In England it was called the gutter press.

    Anyway there is a Journalist standing in the effluvia which ran down the streets in those days saying to the passers by ‘ Another halfpenny and I’ll roll in it for yer.’

    And you think times have changed?

    Kindest Regards.

  25. James Sexton says:

    Anna Lemma says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Sneering at bible colleges is just a ….cheap, cheap shot. Ditto the reference to “Nowheresville”.
    =========================================================
    Anna, don’t get all huffy…… It was a professor Abraham, and it was a horrible misrepresentation of Christopher’s statements. It was vile, but Abraham’s video went virile in the alarmist world, and that was back when there were more than just the handful that remains. I believe the college is called St. Thomas….. at any rate, its old news, but like most of us, Christopher probably doesn’t forget unwarranted personal attacks. It was quite a time. It ended with the professor being forced to delete some of his more egregious misrepresentations. About 10 minutes worth as I recall.
    You can read about it here…… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down/

  26. Eric says:

    Must have been tough to decide whether to respond to this guy. The threshold was met, and you gave back more than you got. Nice one.

  27. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Caveman is praised at http://www.good.is/post/peter-hadfield-has-an-excellent-youtube-channel where it is claimed he is converting skeptics. “Converting”? Is Caveman building a Jonestown for the faithful to flock to?

    That is was a writer for New Scientist is one of the reasons I stopped reading it after 40 years. Absolutely unbearable warmist bilge.

    R Gates: why to you persist in tapping the keys when you have nothing to say? You apparently have learned enough to be able to say that the sensitivity is unknown, yet you hardly ever fail to promote rising CO2 as the primary driver of temperature. 40% and all that. Methinks you should seek a new audience who does not about that putative connection.

    Your own noosed petard now hangs over you: ‘several ppm per year’. That is your forecast, is it? How many is ‘several’? Let’s see what happens in the coming years. And the temperature implications? Got a figure there too, or just generalised warmist porridge?

    Monckton: as always I look forward enthusiastically to your written works. Thanks for rolling a rock across the troglodyte’s door.

  28. DirkH says:

    R. Gates says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:19 pm
    “We may not know the exact path the climate system took to get to the equilibrium point, but if the paleodata begins to merge with what the models say, we might be capturing most of the feedbacks.”

    Getting the right number for the wrong reason out of a model that you have tweaked to achieve exactly that is
    a) futile
    b) tautological
    c) something that the people inclined to do that should fund out of their own pockets.
    d) one should stop calling them scientists. Crackpots is nice, snappy, easy to remember and fits the bill perfectly.

  29. andyd says:

    Let me guess Anna, you attended a fourth-rate bible college in some nowheresville. feeling a bit touchy?

  30. DirkH says:

    DirkH says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:47 pm
    “Getting the right number for the wrong reason out of a model that you have tweaked to achieve exactly that is”

    Or to clarify further: There is an infinite number of models that will deliver you the right hindcasting.

  31. James Sexton says:

    Robert Brown says: ………….Solar PV technology is within a decade of break even to win a bit in favorable geographical zones already, …………..
    ==================================================
    lol, good one! It sure is! In thinly populated desert areas, and it will produce electricity when the need is at the lowest! Sorry, just couldn’t help myself……….. but, yes, I agree, long before atmospheric CO2 would do anything drastic, our fuels and energy will have changed to where it won’t be a problem anyway.

  32. phlogiston says:

    “Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly. For most of that long period, global temperatures were about 7 Celsius degrees warmer than the present: yet CO2 concentration has inexorably declined throughout the period.

    Perhaps the “correlation” between historic CO2 and temperature is the REALLY strong one shown in this data:

    http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png

    (Note the idiotic curve-fits – the real regression here is clearly zero except at the far left end. The problem for humanity is not too much CO2 but too little.)

  33. Glin says:

    [snip. Clean up the language. ~dbs, mod.]

  34. Col says:

    Jas Sexton …
    “Seriously though, if the ice in Greenland is melting as they claim, then [that] water went somewhere. I believe many of us have been looking in the wrong place for the answers. ”

    Ever thought about the moisture holding capacity of the (co2 induced) expanding biosphere ?
    e.g. all those peat bogs !, sahel, my garden !

  35. John Mason says:

    I see you repeat Plimer’s Neoproterozoic dolomite/CO2/mile-high glaciers connection yet again.
    a) his CO2 estimate is wayyyy too high
    b) the dolomites are cap carbonates. They lie with unconformity upon the tillites (the glacial deposits). What they record is sea-level rise following deglaciation. If you or other readers here wish to discover more, use Google Scholar and “cap carbonates” for an interesting afternoon of reading.

  36. David says:

    Anna Lemma says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    A minor correction: I should have said , “Genuflecting in his general direction only makes him despise you more.”

    Anna, I have seen no indication of his despising any group, but after reading your comment he may feel inclined to do some French Monte Python something, in your general direction.

    Cheers, and points to you Anna for dislikeing someone but still seeing the veracity of their comments.

  37. Col says:

    should be Biomass not biosphere !

  38. R. Craigen says:

    The bit about temperature and CO2 levels being correlated gave me a thought: Given that there’s an 800-year time lag and that Temperature leads CO2 timewise in this correlation — perhaps we can blame the Medieval Warming Period on the Industrial revolution!

  39. R. Craigen says:

    MODERATOR: Can you kill the above post under WISE Math, or switch the user to my name [OK, I've tied myself in knots over this one. Please just submit the comment again. -REP]

  40. zefal says:

    JeffT says:
    January 11, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Just brilliant (as usual) Lord Christopher,
    There are two visuals that spring to mind, that throws mud in the eyes of the warmistas when the melting of Greenland is brought up:-
    Glacier Girl, a P38 ditched in 1942, buried under 25 storeys of ice in Greenland
    http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
    DEW line stations buried under ice in Greenland (Watts Up With That)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/
    Jeff

    Back in 2001 I had Directv installed after not having cable for about 5 years. I gravitated towards National Geographic channel. I remember three instances where the programs (none having nothing to do with climate) as an aside would attribute some event to global warming. If someone’s ice was melting in their drink it was global warming. Slight exaggeration but only slight. This occurring only in two or three weeks of having cable again. Well then comes the documentary on the melting out of the P-38s of 250 feet of ice. As I recall they said 30 feet of snow a year for fifty years. The 30 feet a year eventually compacts into five feet of ice. Not one friggin mention of global warming! I recounted this on a news forum probably about 2 years later. Recently (last couple months) I saw someone mention the P-38 documentary on fark.com and the lack of any mention in the documentary about global warming. As we know now it’s now called climate change and what that is is anything they find advantageous to attribute to it.

    I usually stay away from NatGeo now for that reason but I was watching a documentary on the Eskimos hunting Bowhead whales. I knew at some point they would proselytize about climate change and they didn’t fail. The first mention was the obvious; ice is melting. Apparently, ice never melted before in the warming season. Second was the whales that the Eskimos rely on are doing quite well after nearly being hunted to extinction. I knew they weren’t going to leave it there less someone get the wrong impression that climate calamity wasn’t sticking its nose into their survival. They brought up something about Killer whales and Walruses migrating further north due to their climate bogeyman and are impinging on the whales’ territory. Stay Tuned!

  41. david says:

    O/T from South Africa: http://sawdis1.blogspot.com/2012/01/storm-over-weather-law.html

    Quote: “A storm is brewing over the government’s bid to severely punish those who issue severe weather warnings without official sanction.
    The proposed SA Weather Service Amendment Bill makes it illegal to issue such warnings without written permission from the weather service, and those found guilty could face fines of up to R5 million or five years’ jail.
    In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine of up to R10m or 10 years’ jail will apply.”

    Nothing in government works, and privateers such as SAWDOS are the only reliable warnings many could receive if needed. The proposed law is stupid and will kill people, how can we undermine this silliness?

    Any ideas would be appreciated.
    Back to regular programming, thanks :)

  42. Lew Skannen says:

    So who is the snob anna lemma?
    You are the one attacking someone on the basis of his social class.

    ” solid-gold electro-magnetic”

    errm … is that even possible?

  43. Roger Knights says:

    Monckton wrote:

    The IPCC’s own “peer-reviewers” had said the figure should be “2350”, not “2035”, but the lead author of the chapter in question had left in the wrong figure, knowing it to be unverified, because, as he later publicly admitted, he wanted to influence governments.

    You’re referring, as your next paragraph makes clear, to Lal. But he held a higher rank than lead author in the Asia Group; he was a co-ordinating lead author, one of four. There were many more lead authors. The lowest rank is author, aka contributing author. Donna Laframboise explains the hierarchy in chapter 4 of her book, “The Delinquent Teenager …”, at page 10, location 142.

  44. A Lovell says:

    zefal says:
    January 11, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    I, too, wait for anything and everything in most programmes on the subject to include some reference to global warming, climate change or the general evils of mankind and am seldom disappointed.

    However, on the discovery channel last Sunday (in the uk), I watched, with amazement, a programme called ‘What’s Under America’. It was enthusiastically presented by Martin Sheen, and was an unashamed celebration of the part coal, oil, steel and industrial style wheat production play(ed) in the success of America as a nation. NO mention of climate change, or even pollution. Workers in these industries were interviewed and shared their pride in bringing power, construction and food to their fellow countrymen. Astonishing stuff! I am still wondering how it got aired………….

  45. Charles.U.Farley says:

    Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
    January 11, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Why do I find potholer so hard to listen to?

    Probably because he talks out of his pothole? ;)

  46. John Brookes says:

    “Monckton says there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. There is.” No, I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009. The caveman, if he were capable of checking these or any data, would find this to be so. In fact, he knew this to be so, because the slide I was showing at that point in his video, taken from the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere monitoring program, shows it. Of course, the slide was only in the background of his video and was shown only for a few seconds. Since that particular talk of mine the Arctic sea ice has declined again and came close to its 2007 low in 2011. But it is arguable from the descriptions of melting Arctic ice in 1922 that there may have been less sea ice in the Arctic then than now.

    Why, Mr Monckton (shall I call you “trogolodyte”, in keeping with your use of “caveman”?), did you even bother making the statement about the supposed reversal of the 2007 minimum in 2008 and 2009? Didn’t you think to yourself, neanderthal, that perhaps you should wait until an actual trend emerged instead of going off half cocked about a recovery? Or did you think about it, apeman, and then decide to do it any way?

  47. Disko Troop says:

    Anna Lemma is suffering from what used to be called “inverted snobbery” in the UK. It was largely because the ill educated working classes were not allowed a sense of their own value in the nineteenth century, through oppression by the moneyed classes. As money invariably led to elevation to the peerage this inferiority complex was was transferred to those who held titles. Happily since then, education has become universal and people from all areas of life can be educated and have a sense of their own self worth. Unhappily, some people, such as Anna Lemma, never acheived any appreciation of their own value as a human being and continue to denigrate others as a substitute for their own lack of acheivement.. Shame really.

  48. In the mud, all around. Move along.

  49. Martin says:

    “Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” I did.

    In order to be believed you will need to show proof.

    “And of course there are scientists who say CO2 is “largely responsible” for the warming: that is the principal conclusion of the IPCC’s 2007 report, reached on the basis of a fraudulent statistical abuse:”

    An allegation of fraudulent practice by the IPPC.

    Prove it.

    “comparison of the slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines on the global-temperature dataset falsely to suggest that “global warming” is accelerating and that it is our fault.”

    Prove it. Show proof that the data was used falsely.

  50. Otter says:

    ‘ but Abraham’s video went virile in the alarmist world, ‘~ James Sexton

    Ohhhh, James. I don’t think they’d publish the joke that just came to mind….

  51. SteveE says:

    “For instance, after a speech by me in in the US in October 2009 went viral and received a million YouTube hits in a week (possibly the fastest YouTube platinum ever for a speech), a Texan professor who monitors the seamier side of the internet got in touch to tell me that someone had paid the operators of various search engines a sum that he estimated at not less than $250,000 to enhance the page rankings of some two dozen specially-created web-pages containing meaningless jumbles of symbols among which the word “Monckton video” appeared.”

    Is there any proof or evidence for this or is it just hearsay from one of your friends.

  52. zefal says:

    A Lovell says:
    January 12, 2012 at 1:03 am

    Just looked it up and it originally aired in the US on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. That might have had something to do with its positive disposition & being devoid of any hectoring. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z93Wh3toE1k

    I swear I’m not a cynic!

  53. Macbeth says:

    James Sexton says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:39 pm
    Anna, don’t get all huffy……
    ———————————————-
    No, she’s right, he should know better and we should expect better behaviour from a nobleman, it’s unwarranted to make a sweeping attack on bible colleges just because a moonbat is employed there. The Viscount should be aware that, those who don’t believe in God will believe anything, and if anyone is going to overturn AGW it will be evangelicals, whatever their failings.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down/ shows in particular that St Thomas even convinced Abraham to withdraw some oh his lies, so it’s doubtful even his college should be condemned.

  54. BillD says:

    I read both sides of debates about climate change in bloggs and I also read the scientific literature. Whenever a writer mentions Monctkton or Plimmer as an authority, I only continue reading if I am in the mood for a good laugh. I can’t understand anyone who find either of these people a credible source of information about climate.

  55. Macbeth says:

    Glin says:
    January 12, 2012 at 12:06 am
    Of course, you were there and you know he’s lying, you tell ‘em how it was! [These people are seriously disturbed.]

  56. ThePowerofX says:

    [Using multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  57. A Lovell says:

    zefal says:
    January 12, 2012 at 2:20 am

    Ah………….!

    Still, with Martin Sheen being a ‘robust liberal’ I’m still surprised. A baby step in the right direction perhaps?

    I have yet to watch the rest of the series.

  58. Alan Statham says:

    As expected, you misrepresent the criticisms, invent wild fantasies, and even deny that you said things which you appear saying in the videos.

    “Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” – actually, you claimed more specifically to have been Margaret Thatcher’s science policy adviser. You weren’t.

    Your search engine claim certainly never happened. It’s obviously completely made up.

    And yes, video evidence shows you saying that Arctic ice was not declining. Denying that you said that is absurd.

  59. richard verney says:

    “Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly. For most of that long period, global temperatures were about 7 Celsius degrees warmer than the present: yet CO2 concentration has inexorably declined throughout the period
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    I really question whether there is any correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in either geological time scales or recent time scales as detailed in the instrument record.

    If you have a proposition that CO2 controls temperature and as a matter of basic physics increases in CO2 levels inexorably leads to an increase in temperature (and conversely decreases in CO2 levels inexorably leads to a decrease in temperature) then when you see a stagnation of temperature notwithstanding changes in CO2 levels this suggests a lack of correlation. More significantly, should you see examples of trends which run opposite to the proposition (ie., rising CO2 levels and falling temperatures, or falling CO2 levels but rising temperatures) then alarm bells should be ringing since this is anti- correlation.

    Of course, if that happened only once or may be twice there may be valid expanations as to why observation ois not correlating with the proposition, The point is though that on each and every occassion where there is no correlation an explanation as to why the basic proposition is not correlating with observation is required.

    In the geological past, there have been many instances when CO2 levels have incresed and temperatures have remained static. Likewise where CO2 levels have fallen and temperatures have remained static. More significantly, there have been a number of occassions when CO2 levels have risen and yet temperatures have fallen and occassions where CO2 levels have fallen and yet temperatures have risen. There have been many examples of anti- correlation. Yet further still, and this is fundamnetal, even to the extent that there have been similarities in trend, it would now appear that CO2 lags temperature changes by 600 to 1000 years. To me all of this put together does not suggest correlation. Some similarities may be, coorrelation NO.

    The same can be seen in the instrument record post 1850. It is only for a short period beteen mid/late 1970s and 2000 that temperatures and CO2 have risien largely in unison. But in the instrument record as a whole, there is no correlation. There are temperature rises before any significant changes in CO2 levels took place. There is a fall in temperature between mid 1940s and 1970s despite the rapid rise in CO2 levles and of course, there is the present hiatus during the last 10 to 15 years where temperatures have largely flat lined notwithstanding increases in CO2 levels.

    I consider that a proper scrutin of both these records (and there is problems with both the geological and instrument record) suggests that there is no proper correlation. It is one of the great PR successes that the warmists have managed to get accross the message that there is correlation beween temperature and CO2 levels when a proper scruting of the record suggests that assertion is wron or at any rate seriously questionable.

  60. gnomish says:

    i used to put ants in a jar and shake them but this is much more grown up. :)

  61. JohnWho says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    January 11, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    BS. It’s given in the IPCC report.

    True dat.

  62. PhilJourdan says:

    Glin says:
    January 12, 2012 at 12:06 am

    You’re a waste of time Monckton. And about that advice you gave Margaret Thatcher – Bullshit.

    Seems someone has a lot of time to waste. Perhaps if he tried to do something productive, he would not have so much time to waste.

  63. C.M. Carmichael says:

    How does caveman explainthe story of “The Lost Squadron” a flight of aircraft that were left on the Greenland plateau in 1942, and recovered in recent years from under 268 ft of new ice? 25 stories of new ice in 60 years. This is what a receding glacier does? Sounds like the polar bear story, there were around 5000 in the 1950′s now there are 25,000 and in peril.

  64. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Lew Skannen says:
    January 12, 2012 at 12:41 am

    ” solid-gold electro-magnetic”

    errm … is that even possible?
    ——————————————————–
    Placing a conductor inside an electromagnet would dramatically reduce its effectiveness, possibly making it useless. So a loose translation would be “rich and useless”. A nice dig on par with the Bible College from Nowheresville.

    Rants are contagious.

  65. Axel says:

    There is an entire webpage devoted to the Battle between “Professor” Abraham and Lord Monckton at the Fraudulent Climate website. * Both versions of Abraham’s Adobe Presentations may be viewed together with Monckton’s responses on the same webpage.

    * You can view an Abraham’s Presentation, and pause it at the appropriate point and scroll down to read moncktons answer, or view a video rebuttal of what Abraham alleges. Then hear Abraham next point and so on. Beware the loud guitar music at the start/end of the Monckton Videos. (is that Monckton himself on the Spanish Accoustic ?).

    IMHO Abraham was prompted into giving his first assault by a third party, then when embarrassed by Monckton’s written reply, he altered his diatribe somewhat, in an attempt at mitigation, however he was soundly trounced by the video series of Monckton later on, and has not responded since, so far as I am aware. Abraham is shown to be a cantankerous and egregious egotist.

    I propose a new addition to the “Mr. Men” family.
    - “Mr. Smug” (apologies to Roger Hargreaves)
    http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/images/FacultyStaff/abrahamJohn.jpg

    * Those presentations may take a VERY LONG time to load – perhaps even 5 minutes or more

    See the webpage Monckton & Abraham from the QUICK PAGE MENU droplist at the website of “The Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science”. (Click the name “Axel” above”)……

  66. mkelly says:

    R. Gates on another thread says: “The upshot of all this, it could very well be that transient sensitivity is around 1.5C for a doubling of CO2″

    R. Gates on this thread says: ..”we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2.”

    Mr. Gates maybe you should not throw out numbers at all since you seem to be conflicted about what we know and what we “can’t possibly know”.

  67. Max Hugoson says:

    Lord M. :

    I’m performing in a Choral service this weekend, with the 75 members of the primary student choir from what could be considered a “Bible College” (although it is fully certified as a Liberal Arts school, and runs cooperative programs with the U of MN and puts out Engineers, Chemists, Math Grads, etc..) Most of the young folks there are complete “Skeptics” on the AWG.

    I tried tracking down Peter Hadfield, I found NO particular qualifications, except a “former science writer for New Science” or the like. Since I have a MINOR interest in the generic slaying of “Bible Colleges” from “Nowheresville” MN, I’d like to resolve that “association”. (I think, perhaps it is in error.” )

    If it is the University of St. Thomas, that is a Jesuit school, Catholic background. Completely,, hopelessly left/liberal. And I would not count it as a “Bible College”. And as far as “Nowheresville” goes, if you ever need heart surgery (I PRAY not, really, I admire you so!) Just remember almost all “open heart” work was developed at the University of MN, during the 1950′s, where Christian Barnard received his advanced medical training.

  68. Robbie says:

    I discussed with potholer54 many times under his videos. He is arrogant, dishonest, misrepresenting, very closed-minded and not objective at all.
    Potholer54 claims his videos are about science, but they are not. Yes, cherrypicked science. In case of the Monckton videos they are a 100% pure attack on Monckton’s personality and not about the science Monckton is presenting. He refuses to deal with the reality about CO2 sensitivity.
    Potholer54 also claims to be a science journalist, but any good journalist would quickly discover that climate science by the establishment is corrupt to the core.
    Potholer54 therefore is no better than Samuel Wilberforce.

  69. R. Craigen says:

    The bit about temperature and CO2 levels being correlated gave me a thought: Given that there’s an 800-year time lag and that Temperature leads CO2 timewise in this correlation — perhaps we can blame the Medieval Warming Period on the Industrial revolution!

  70. R. Craigen says:

    Lord M, you may not be a non-peer but you are peerless. I always enjoy your writings, whether they comprise thrust or parry — or both.

    (PS Thanks for the help REP!)

  71. _Jim says:

    SteveE says on January 12, 2012 at 2:14 am

    Is there any proof or evidence for this or is it just hearsay from one of your friends.

    If it appeared on the web, it was Google-able … have you looked?

    .

  72. Matt says:

    Dear Lord Monckton,

    I suspect you probably wish to think of yourself as a humble servant of the people, but you still ought to use your hereditary title in your byline. Our beleaguered world is in need of aristocracy, and you sir are a true aristocrat.

  73. adolfogiurfa says:

    @ Matt: Our beleaguered world is in need of aristocracy, and you sir are a true aristocrat.
    Agree!
    I always wondered what would it be the characteristic of a “noble man”, and recently found that the answer to this question is: A person who can not betray its principles and convictions.
    Have you noticed that ALL those who are behind these scams are either “useful fools” or who sell their “sold” to the “devil”?
    That is why, too, they are the chosen ones, the unconditional servants or butlers of those who undeservedly aspire to achieve “Global Governance” for optimizing and maximizing their profits, obtained not from their own work but from the efforts of others.
    So, My Lord, you should not forget the real objective of your noble efforts: To make possible the return of the traditional hierarchical and divine order and to throw out the merchants from the temple.

  74. Wendy says:

    Anna Lemma says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:09 pm
    So FRACK YOU, sir! by which, of course, I mean “inject copious amounts of high-pressure water up your anus, sirrah!”
    (which is a shame, inasmuch as Monckton’s arguments “on the merits” against the AGW crowd are spot-on).
    but — next time you folks here on WUWT deal with him, remember this: he’s a snob. A solid-gold electro-magnetic English upper-class-twit snob. Genuflecting in his direction only makes him despise you more.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    Anna….it’s not spelled FRACK, it’s spelled FRAC. My, my, wouldn’t your mother be so proud of you….such language and in public!!
    Frankly, real class shows here and it’s not on your part, Anna.

    Lord Monckton, always a pleasure to read your articles. Keep up the good work!

  75. FaceFirst says:

    I urge anyone reading this blog to check both sides of the argument and see whether this rebuttal stands the test of evidence.

  76. LarryD says:

    OK, I thought the 300,000 ppm CO2 level was too high, but 750 mya is during stage 4 of the Great Oxygenation Event, so I was mistaken. Some time during that period, CO2 would have fallen through that level as oxygen became a significant component of the atmosphere.

  77. G. Karst says:

    It is a real shame, that one must use up valuable time and resources, squashing piss-ants. I find it doesn’t really help, as the formic acid released from their crushed bodies only attracts more piss-ants.

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: Get back to work, and leave the piss-ants to us! GK

  78. SteveE says:

    _Jim says:
    January 12, 2012 at 6:38 am
    SteveE says on January 12, 2012 at 2:14 am

    Is there any proof or evidence for this or is it just hearsay from one of your friends.

    If it appeared on the web, it was Google-able … have you looked?

    ———-

    Yep, couldn’t find anything of the sort.

  79. Phil_C says:

    … it is also reasonable to mention the growing band of scientists who say CO2 may not be “largely responsible” but only partly responsible for the warming since 1950.

    Who?

  80. SteveE says:

    R. Craigen says:
    January 12, 2012 at 6:29 am
    The bit about temperature and CO2 levels being correlated gave me a thought: Given that there’s an 800-year time lag and that Temperature leads CO2 timewise in this correlation — perhaps we can blame the Medieval Warming Period on the Industrial revolution!


    When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. The difference is that the warming during the 20th century was not initiated by changes in the Earth’s orbit, but by increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

    Hope that clears things up for you!

  81. James Sexton says:

    Macbeth says:
    January 12, 2012 at 3:01 am

    James Sexton says:
    January 11, 2012 at 10:39 pm
    Anna, don’t get all huffy……
    ———————————————-
    No, she’s right, he should know better and we should expect better behaviour from a nobleman, it’s unwarranted to make a sweeping attack on bible colleges just because a moonbat is employed there. The Viscount should be aware that, those who don’t believe in God will believe anything, and if anyone is going to overturn AGW it will be evangelicals, whatever their failings.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down/ shows in particular that St Thomas even convinced Abraham to withdraw some oh his lies, so it’s doubtful even his college should be condemned.
    ==============================================================
    Mac, I view it differently. I expect better from a Bible College. As a Christian, I find it terribly disturbing that a Bible college would attack Monckton in that manner. It took the threat of legal action to prompt them into forcing Abraham to cut the 10 minutes out.

    Religious figures and universities are not above criticism, indeed, they should hold themselves to a higher standard. St. Thomas failed in that regard. It is entirely possible to disagree with people regarding climate change. What happened with Abraham was a vile attempt at character assassination. St. Thomas gave Abraham entirely too much latitude if not acting on their behest.

  82. SteveE says:

    “Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly. For most of that long period, global temperatures were about 7 Celsius degrees warmer than the present: yet CO2 concentration has inexorably declined throughout the period.

    This is simply not true Monckton, the paper that you extracted the data for CO2 from confirms the correlation in the conclusion:
    “This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.”

    This has also been confirmed by other published papers such as:
    http://www.atmosedu.com/Geol390/articles/RoyeretalCO2GSAToday'04PhanerozoicClimate.pdf

    Which state in the conclusion:
    “There is a good correlation between low levels of atmospheric CO2 and the presence of well-documented, long-lived, and aerially extensive continental glaciations.”

    Basing your temperature curve on flat lines drawn a graph with no data to back them up is simply wrong. A more accurate graph to base it on would that in figure 4 in the above paper. That shows a much better correlation, however that doesn’t fit with your agenda.

    Your statement that there is no correlation is simply wrong. This is why you have no credibility.

  83. C.M. Carmichael says:
    January 12, 2012 at 6:07 am

    How does caveman explainthe story of “The Lost Squadron” a flight of aircraft that were left on the Greenland plateau in 1942, and recovered in recent years from under 268 ft of new ice? 25 stories of new ice in 60 years.

    There is a simple explanation for that story: put something heavy on ice and if the temperature is not too low, the ice will melt under its weight. But the melting water refreezes above the heavy weight, together with new snow deposits and as the ice sheet advances slower near the bottom/sides, the weight is covered with newer layers over time. The disturbance of the ice layers would be found more downstreams…

  84. benfrommo says:

    Mac, I view it differently. I expect better from a Bible College. As a Christian, I find it terribly disturbing that a Bible college would attack Monckton in that manner.

    True believers will often be as bad as none believers if not worse. You might expect these people to be better then other people, but reality shows us the truth that no matter your faith or creed, the true believers will be worse then the non believers because they believe their faith makes them better and justifies their actions kind of like a shield. As a Christian as well, I find that religion or not means nothing when it comes to your actions and your actions speak for themselves. You should not expect people to act in any way and the only way you judge other people is not by what they SAY they are but how they conduct themselves.

    I mean, we can start by how many evil actions throughout history have been justified “in the name of God” and AGW is just another one to add to the stack.

    It is also rather tame in comparison to the murder and bloodshed of the past. So what if the catholic church demeans a few people to get the correct message about climate change?

    The Catholic Church used to burn witches to combat climate change in the middle ages so in essence it almost seems like demeaning sceptics of AGW is a step in the right direction. I have no problems with the Catholic Church in general or the Jesuits in general, but their actions speak for themselves and they conduct themselves in such a way and because they condone these actions and do not seperate themselves by casting those out who perform these actions they do condone these actions. So their actions tell us all we need to know about how they want the world to view them.

    So yes, they are just as guilty of these actions as the perpetretators and they want to be viewed as people who demean people who view the world differently then they do just like in the time of Gallileo et al, well so be it.

    Things may change, but some things will never change.

  85. JDN says:

    @Bible college lovers: I think Monckton’s comment was referencing the fact that bible colleges, as well as small colleges, tend not to have the strongest science programs. My limited experience with the grads from these schools supports this bias.

  86. juanslayton says:

    Alan Statham:
    And yes, video evidence shows you saying that Arctic ice was not declining.

    Got a link on that?

  87. Arno Arrak says:

    Lord Monckton, you would benefit from reading my paper on Arctic Warming (PDF at http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf). I prove not only that Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but examine the case for greenhouse warming in general and show that no credible observations of it exist. And this is as it should be according to the work of Ferenc Miskolczi on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere.

  88. _Jim says:

    benfrommo says on January 12, 2012 at 9:06 am

    The Catholic Church used to burn witches to combat climate change in the middle ages so …

    I think you have that backwards; It was the general pop (population) that was enamored of animal, mineral and vegetable sacrifice until The Church came along …

    .

  89. _Jim says:

    SteveE says responds on January 12, 2012 at 7:57 am :

    _Jim says: “If it appeared on the web, it was Google-able … have you looked?”

    Yep, couldn’t find anything of the sort

    Hmmm … must be due to the lack of the correct and/or necessary (and requisite) search terms.

    Google is (near) infallible. Better than The Church I am given to understand by some …

    .

  90. _Jim says:

    SteveE says on January 12, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Your statement that there is no correlation is simply wrong. This is why you have no credibility.

    Can we use that logos with Climate Science and their ‘modeled’ predictions, and the many prognosticators as well with their ‘predictions’ (or do you prefer the term ‘extrapolations’) in general?

    Many would argue that “What is ‘sauce’ for the gander is ‘sauce’ for the goose?” (also referred to an ‘the ethic of reciprocity’.)

    Maybe “not so much” by you?

    How about this story which appeared back in 2007: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 by John Stokes

    “Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm”

    A recent scientific theory called the “hydrate hypothesis” says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as “hydrates”) spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth. …

    How prescient, or non- prescient was that?

    Does John Stokes earn the same SteveE imprimatur “This is why you have no credibility.” ?

    .

  91. _Jim says:

    Mods, if you will allow a do-over for previous post …
    .

    SteveE says on January 12, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Your statement that there is no correlation is simply wrong. This is why you have no credibility.

    Can we use that logos with Climate Science and their modeled predictions, and the many prognosticators as well with their predictions (or do you prefer the term ‘extrapolations’) in general?

    Many would argue that “What is ‘sauce’ for the gander is ‘sauce’ for the goose?” (also referred to an ‘the ethic of reciprocity’.)

    Maybe “not so much” by you?

    How about this story which appeared back in 2007: Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 by John Stokes

    “Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm”

    A recent scientific theory called the “hydrate hypothesis” says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as “hydrates”) spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth. …

    How prescient, or non- prescient was that?

    Does John Stokes earn the same SteveE imprimatur “This is why you have no credibility.” ?

    .

  92. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Off topic, but in the spirit of global co-operation, I note the advertisement for European ski-ing at the top of this article.

    For any Americans frustrated at the lack of snow pack in the Rockies right now, Europe has just had a once-in-a-decade storm series which has rendered much of the French, Swiss and Austrian alps covered in so much snow they don’t know what to do with it.

    It’s low season until February, so if you can get away you won’t ever get a better time to ski europe – cold, sunny and perfect snow.

    Later in the year, seriously dangerous avalanches and floods in the spring may follow……..

  93. Duncan says:

    Blimey, troll central here today! Derailed the whole thing as usual by honing in on some minor side point.

    Mods, do you use google analytics? If you dont you should. Always interesting to see the reffering page that people come from…

  94. Bob Diaz says:

    Just for fun I did a simple search on YouTube for “potholer54″ and found his page:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=video-mustangbase
    About Me:

    I’ve been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology, but while working for a science magazine and several science programs I had to tackle a number of different fields, from quantum physics to microbiology. You’ll find a complete resume in the video “Who I Am.”


    Peter Hadfield’s name appears in the video.

    It would be interesting to hear/see a debate between Monckton & Hadfield.

  95. Brian H says:

    A Lovell says:
    January 12, 2012 at 1:03 am

    zefal says:
    January 11, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    I, too, wait for anything and everything in most programmes on the subject to include some reference to global warming, climate change or the general evils of mankind and am seldom disappointed.

    However, on the discovery channel last Sunday (in the uk), I watched, with amazement, a programme called ‘What’s Under America’. It was enthusiastically presented by Martin Sheen, and was an unashamed celebration of the part coal, oil, steel and industrial style wheat production play(ed) in the success of America as a nation. NO mention of climate change, or even pollution. Workers in these industries were interviewed and shared their pride in bringing power, construction and food to their fellow countrymen. Astonishing stuff! I am still wondering how it got aired………….

    Akshully, you got the name wrong, which lead to a search that turned up pages of garbage! It’s “What’s Beneath America?” zefal’s link above is to a 30-second trailer. Here’s the real link:
    http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/whats-beneath-america-videos
    A series of 2-3 minute clips. Some of the science is a bit iffy, but close enough for government work.

  96. Max Hugoson says:

    @Bible college lovers -

    Just for reference:

    “Bible” Colleges, Minnesota

    Bethel – Baptist background,4 year B.S. accredited, produces math, science, chemistry, etc. majors, many pre-med students. Student Body – Very conservative, not AWG oriented at all.

    Northwestern College – Originally Billy Graham/Baptist Backing. Competes with St. Olaf in terms of “conservatory” level of music training. As Bethel: 4 year Accredited, Has cooperative agreements with U of MN Eng., etc. Produces DUAL majors, music/science! NOT AWG oriented at all.

    Northwestern Bible College: Formerly 2 year “true” Bible College, for penecostal Churches. Recently expanded to 4 year school Mostly social sciences, but fully accredited. NOT AWG or “humans are a plauge on the Earth oriented” at all.

    St. Olaf: Oldest established “denominational” school in the state. Fully accredited, produces science majors, but in last 5 years has been “devoured” by the “Green Dragon” (Pity that!)

    St. Thomas: As noted in previous post: Catholic, Jesuit, and completely lefty/loonie. Helped friend through Physical Science course in 1996. Read some of her “soft” classes papers. Personal politics of said person, just left of “Attilla the Hun”. Her soft science papers? Written in a completely “looney left” style. Graduated with a 3.85 GPA. None of her instructors knew she was conservative. BUT gave me PERSONAL EXPOSURE to politics/attitude of said school. NOT generally called a “Bible College” in any form. ALSO considered “prestigious”. Yet, like St. Olaf,
    taken over by the “Green Dragon”. SO that is why I’m “concerned” about the “obscure Bible College” reference by Lord M. Distorts reality. Reality is that the most TOP NOTCH discipline and work these days comes from some of the traditional “Bible Colleges” in MN.

  97. Brian H says:

    James Sexton says:
    January 12, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Mac, I view it differently. I expect better from a Bible College. As a Christian, I find it terribly disturbing that a Bible college would attack Monckton in that manner. It took the threat of legal action to prompt them into forcing Abraham to cut the 10 minutes out.

    Religious figures and universities are not above criticism, indeed, they should hold themselves to a higher standard. St. Thomas failed in that regard. It is entirely possible to disagree with people regarding climate change. What happened with Abraham was a vile attempt at character assassination. St. Thomas gave Abraham entirely too much latitude if not acting on their behest.

    Heh. It seems both the characterization and your defensiveness are misplaced.

    Far-left JESUIT college.

    I admire and give props to Lord M., but wonder if his own family’s Catholicism caused a mental flip-flop, there!

  98. James Sexton says:

    SteveE says:
    January 12, 2012 at 8:57 am

    “Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, ………….–

    This is simply not true Monckton, ………..
    ===================================================================
    Gee Steve, take a look at the graphs offered from these two places…..

    http://accweb.itr.maryville.edu/globalwarming/Student04/geolog2.jpg
    http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/mg21228392.300/1-hyperwarming-climate-could-turn-earths-poles-green.html

  99. James Sexton says:

    @ Brian H
    I assume any secondary learning institution is “Far-left”. That still doesn’t alleviate their responsibilities towards truth. Though many conservatives would probably see this as an oxymoron.

  100. Brian H says:

    Rhys;
    Here’s the picture so far at Whistler-Blackcomb, the NA resort with the longest season:

    http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/NR/rdonlyres/0E7279AA-C84F-4FE7-9A02-8D25DEF36E62/0/weatherStatsGraph.jpg

    November was huge, December a flop, and January still in process.

  101. Brian H says:

    Let’s see if it will embed:

  102. R. Gates says:

    mkelly says:
    January 12, 2012 at 6:22 am
    R. Gates on another thread says: “The upshot of all this, it could very well be that transient sensitivity is around 1.5C for a doubling of CO2″

    R. Gates on this thread says: ..”we can’t possibly know what the equalibrium sensitivity will be to a doubling of CO2.”

    Mr. Gates maybe you should not throw out numbers at all since you seem to be conflicted about what we know and what we “can’t possibly know”.

    _____
    You do understand the difference between “transient” and “equilibrium” sensitivity, yes? And how models could potentially come fairly close to predicting transient sensitivity, assuming they got all the fast feedbacks fairly correct, and thus 1.5C transient sensivity could “very well be”, but equilibrium sensitivity is a much harder beast to crack as the slower earth system feedbacks (such as ice and biosphere), which may have a lot to do with where the equilibrium sensitivity settles, can take far longer to fully unfold, and thus the equilbrium point may not be reached for decades after the transient temperature is reached. This all gets back to my basic point that the good Lord Monckton cannot possibly know with any confidence that the transient sensitivity is “nearly equal” to the equilibrium sensitivity as we are not even sure what all the fast feedbacks are, and how much less we know what the slow feedbacks are and how they operate, and it is these slow feedbacks that shall ultimately separate the transient and the equilibrium sensitivity.

  103. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Brian H says:
    Easy!:Everybody knows the catholic church is divided in two sides: Left and Right. The left wing, the Jesuit Order, follows the “Theology of Liberation”, a concoction of the peruvian priest Gutierrez, which preaches that salvation happens by making a socialist revolution, and the “paradise” so obtained as reward it is not in heaven but here on earth. The Right, the traditional church, though has condemned the “Theology of Liberation”, surprisingly, before the conclusion of the Copenhagen summit on climate change, the pope himself said that all good christian should sign the treaty.

  104. R. Gates says:

    Crispin in Waterloo says: (to R. Gates)

    “You apparently have learned enough to be able to say that the sensitivity is unknown, yet you hardly ever fail to promote rising CO2 as the primary driver of temperature.”

    ___
    Please site the exact, precise place, that I claim that CO2 is the “primary driver” of temperature. A mixture of greenhouse gases keeps our planet warmer than it would be without them, and the mixture of them keeps the world warmer than the sum of their individual warming. (i.e. take away the non-condensing CO2 and we go back an ice planet within a few decades), such that with the two together, water vapor may contribute more, but take away CO2, and water vapor matters less. It is the combination of the two that keep us at the temperature we enjoy. The failure of some skeptics to fully understand the huge difference that combining a condensing with a non-condensing greenhouse gas is a huge vacuum of ignorance for them. But I sense, that at least for some skeptics, there is no real desire to fill that vacuum.

  105. Smokey says:

    Gates keeps throwing out that 1.5°C figure for 2xCO2. But the planet disagrees. So, which one is right, Gates or the real world?

  106. juanslayton says:

    Max Hugoson:

    Getting seriously OT here, but I guess the good Lord has opened the door….

    The Bible Institute movement started as a means for laymen to enter activities traditionally restricted to a professional clergy. My sense is that the earliest incoming students were typically adults who decided to make a career change, and who frequently had a significant secular education. I’m pretty sure this was the case right after WWII, when my dad enrolled in St. Paul Bible Institute. (He already had a BS and MS from the University of Nebraska and later earned a PhD in Psychology from the University of Arizona.)

    As time passed and the incoming class got younger and less experienced, the need for a wider general education became obvious and many of the schools moved to meet the need. St. Paul Bible Institute became St. Paul Bible College. Today it is Crown College, just outside Minneapolis.

    It’s a trend. Simpson Bible Institute was Simpson Bible College when I graduated in 1958. Today it is Simpson University in Redding, CA. Pacific Bible College merged with two other schools to form today’s Azusa Pacific University.

    So I have to agree with Anna Lemma that Lord M has taken a cheap shot. But as for getting bent out of shape and blowing smoke out of both ears, I am not so easily offended. The good lord was, after all provoked.

    I could be more offended by his scurrilous treatment of cavemen. The cavemen I am familiar with were creative artists who left a record that draws thousands of visitors to Europe every year. They also were survivors, whose descendents walk the earth today. If this guy Potholer is supposed to be a caveman, then he is an imposter. ‘Piltdown’ comes to mind….
    : > )

  107. Steve Metzler says:

    Smokey says:

    Gates keeps throwing out that 1.5°C figure for 2xCO2. But the planet disagrees. So, which one is right, Gates or the real world?

    Why don’t you tell us, Smokey? Since 2xCO2 is about 560ppm, and we’re currently around 390ppm. What do *you* know that we don’t? Are you claiming to be prescient?
    Experience dictates that you will have a snarky (yet vacuous) comeback to this. I can guarantee that all your whacko libertarian “all that matters is me. Me. ME!” fans will be listening, but the rest of us… won’t. Pfft.

  108. phlogiston says:

    Steve Metzler says:
    January 12, 2012 at 2:56 pm
    Smokey says:

    Gates keeps throwing out that 1.5°C figure for 2xCO2. But the planet disagrees. So, which one is right, Gates or the real world?

    Why don’t you tell us, Smokey? Since 2xCO2 is about 560ppm, and we’re currently around 390ppm.

    Yawn – the actual “figure” for CO2, as shown in this figure:

    http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png

    is of course zero – except at the low end when it starts killing plants.

  109. Joel Shore says:

    “Monckton says he wrote a peer-reviewed paper. He didn’t.” The editors of Physics and Society asked me to write a paper on climate sensitivity in 2008. The review editor reviewed it in the usual way and it was published in the July 2008 edition, which, like most previous editions, carried a headnote to the effect that Physics and Society published “reviewed articles”. Peer-review takes various forms. From the fact that the paper was invited, written, reviewed and then published, one supposes the journal had followed its own customary procedures. If it hadn’t, don’t blame me. Subsequent editions changed the wording of the headnote to say the journal published “non-peer-reviewed” articles, and the editors got the push. No mention of any of this by the caveman, of course.

    I’ve been a member of the APS Forum on Physics and Society for many years, and “Physics and Society” is the NEWSLETTER of our forum. Nobody that I know of other than Lord Monckton has ever referred to it as a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

    Monckton’s article may have been reviewed by the editor, but it was not a scientific review as that editor, by his own admission, was not qualified to review the scientific content of it.

    That Monckton continues to represent this as a peer-reviewed publication, despite the editors of the journal saying that it is not, shows what we are dealing with here.

  110. Steve Metzler says:

    phlogiston says:

    Yawn – the actual “figure” for CO2, as shown in this figure:
    http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
    is of course zero – except at the low end when it starts killing plants.

    Oh, yeah. Silly me. For a moment there I forgot that the physical properties of CO2, as demonstrated over the past 200 years, do not matter at WUWT. Here instead CO2 behaves, somewhat mysteriously, in the exact fashion that your ideology wants it to behave.

  111. James Sexton says:

    Steve Metzler says:
    January 12, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Smokey says:

    Gates keeps throwing out that 1.5°C figure for 2xCO2. But the planet disagrees. So, which one is right, Gates or the real world?

    Why don’t you tell us, Smokey?……………….
    ===========================================================
    I can’t speak for Smokey, nor have I ever noted his whacko libertarian “all that matters is me. Me. ME!”, but that may be because I’m a bit self-absorbed, so I wouldn’t have noticed…… (couldn’t help it.) :)

    Go here, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/if-only/ The calculations include all known variables which have occurred since we began keeping records. The answer is a high/low 1.06/0.93 or 42, whichever comes first.

  112. R. Gates says:

    Smokey says:
    January 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Gates keeps throwing out that 1.5°C figure for 2xCO2. But the planet disagrees. So, which one is right, Gates or the real world?
    _____
    Let’s be clear about this…the 1.5C figure is in the range of potentials for the transient sensitivity of global temperatures for a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels. This would include only fast feedbacks. The actual equilibrium sensitivity would differ, and would not show up for many decades after CO2 reached 560 ppm, assuming of course, the CO2 didn’t keep right on rising past 560 ppm. 3C higher for the equilibrium sensitivity is well within the range of temps we saw last time CO2 was at current levels or higher…i.e. the mid to early Pliocene, and this would take in all feedbacks, fast, slow, negative, and positive. Note: For those into Chaos theory, If there is an attractor close by that is different than the glacial/interglacial oscillation we’ve seen over the past several million years and changes in CO2 could nudge the system toward it, the mid to early Pliocene is the most likely era the Earth’s climate would have been fluctuating around that attractor.

  113. Smokey says:

    Steve Metzler,

    Is it “snarky” to point out that you cared enough to comment, while claiming not to care?☺

    OK, to correct your post, I’ll point out that Gates is the one regularly posting that 1.5°C number. You don’t like that I criticized it; I get that. Put out your own estimate if you want.

    IMHO, the planet is clearly telling us that the sensitivity is lower than 1.5°C. My oft-repeated SWAG is ≈1.0°C, ±0.5°C.

    But I could be wrong; the real number could be lower: Dr. Spencer says it’s ≈0.46°C; Drs. Idso [both pere & fils] say ≈0.37°C, and Dr. Miskolczi says 0.00°C. I think they know more about the subject than you or Gates, and certainly more than me. So I could be erring on the high side.

    Finally, why do you and other climate alarmists like to throw in a political argument? I can’t count the number of times Joel Shore has called people he disagrees with “ideologues”, “right wing”, etc. FYI, I have friends all along the political spectrum. But I don’t bring it into science discussions; I suspect you folks do, because you don’t have the science to back up your falsified conjectures and your failed predictions.

  114. Steve Metzler says:

    Smokey, hi,
    OK, I’ll bite. Given that we have managed to increase the global average temp by about .9 deg C since around 1950, according to BEST, and several other temp records… then why is 1.5 deg C out of the question, when going from 390ppm to 560ppm (since going from 280ppm (pre-industrial) to 390ppm already ‘accomplished’ *at least* .9 deg C)?

  115. Steve Metzler says:

    ‘and several other temp records’
    Sorry, that’s not what I meant to say, as BEST is obviously a re-analysis of previous land-based temp records. But you get the idea.

  116. R. Gates says:

    Smokey says:
    January 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    “IMHO, the planet is clearly telling us that the sensitivity is lower than 1.5°C. My oft-repeated SWAG is ≈1.0°C, ±0.5°C.”

    ____
    Then is seems we agree. Your SWAG for “sensitivity” is in the same range as what several model studies have found…1.5C, but you’ve not said what kind of sensitivity you are talking about…transient or equilibrium? The 1.5C estimate by scientific studies is for transient only, and those researchers are rightly proud of coming to to that with smaller and smaller uncertainty bands (justified or not). But the real stickler becomes the equilibrium sensitivity, as this is where the hidden and unknown nonlinearities really start to show up in the earth-system responses. Thus the difference between the two is likely ot be large…unless you want to simply accept Lord Monckton’s assured proclamation that they are “nearly equal”, but I’ll be curious to find out what kind of justificaiton he has for his certainty as all the earth-system feedbacks have not been worked out (and may never be because of the nonlinearities) but are the subject of much research.

  117. As usual, some replies to comments.

    First, I did not make “a sweeping attack on Bible colleges generally”, as some have suggested: I made a particular comment about a single, fourth-rank Bible college (regrettably, one of my own denomination) whose personnel have not behaved as they should have done. So I do apologize to those who thought I was having a go at Bible colleges generally. Very few such colleges, of any denomination, would have behaved with such rampant disregard for truth, arithmetic, and courtesy as the “University” of “St. Thomas” did. A libel action is slowly grinding towards the courts.

    Next, R. Gates wonders whether I understand the distinction between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Yes, of course I do: the former is sensitivity where feedbacks are net-zero or have not acted fully, and the latter is sensitivity once the climate has settled to equilibrium after a perturbation, so that all feedbacks triggered by the perturbation have acted fully. The context of R. Gates’ remark was a brief mention in my head-posting that I was close to completing a formal proof (by contradiction) that climate sensitivity is perhaps one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. R. Gates chose to condemn that proof before seeing it, which was perhaps unwise. The formal proof is proceeding well. The main argument is complete and, I think, definitive: but I am now going very carefully through the mainstream climate literature to ensure that the numerous premises which, taken together, entail the low-sensitivity conclusion are premises with which no one who trumpets “consensus” would easily be able to disagree. This process will take time, but the proof should be available for discussion here within a few weeks.

    Then Joel Shore deploys his usual malice. He seems incapable of being civil. He is not pleased that I was able to produce evidence that the paper I wrote in the July 2008 edition of Physics and Society in response to a request from the commissioning editor was peer-reviewed, in that a) the journal at the time carried a strapline to the effect that it published “reviewed articles” on scientific and technical matters; b) the review editor himself, a professor of physics, reviewed the paper in great detail and asked for the derivation of every equation (several of which were new). Mr. Shore says that what I have been calling a “journal” is a “newsletter” and that what the journal calls “reviewed articles” are not reviewed articles. He adds that the review editor was not competent to review the article. In that event, as I have said before, don’t blame me.

    “ThePowerOfX” says I have been “egregiously misquoting” people, but does not choose to provide even a single instance. The two instances I spotted in the caveman’s nauseous videos were answered in my head-posting. In both instances, the climate-extremists I had quoted had said what I had said they had said.

    Mr. Metzler, in a pointlessly angry posting, wonders whether anyone at WattsUpWithThat accepts the physical properties of CO2 that were established 200 years ago. My post explicitly mentioned, with approval, John Tyndale’s experiment of 1859, which established that the greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 contributes to it. It is really no longer possible for the climate-extremist faction to continue to maintain that the scientific debate between skeptics and alarmists is about whether CO2 causes warming. It does: get used to it. The debate is about how much warming the CO2 causes – a quantitative, not a qualitative, question. And, as I hope shortly to prove, the warming that CO2 causes is not enough to worry about, still less to spend trillions on.

  118. Smokey says:

    R. Gates says:

    “Then is seems we agree.”

    No, we only agree 25%.

    Steve Metzler says:

    “Given that we have managed to increase the global average temp by about .9 deg C since around 1950…”

    You presume that the increase is anthropogenic. However, AGW is not a hypothesis, and it is certainly not a “theory”. It is only a scientific conjecture. It may be that CO2 is responsible for a fraction of the warming over the past century and a half, but there is no testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, which supports that conjecture. In fact, the same warming trend has happened repeatedly prior to the current run-up in CO2.

    The warming that has occurred follows the same trend line since the LIA, and there is no way to separate any supposed anthropogenic ‘fingerprint’ from the natural warming. Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is in all likelihood the correct explanation, and that extraneous variables [such as CO2] should not be assumed.

    My own view is that part of the rise – a small part – is probably due to increased CO2. But on balance, the additional, mild warming is a net benefit to the biosphere. There is plenty of testable evidence showing that more CO2 results in higher agricultural productivity. And there is no evidence showing global damage or harm due to the increase in that tiny trace gas, therefore CO2 is ipso facto harmless.

    Increased CO2 is harmless and beneficial at current and projected levels. That is a testable hypothesis, which has never been falsified per the scientific method. But not for lack of trying.

  119. R. Gates says:

    Lord Monckton said,

    “R. Gates chose to condemn that proof before seeing it, which was perhaps unwise…”

    ———
    I think the word condemn is a bit strong, and would characterize my feeling toward your upcoming proof as “intrigued but highly skeptical”. You have a keen intellect which I honestly admire and have no doubt that your proof will provide considerable mental exercise on my part. But the source of my skepticism is rooted more in the current status of our general knowledge about all the slow feedbacks that even go into bringing about the equilibrium temperature. Of particular interest will be your “nearly equal” statement related to Transient and Equilibrium sensitivity, as this in particular seems most out of bounds with what we know about even rudimentary climate response to an external forcing.

  120. Dave says:

    “a Texan professor who monitors the seamier side of the internet got in touch to tell me that someone had paid the operators of various search engines a sum that he estimated at not less than $250,000 to enhance the page rankings of some two dozen specially-created web-pages containing meaningless jumbles of symbols among which the word “Monckton video” appeared.”

    I struggle to believe that professor was correct, if only because I’d expect a more reasonable cost to be in the region of a thousand times lower. You might have trouble finding someone to do the job for $250, but that’s the ballpark. I also find it very unlikely that anyone who used any phrase like ‘operators of various search engines’ knows what they’re talking about when it comes to the internet. (With respect to M of B, I don’t think he’d claim that as his field of expertise.)

    Either the learned professor was a typically detached academic with no understanding of the real world, or MoB has perhaps misunderstood the technicalities and inadvertently scrambled the meaning somewhat – but what appears to be suggested isn’t technically possible..

  121. Joel Shore says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    Then Joel Shore deploys his usual malice. He seems incapable of being civil. He is not pleased that I was able to produce evidence that the paper I wrote in the July 2008 edition of Physics and Society in response to a request from the commissioning editor was peer-reviewed, in that a) the journal at the time carried a strapline to the effect that it published “reviewed articles” on scientific and technical matters; b) the review editor himself, a professor of physics, reviewed the paper in great detail and asked for the derivation of every equation (several of which were new). Mr. Shore says that what I have been calling a “journal” is a “newsletter” and that what the journal calls “reviewed articles” are not reviewed articles. He adds that the review editor was not competent to review the article. In that event, as I have said before, don’t blame me.

    Here is the banner that has been put across the top of this article specifically to rebut your erroneous claims that it was peer-reviewed ( http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm ):

    The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

  122. jeef says:

    R Gates: your first post in this thread. I have not read it all so maybe you answered. Define equilibrium sensitivity in a dynamic and chaotic eenvironment.

  123. Myrrh says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    January 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm
    As usual, some replies to comments.

    First, I did not make “a sweeping attack on Bible colleges generally”, as some have suggested: I made a particular comment about a single, fourth-rank Bible college (regrettably, one of my own denomination) whose personnel have not behaved as they should have done. So I do apologize to those who thought I was having a go at Bible colleges generally. Very few such colleges, of any denomination, would have behaved with such rampant disregard for truth, arithmetic, and courtesy as the “University” of “St. Thomas” did. A libel action is slowly grinding towards the courts.

    Could be wrong here, but I was under the impression that ‘Bible’ colleges meant something a bit more specific in America than centres of theological studies, referring to those which hold ‘Bible only’ authority, so, a college of your denom wouldn’t be that.

    Mr. Metzler, in a pointlessly angry posting, wonders whether anyone at WattsUpWithThat accepts the physical properties of CO2 that were established 200 years ago. My post explicitly mentioned, with approval, John Tyndale’s experiment of 1859, which established that the greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 contributes to it. It is really no longer possible for the climate-extremist faction to continue to maintain that the scientific debate between skeptics and alarmists is about whether CO2 causes warming. It does: get used to it. The debate is about how much warming the CO2 causes – a quantitative, not a qualitative, question. And, as I hope shortly to prove, the warming that CO2 causes is not enough to worry about, still less to spend trillions on.

    Well, that might well be what you think the debate is, but my view is that there is no such critter as ‘greenhouse gas warming’ as the meme produced from the AGW Science Fiction Inc’s propaganda department has it…

    You’ve mentioned this before, where exactly in Tyndall does this come from? I haven’t been able to find it. I take it you do mean John Tyndall here? What exactly does he say “which established that the greenhouse effect [as you have it] is real and that CO2 contributes to it.”?

  124. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore obviously doesn’t understand that peer review doesn’t happen during publication, but rather, in follow-up commentary and real world experiments. And anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that a comment such as: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” is simply the spouting of an evidence-free conjecture. But by all means, Joel Shore is free to provide testable, empirical evidence showing conclusively that GHG’s are harming the global climate… if he is able to…

    …but don’t hold your breath.☺

  125. Anna Lemma says:

    Let me guess Anna, you attended a fourth-rate bible college in some nowheresville. feeling a bit touchy?
    +++

    No, Anna’s got degrees in chemical engineering, history, and a J.D in law, all from very decent universities, thank you very much. Anna’s a member of the D.C. bar, as well.

    But Anna hates pretentiousness and the kind of social SNOT and PHLEGM the Learned Lord is coughing up. Any first-year law student who began his brief with that kind of crap during a law class recitation would get slapped down mightily by the prof. Everyone learns not to do that twice.

    It’s just chickenbleep. It is no different than calling someone a “denialist”. It is the “argument ad hominem” writ large. In Monckton’s case, extra large.

    Everyone at WUWT approves of, indeed demands, arguments “on the merits”. As I said, I applaud Monckton’s smiting his AGW opponents hip and thigh, on the merits, but he should not stoop to bashing them for their (perceived) lack of intellectual and cultural/social deficiencies.

    Just make the damn case!

  126. Anna Lemma says:

    per Wendy:

    Anna….it’s not spelled FRACK, it’s spelled FRAC. My, my, wouldn’t your mother be so proud of you….such language and in public!!
    Frankly, real class shows here and it’s not on your part, Anna.
    ——

    In addition to not addressing my argument, Wendy is apparently unaware of the TV series “Battlestar Galactica, where “frack” was a substitute for that…. other word.

    I recognize that, for some ,a certain amount of….cognitive dissonance… will apply when using one term to allude to another, but that used to be called…punning.

    As for Frack being used to describe a process for extracting petroleum, I invite her to google the term. She will see it being used as a verb and a gerund.

    Peace.

  127. Hetstoopidone says:

    “Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

    “What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.”

    Extract from “Don Quixote” by Miguel de Cervantes

    Who benefits?

  128. James Sexton says:

    Joel Shore says:
    January 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    =============================
    lmao @ Joel…… sorry man. You’re usually a bit more clever than this. You can fight this all you want, but, in the end, you’ll lose. Here is why…….. there is not technical definition as to what is “peer reviewed”. From there, you should see the folly, but I’ll expand for just a moment.

    For as long as you dwell there, you cause people to look. And from there you really should see the fallacy. But, in case you do not, I’ll spell it out. Monckton submitted a paper. The physicist editor reviewed it. He caused it to be published. (All of this was out of Monckton’s control.)

    In the mean time, e-mails have surfaced that show like minded climatologists were reviewing their friends’ papers. Now this isn’t subjective. What I’ve stated is objective. Do you really want to dwell in the peer-review process? More specifically, do you really want to attach any standards to such? If you do, any standards contrived, invalidates most of the climatology presented in the last 20 years. Unless, you believe known colleagues, reviewing papers of said colleagues, with the same perspective represents valid science. If you do believe such, people will laugh at you.

    Joel, you should try more than this. Don’t worry about published/peer reviewed/accepted. If you can argue against the science and math, go for it. Believe it or not, there are some who watch, read, think, and test your assertions. WUWT recently went over 100 million hits! And all you have is to worry about what you believe is “peer reviewed” or not? That’s vapid. There are two possibilities. Either Christopher is correct, or he is not. If he is correct, does it matter how many or in what manner he was judged? If he is incorrect, if he was reviewed by 1000 scientists, would it matter? Joel, you’ve been here long enough to know, “peer reviewed” means jack. Peer review brought us the bats were dying, the bats were thriving, the trees were dying, the trees were thriving., the floods were increasing and the droughts were increasing all at the same time! Even the paleo brought us different MWP and LIA! And you’re worried about Christopher’s claim? That’s less than stupid.

  129. D Marshall says:

    Anthony, why not invite both Hadfield and Monckton to a online debate right here on WUWT?
    Of course, without sound, we’d be missing out a terrific battle of the Queen’s English.

  130. James Sexton says:

    @ Anna, what bothers you so much, may, or may not be Christopher’s natural demeanor. But, it is effective. Yes, there is a way about him. Some will liken him to fingernails on the chalkboard. Others, it is soft violin music.

    You, more than most here, should understand the subtle differences between being correct and effective, and how much more it means to be both. Likability doesn’t fall into the equation. I know you must understand this. I think you also understand the difference between respect and adulation. I don’t mean to irk you in any manner, but we’re not here because people like us. Most of us are skeptics. And, most of us are right. ………. from there, you can see that most of us will never win popularity contests. Some of us just go with it……. :)

    Peace.

    James Sexton

  131. phlogiston says:

    Steve Metzler says:
    January 12, 2012 at 3:48 pm
    phlogiston says:

    Yawn – the actual “figure” for CO2, as shown in this figure:
    http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
    is of course zero – except at the low end when it starts killing plants.

    Oh, yeah. Silly me. For a moment there I forgot that the physical properties of CO2, as demonstrated over the past 200 years, do not matter at WUWT. Here instead CO2 behaves, somewhat mysteriously, in the exact fashion that your ideology wants it to behave.

    Ferenc Miklosczi demonstrated from a thorough analysis of the CO2 photon absorption physics and atmospheric data, why the greenhouse effect of CO2 interacts with the greater greenhouse effect of water in a feedback system that results in zero sensitivity to additional inputs of CO2.

    Ferenc Miklosczi was mugged and silenced in a despicable manner by the climate science mafia. Ask yourself – why was this political lynching necessary, if his science was wrong?

    A description of his findings and theory can be read at: http://climateclash.com/2011/02/15/g8-co2-cannot-cause-any-more-%E2%80%9Cglobal-warming%E2%80%9D/

    This can be downloaded in pdf form from:

    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9p_cojT-pflN2MyMzk3YzQtN2U2OS00ODgwLTlhZmQtMmJhNWZjZmQzYjE3

    Or from this link: http://wtrns.fr/AAigZs4Q1FsCKhq

    Just to start with the IR absorption physics of CO2 and go from there to an understanding of atmospheric-solar thermal dynamics is a grossly complacent oversimplification. It is a monumental failure of reductionism and will serve future generations as a textbook example of such.

  132. Jake says:

    I’m a little confused. I read this, then rewatched the “Monckton Responds” videos on Potholer54′s channel. The videos accuse him of responding to someone else’s summary of the claims rather than his exact claims, but this newest response seems to be exactly what is happening again. For example, “Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” At this point, Potholer54 is telling him that he claimed to be her “Science Advisor” and saying perhaps he did, but that doesn’t make him her science advisor. Is this a repost of an old rebuttal?

    Plus, there’s this above: “To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating.”

    The video shows Monckton saying “…no particular change in the last 200 years. The only glacier that’s declined a little is Gangotri…”

  133. A response to a couple of commenters who question whether there is any evidence that a couple of dozen pages of meaningless symbols, each containing the words “Monckton video” en clair, appeared on the Web shortly after my speech in Minnesota in October 2009.

    The pages certainly existed. When the Texas A&M professor reported them to me, I entered the words “Monckton video” into Google and found that, notwithstanding that my Minnesota speech had been seen by more than a million people at that time, its page ranking was below at least two dozen pages of gibberish which Google displayed first. One had to wade through more than two screenfuls of these nonsense pages before the true video appeared. That is how the viral chain was broken by those who did not want my message heard.

    One commenter says that creating these pages would have cost only a few hundred dollars. Quite right. But the really high-ticket item, so the Professor told me, was getting the search-engines to give all two dozen of these rubbish pages – which no one would actually want to read, because there was nothing that made any sense in them except the words “Monckton video” – a page-ranking higher than that of the page containing my speech.

    Once I had seen that the Professor was right about the nonsense pages, I saw to it that they were taken down within 24 hours. However, those who had put up the pages had succeeded by then in breaking the viral chain. Even a brief interruption is enough. But their costly and wicked strategy failed because by then so many other websites had posted up the video, so several more millions saw it before the pages of nonsense were removed.

    And Joel Shore cites the American Physical Society as printing a statement in Physics and Society that my paper there was not peer-reviewed because the journal did not print peer-reviewed articles. I had of course already addressed that point: up to and including the edition in which my paper appeared, every edition stated that the journal printed “reviewed articles”. Thereafter, every edition carried a statement that the journal printed “non-peer-reviewed articles”. The Professor of Physics who reviewed my paper was more than competent to do so, because his intention was to make sure that a non-climatological readership would be able to understand the concepts I was discussing. To this end, he asked me to define various specialist terms, and also to make the derivation of each of my 30 equations specific. If he had thought it necessary to pass the paper on to a climatologist for further review, no doubt he would have done so; and, if he did not do so, the fault does not lie with me. I was requested to write a paper (it later transpired that the editors had had a recommendation that I should do so from a distinguished member of the faculty at the Argonne National Laboratory); I wrote one; it was reviewed in accordance with the journal’s usual procedures; and it was published, together with a strongly supportive editorial.

    From this background, it is surely self-evident that the journal did have a peer-review procedure in place; that it applied that procedure to my paper; that the usual suspects then screamed and threw all of their toys out of the stroller; and the American Physical Society thereupon lied to the effect that papers in its journal were not peer-reviewed – a lie which it then maintained by its new statement to the effect that its custom was to publish “non-peer-reviewed” articles.

    Finally, as one commenter has rightly pointed out, the Climategate emails present evidence for a series of systematic and far more damaging interferences with the normal process of peer review by the climate crooks who have been co-ordinating and driving this now-collapsed scare. One victim of their malevolent campaign of disruption and denial contacted me in tears as soon as the first batch of Climategate emails were published. He was upset not only at the outrageous way in which these wretches had furtively delayed publication of an important paper by him so that they could cobble together their own laughable attempt at a rebuttal and publish it simultaneously, but also at the manner in which the purity and rationality of science had been brought low.

    Now, why is it that Joel Shore spends so much time and effort on what is at best a pointless semantic quibble about what is and what is not “peer review”, when he is sullenly, culpably silent about the Hockey Team’s arguably criminal interferences in the process of peer review? What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the turkeys too.

  134. Alan Statham says:

    juanslayton, I replied already to tell you that the video evidence I referred to is in potholer54′s videos, the very subject of this post. For some reason my comment never appeared. I try again.

  135. Alan Statham says:

    ““Monckton says there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. There is.” No, I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009″ No, you said “So we’re not looking at a long term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic”. You appear on video saying exactly those words. Did you even watch the video you’re attempting to respond to?

  136. FaceFirst says:

    ‘Peer review’ has a very specific meaning in scientific publications; that the editor of APS reviewed the article is irrelevant, unless we are to start calling every editorially reviewed piece ‘peer reviewed’ too? This comment will likely undergo moderation; does that mean it has been ‘peer reviewed’? Of course not.

    The right and honorable thing to do would be to accept that the newsletter is not in fact a peer reviewed article, irrespective of what was thought at the time of publication. That APS have added a disclaimer to the article specifically rebutting the notion that it was in any way peer reviewed demonstrates that regardless of what was thought, this article is NOT considered peer reviewed by the publisher, and you can’t really argue with that, can you?

    Here is a link to a letter of complaint about the article: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/shore.cfm

    APS responded: ‘Editor’s response: The newsletter of the Forum on Physics & Society is not, and never has been, peer-reviewed.’

    If Monckton was misled by APS at the time of writing, fine, but you cannot in light of this evidence continue to make the claim that the article was peer reviewed. The publishers say it wasn’t, they disclaim that it wasn’t, and further more they say the newsletters NEVER HAVE BEEN.

    I think the evidence is quite clear.

  137. Andy Jackson says:

    ” I noted them down rather hastily, since I am disinclined to waste much time on him”
    Obviously the caveman really got under your (thin) skin to attempt to belittle him so.
    Your equally childish (admittedly amusing) description of Prof. John Abrahams only serves to show how paranoid you are about anyone pointing out your errors.

  138. major9985 says:

    Monckton has been pressured to respond to mistakes proven in Potholer54′s videos before shown in the WUWT post “Monckton answers a troll, Posted on September 18, 2011 by Anthony Watts” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/

    And Potholer54 rebuttal can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA

  139. Wendy says:

    Anna Lemma says:
    January 12, 2012 at 9:44 pm
    As for Frack being used to describe a process for extracting petroleum, I invite her to google the term. She will see it being used as a verb and a gerund.
    ______________________
    Anna, I don’t need to google anything….the correct term /spelling is “FRAC”. We want accuracy in climate science terms, let’s make sure we are also being accurate in other areas. Media uses the term “FRACK”, industry does not.
    Have an “accurate” day!

  140. Smokey says:

    Lord Monckton writes:

    “Now, why is it that Joel Shore spends so much time and effort on what is at best a pointless semantic quibble about what is and what is not “peer review”, when he is sullenly, culpably silent about the Hockey Team’s arguably criminal interferences in the process of peer review?”

    Good question.

  141. PhilJourdan says:

    Steve Metzler says:
    January 12, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Given that we have managed to increase the global average temp by about .9 deg C since around 1950, according to BEST, and several other temp records

    False premise. All we know is that temps have increased by about that amount since 1950. We have yet to prove the cause. indeed, the increase is not unprecedented, nor all the factors understood.

  142. SteveE says:

    Wendy says:
    January 13, 2012 at 4:06 am
    Anna, I don’t need to google anything….the correct term /spelling is “FRAC”. We want accuracy in climate science terms, let’s make sure we are also being accurate in other areas. Media uses the term “FRACK”, industry does not.
    Have an “accurate” day!
    —–

    The industry actually calls it hydraulic fracturing. Some shorten it to “fracing” but it’s not really an industry official term.

    http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/

    Hope you have a more accurate day than you’ve had so far!

  143. Joel Shore says:

    James Sexton says:

    Joel, you should try more than this. Don’t worry about published/peer reviewed/accepted. If you can argue against the science and math, go for it.

    The errors upon errors in this “paper” of Monckton’s have been well-documented by Arthur Smith: http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html Even Monckton does not use most of the arguments presented in that paper anymore, preferring to make arguments that are at least a bit more subtlely wrong. And, in fact, I have explained in detail why the argument there is wrong ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/30/feedback-about-feedbacks-and-suchlike-fooleries/#comment-848206 and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/30/feedback-about-feedbacks-and-suchlike-fooleries/#comment-848211 .

  144. SteveE says:

    @major9985

    Thanks for linking to those videos, they really do show the rubbish that Monckton spouts out!

    It seems many people on this blog really do think the sun shines out of Monckton’s posterior, this unfortunately blinds them to the BS that comes out of his mouth!

  145. SteveE says:

    Monckton could you please tell me which of your two statements you now believe is correct please:

    “There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years” Monckton, September 18, 2011

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/

    Or

    “Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor” Monckton, January 11, 2012

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

  146. Joel Shore says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    From this background, it is surely self-evident that the journal did have a peer-review procedure in place; that it applied that procedure to my paper; that the usual suspects then screamed and threw all of their toys out of the stroller; and the American Physical Society thereupon lied to the effect that papers in its journal were not peer-reviewed – a lie which it then maintained by its new statement to the effect that its custom was to publish “non-peer-reviewed” articles.

    Yes…It is all a big plot by the APS.

    The actual truth is this: You were asked to write something for that newsletter (apparently after an APS member who is a skeptic gave the editor your name as I understand it). However, this APS newsletter editor, somewhat naive, never dreamed that when they published your paper, it would be misrepresented by this sort of press release ( http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html?Itemid=0 ) :

    Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
    Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

    The APS was then forced into the position of having to clearly explain what everybody in the physics community already knew about that newsletter but the broader public did not, which it was in no way a peer-reviewed journal!

    Basically, you played upon the naivety of an APS newsletter editor. They thought that you were making an honest, good-faith effort to argue your point-of-view to physicists and never dreamed that the real intention might be to use the APS to give false credibility for your ideas with the larger public.

  147. A few more answers, just briefly:

    Joel Shore cites Arthur Smith, who runs a climate-extremist campaigning website, as having “documented” the “errors upon errors” in my peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society. However, when he tried to get Physics and Society to print a 3000-word attempted rebuttal (which I was easily able to refute, point by point, in a 3000-word refutation the same day), Physics and Society, realizing that what he had written was largely without scientific foundation, declined to print it. So he posted up his “documentation” of my “errors” on his own website – without, of course, publishing my reply. Commenters on Smith’s own website said that many of the supposed “errors” were silly quibbles.

    Mr Shore then says I “do not use most of the arguments” in that paper any more. Since the arguments are rooted in mainstream science, of course I continue to use nearly all of them.
    Yet again, and without any acknowledgement that I have already answered his scientifically-untenable attempt to maintain that the 101[86, 125] Watts per square meter of radiative forcing from the presence of the top five greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mentioned by Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), included the forcings caused by temperature feedbacks.

    I have already pointed out that Kiehl and Trenberth’s lengthy and detailed paper does not contain the word “feedback” at all, and that they denominate the forcings I mentioned in demonstrating that climate sensitivity is about one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate in Watts per square meter, the units in which forcings are measured, not in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, the units in which feedbacks are measured.

    Mr. Shore, instead of answering these points, merely resorts to the intellectually-questionable device of merely repeating the links to his original incorrect assertions.

    So let us provide some elementary, and definitive evidence, that Kiehl & Trenberth’s estimate of the radiative forcing caused by the presence (as opposed to the total absence) of the top five greenhouse gases is what they say it is – an estimate of the forcing – and not an estimate of the forcing plus any consequent temperature feedbacks.

    Kiehl and Trenberth’s paper says, in effect, that about 27% of the total forcing from the top five greenhouse gases is attributable to CO2. And 27% of 101 Watts per square meter is around 27 Watts per square meter. What we need to do, therefore, is to find another “mainstream” way of calculating the forcing effect of all 392 ppmv of CO2 now in the atmosphere. A logarithmic function attributed by the IPCC to James Hansen allows us to determine the total CO2 forcing dF, before taking account of any feedbacks, even when the unperturbed concentration is zero, thus:

    dF = 3.35 ln(1 + 1.2 x 392 + 0.005 x 392 squared + 0.0000014 x 392 cubed) = 24 W/m2

    And that unquestionably pre-feedback value is pretty close to Kiehl & Trenberth’s implicit 27 Watts per square meter, from which it follows either that Kiehl and Trenberth’s value must a pre-feedback value or that feedbacks are a tiny fraction of what the IPCC tries to tell us they are. No amount of mere repetition of Mr. Shore’s error will make it anything other than an error.

    Finally, a number of commenters have added some downright vulgar posts to this thread. For instance, SteveE talks about the Sun shining out of my posterior, blinding people to the “BS” that he says I “spout”. And the barely-literate “major9985″ seems to be running a hate-mail campaign all of his own. I once asked the moderators why they allowed comments of that kind. Their answer – and it was a good one – was that it is important for Anthony’s readers to be able to see for themselves how the skeptics argue, usually with politeness and with patience and with science, and to see how – by painful contrast – the climate-extremists argue, all too often with illiteracy, innumeracy, vulgarity, vain repetition, wilful perversion of the truth, and outright hatred. A word to the wise: however crudely or cruelly you flog a long-dead horse, you will not bring it back to life. Move on!

  148. Smokey says:

    Since there is no licensing board or professional test to become a peer reviewer, anyone who is a scientific peer with the requisite qualifications can review manuscripts. That is “peer review”, and no doubt Albert Einstein would fully agree.

    The fact that print journals are doing a head-fake in pretending to be the sole Authority regarding who is, and who is not a peer reviewer is one reason they are rapidly losing credibility. The Climategate emails show conclusively that a small clique has hijacked and corrupted climate “peer review” beyond repair. Joel Shore is merely carrying their water for them.

    Since there exists no professional standards board for who may be designated a ‘peer reviewer’, Joel Shore is merely displaying his insecurity when he tries to be a self-appointed authority on who is, and who is not, a peer reviewer. In Joel Shore’s world, only pals may be peer reviewers. But that opinion lacks credibility, and Joel should quit whining about it.

  149. Venter says:

    Thanks Joel Shore, major9985 and Steve E for showing how empty your minds and arguments are.

  150. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @R. Gates

    “please site the exact, precise place, that I claim that CO2 is the “primary driver” of temperature.”

    That is easy: when you say that, “A mixture of greenhouse gases keeps our planet warmer than it would be without them, and the mixture of them keeps the world warmer than the sum of their individual warming. (i.e. take away the non-condensing CO2 and we go back an ice planet within a few decades)”

    You have said many similar things in the past. You have numerous times attributed all warming since the LIA to the 40% increase in CO2, both directly and by implication. Please recognise that you are speaking to people who understand warmist ‘cleverness’ and attribution by ‘implications’. Howver in the quote above which you thoughtfully provided immediately after you write asking for a citation, your implication is that without CO2 the planet would cool to a frozen Earth snowball.

    This is I preseume, a reference the idea that water vapour is only a ‘feedback’ and without the blessing of live-giving CO2, no water vaopur would be present in the atmosphere as there would be no precious magical CO2 to drive it there. As we both know, this is nonsense so there is little point in making such implications as you have just done.

    Water vapour is a forcing factor just like methane. Without CO2, we would have a dead planet with no large lifeforms but not because it was frozen. It would be because there is no CO2 to feed the plants.

    You continue, “…such that with the two together, water vapor may contribute more, but take away CO2, and water vapor matters less.”

    Less? You are implying that without CO2 there is perhaps ‘nearly no effect from water vapour’? What exactly then are you implying? What number would you put on it? Your oft-cited 40% CO2 rise and your oft-cited temperature rise are together in post after post, with your repeated implication that one must be leading to the other. The CO2 rose 40% and the temperature went up about 1.5 degrees. That is a very low sensitivity even if 100% of the temperature rise was caused by CO2, (as seems not to be the case). Why would removing all CO2 precipitate a massive drop if there is only a small rise, or portion of a small rise?

    “It is the combination of the two that keep us at the temperature we enjoy.” There are many factors oether than CO2 and water that warm the planet. Willis is doing a good job if pointing that out.

    The failure of some skeptics to fully understand the huge difference that combining a condensing with a non-condensing greenhouse gas is a huge vacuum of ignorance for them. But I sense, that at least for some skeptics, there is no real desire to fill that vacuum.”

    Let’s review your points:

    1. the mixture of them keeps the world warmer than the sum of their individual warming.
    2. take away the non-condensing CO2 and we go back an ice planet

    The second does not follow from the first for a whole variety of reasons. One of them is that CO2 is not the only non-condensing GHG – methane is there naturally, for instance. Another is that atmospheric heating is not only due to re-radiation of long-wave IR (“the greenhouse effect”) but also due to reactions with short-wave uv (e.g. tropospheric ozone). Another is that in a slightly cooler world there would be less cloud cover, therefore less reflection and more insolation of the surface leading to greater evaporation of water. Your thought experiment is a fail.

  151. SteveE says:

    @Monckton of Brenchley
    “it is important for Anthony’s readers to be able to see for themselves how the skeptics argue, usually with politeness and with patience and with science, and to see how – by painful contrast – the climate-extremists argue, all too often with illiteracy, innumeracy, vulgarity, vain repetition, wilful perversion of the truth, and outright hatred.”

    Vulgarity:
    “…delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn),”

    “confusedly recycled from a serially mendacious video by some no-account non-climatologist at a fourth-rank bible college in Nowheresville”

    “The guy couldn’t even get his elementary arithmetic right – not that the caveman mentions that fact, of course.”

  152. SteveE says:

    Wilful perversion of the truth:

    “There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years” Monckton, September 18, 2011
    “Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor” Monckton, January 11, 2012

    “They [the NOAA] rely only on data from ships dropping canvas buckets down as they randomly pass across the oceans, and pulling up some water and sticking a thermometer in.” Monckton, 2009
    “Mr. Monckton’s statement to the effect that we used temperature measurements of seawater gathered by dragging canvas buckets through the ocean are completely false. In fact, I know of no scientific group that would even think such a technique could supply useful measurements!”
    Sydney Levitus, 2011

    [Note: several very similar and redundant posts with the same quotes deleted. ~dbs, mod.]

  153. SteveE says:

    [snip sorry - we have limits to hijacking threads and you've exceeded it. We get the point, you don't like Monckton and you think he is hypocritcal. Time to move on. Please be as upset as you wish - Anthony]

  154. SteveE says:

    [snip]

  155. R. Gates says:

    Lord Monckton said:

    “So let us provide some elementary, and definitive evidence, that Kiehl & Trenberth’s estimate of the radiative forcing caused by the presence (as opposed to the total absence) of the top five greenhouse gases is what they say it is – an estimate of the forcing – and not an estimate of the forcing plus any consequent temperature feedbacks.

    Kiehl and Trenberth’s paper says, in effect, that about 27% of the total forcing from the top five greenhouse gases is attributable to CO2. And 27% of 101 Watts per square meter is around 27 Watts per square meter. What we need to do, therefore, is to find another “mainstream” way of calculating the forcing effect of all 392 ppmv of CO2 now in the atmosphere. A logarithmic function attributed by the IPCC to James Hansen allows us to determine the total CO2 forcing dF, before taking account of any feedbacks, even when the unperturbed concentration is zero, thus:

    dF = 3.35 ln(1 + 1.2 x 392 + 0.005 x 392 squared + 0.0000014 x 392 cubed) = 24 W/m2

    And that unquestionably pre-feedback value is pretty close to Kiehl & Trenberth’s implicit 27 Watts per square meter, from which it follows either that Kiehl and Trenberth’s value must a pre-feedback value or that feedbacks are a tiny fraction of what the IPCC tries to tell us they are.

    ___________
    Very well done, and I think essentially correct, and on target and at least not off by an order of magnitude. As Trenberth has estimated the total downward backradiation LW from the atmosphere to be approximately 333 W/m2, and if you take the average estimated contribution from CO2 of that total which is about 17%, then that would give you about 57 W/m2. But of course this 57 W/m2 might include at least some of the feedback effects (to the extent they exist), as it is based on measurements, and not model data, and thus might well be higher than the 24 or 27 W/m2 first order logarithmic calculation.

    More difficult of course is estimating how any addtional W/m2 of forcing from additional CO2 will translate into temperature changes over the short term (transient response) or over the longer term (equilibrium response), and thus, we can eagerly await Lord Monckton’s upcoming paper on this with my particular interest in seeing how he will prove that these two responses will be “nearly equal”.

  156. Smokey says:

    SteveE,

    Can you understand the difference between thousands of years and 500 million years? And when have you ever been critical of Mann’s using corrupted proxies like Tiljander? Or are you completely blind to the fabrications and scientific misconduct endemic to the Mann/Jones clique?

  157. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Smokey says… “However, AGW is not a hypothesis, and it is certainly not a “theory”. It is only a scientific conjecture.”

    Really? An idea that was first proposed over 100 years ago? An idea which was based on research that began almost 200 years ago now. An idea that has the support of more than 100,000 published research papers is only scientific conjecture?

    Look, arguing climate sensitivity has some merit. You might want to constrain your discussion to this because saying that AGW is merely conjecture has absolutely no basis. I’m sure even prominent skeptics like Spencer and Christy would agree.

  158. Smokey says:

    Honeycutt says:

    “You might want to constrain your discussion to this because saying that AGW is merely conjecture has absolutely no basis.”

    Wrong: Basis. Get up to speed. AGW is a conjecture for the basic reason that it is not testable. Hypotheses must be testable.

  159. Jake says:

    @Monckton of Brenchley

    The criticism here is something you clearly find worth addressing, as you keep responding. It would be nice if you would address the ones who point out how you are shown on video saying one thing, then shown denying you said it, such as when you said only Gangotri was retreating. Potholer54 plays this over and over in his video, and your rebuttal here makes it seem like he’s referring to another quote by you entirely. You then knock down the strawman you constructed. I find this dishonest.

  160. Joel Shore says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    Yet again, and without any acknowledgement that I have already answered his scientifically-untenable attempt to maintain that the 101[86, 125] Watts per square meter of radiative forcing from the presence of the top five greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mentioned by Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), included the forcings caused by temperature feedbacks.

    Okay…So, if you really believe that, then here is a question for you: How did Kiehl and Trenberth separate the total radiative effect of water vapor into the effect from that water vapor that would be there even if the CO2 were removed and the effect from the water vapor that is added to the atmosphere as a result of the temperature increase due to CO2 (i.e., the feedback)? Did they do this using their psychic abilities? Did they describe anywhere how they did this? Is there in fact any smidgeon of evidence anywhere that they did this? I don’t think so.

    I have already pointed out that Kiehl and Trenberth’s lengthy and detailed paper does not contain the word “feedback” at all,

    That is because it was a paper discussing the radiative effects of the various greenhouse gases that are in the current atmosphere and not any attempt to discuss how these gases got into the atmosphere.

    And that unquestionably pre-feedback value is pretty close to Kiehl & Trenberth’s implicit 27 Watts per square meter, from which it follows either that Kiehl and Trenberth’s value must a pre-feedback value or that feedbacks are a tiny fraction of what the IPCC tries to tell us they are. No amount of mere repetition of Mr. Shore’s error will make it anything other than an error.

    This is completely irrelevant. The problem is not with the CO2 forcing. The problem is with the “forcing” due to water vapor (& clouds). The relevant question is how much of that water vapor “forcing” would disappear if the temperature of the atmosphere were lowered due to the removal of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

  161. SteveE says:

    SteveE says:
    January 13, 2012 at 8:36 am
    [snip sorry - we have limits to hijacking threads and you've exceeded it. We get the point, you don't like Monckton and you think he is hypocritcal. Time to move on. Please be as upset as you wish - Anthony]

    Hi Anthony,

    I submitted several post but when I hit the post comment button the screen just refreshed and my comment wasn’t on the waiting moderation list, hence I submitted them again. I assume that a word in the quotes from Monckton put it in some auto-moderation queue. I only wanted to submit four posts all but one of them were published, the other were just duplicates that I altered slightly each time I resubmitted them.

    Hope this helps explain the rational for the numerous comments submitted.

    Regards
    Steve

  162. SteveE says:

    Smokey, I think you’ve misread my post both of those quotes are from Monckton:

    “There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years” Monckton, September 18, 2011

    “Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor” Monckton, January 11, 2012

    As you can see they contradict each other, one he says there is a correlation going back 500 million years and the other he says it only goes back a few thousand.

    I do understand the difference between thousands of years and 500 million years, please just reread my post.

    Regards
    Steve

  163. steven mosher says:

    Smokey

    “AGW is a conjecture for the basic reason that it is not testable. Hypotheses must be testable.”

    The philosophic requirement for testability is a logical test. That is, the hypothesis must be testable in principle. I’ll suggest that you start with reading AJ ayers and move on from there.

    1. Everything happens according to God’s will, is not testable.

    2. neptune is made of green cheese, is testable in principle. Go there and see. in practical
    terms, we confirm these hypothesis in indirect ways.
    a) if it were made of green cheese, we would expect to see x, y, z..
    b) sensor returns are consistent with an explanation that says it is made of p, q and r

    AGW is testable in principle passing the philosophical requirement, confirming it and testing it in practice depends on a wide variety of evidence.

  164. steven mosher says:

    Smokey

    “Mr. Metzler, in a pointlessly angry posting, wonders whether anyone at WattsUpWithThat accepts the physical properties of CO2 that were established 200 years ago. My post explicitly mentioned, with approval, John Tyndale’s experiment of 1859, which established that the greenhouse effect is real and that CO2 contributes to it. It is really no longer possible for the climate-extremist faction to continue to maintain that the scientific debate between skeptics and alarmists is about whether CO2 causes warming. It does: get used to it. The debate is about how much warming the CO2 causes – a quantitative, not a qualitative, question. And, as I hope shortly to prove, the warming that CO2 causes is not enough to worry about, still less to spend trillions on.”

    You better go tell Lord M, that AGW is not testable.
    Sky dragons descend and take on the good lord.

    maybe its time for WUWT to ban C02 “contrarians” along with the chem trail bunch.

    GHGs warm the planet. The question is how much

  165. Smokey says:

    steven mosher,

    [First, the quote you posted above was not my quote. You make it appear that it is by posting my name above it.]

    Steven, being testable “in principle” does not necessarily mean being testable in reality. Anything that does not violate causation is testable “in principle”. However, in order to comply with the scientific method, a conjecture must be testable in practice in order to be elevated to the status of a hypothesis.

    The scientific method requires a hypothesis to be testable in the real world, so that others can attempt to replicate the claimed results. Pointing out that AGW is a conjecture is using the term correctly. Conjecture is the first step in the scientific method. It would settle most if not all of the debate if AGW was a testable hypothesis, and thus quantifiable. But the debate still rages, specifically due to the fact that AGW is still an untestable conjecture.

  166. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    It would settle most if not all of the debate if AGW was a testable hypothesis, and thus quantifiable.

    Oh, yes! After all, evolution is a testable hypothesis…And, look how little debate we get about it! Why, there is even a majority of Americans who believe in it if you define it weakly enough!

  167. Surely it is the business of science to enquire open-mindedly with the aim of determining the objective truth? Those who, like me, try to ask reasonable questions are assailed from one direction by the climate-extremists, who seem to resent any expression of doubt about the party line, and from the other by the “no-greenhouse-effect-exists” brigade.

    What is the truth about the Himalayan glaciers? The IPCC maintained for years that all the ice would be gone from the Himalayas within 25 years of now. They were wrong: and Railroad Engineer Pachauri was wrong to say, month after month, that anyone who said they were wrong was anti-science. No, we were pro-science and anti- the party line.

    Yet those who maunder on and on about whether Gangotri is the only glacier receding in the Himalayas seem uninterested either in correcting manifest errors in the party line or in trying to determine the objective scientific truth. The truth, as I have stated time and again, is that the pattern of advance and recession of the Himalayan glaciers is much as it has been in the 200 years since the Raj began keeping records. That, at any rate, is the opinion of Prof. M.I. Bhat, of the Indian Geological Survey, whose job is to monitor the 9,575 glaciers that debouch from the Himalayas into India. Gangotri has shown particularly strong recession, but that – according to Professor Bhat – is principally attributable to local geological disturbances,

    To seize on one unscripted talk by me, in which I carelessly suggested in passing that Gangotri was the only glacier receding in the Himalayas (given that there are 9,575 of them, and given the climatic variability and geological instability of the Himalayas that would be an untenable proposition), and to go on and on and on and on about it when there are plenty of references to the correct position in other talks and writings by me seems less than reasonable.

    And then there is the question of the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperatures over the past 500 million years. SteveE purports to quote an earlier posting by me, but he neglects to complete the quotation: I said that the causative direction appeared to be the opposite of that stated in the party line: namely, that in the paleoclimate it was temperature that changed first and CO2 concentration that followed it. And if one looks at the slide that I was showing at the point when the caveman took me to task, it is obvious from that slide that, whichever the direction of causation, over a sufficiently long timescale the correlation between the two variables is remarkably poor, though there are various periods within that long timescale where the correlation is excellent – except that it was the temperature changes that preceded and inferentially drove the CO2 concentration changes, and not – as the party line would have it – the other way about.

    Finally, yet again, Joel Shore sullenly persists in his error about whether Kiehl and Trenberth’s value for the total radiative forcing from the presence of the top five greenhouse gases in the atmosphere included the effect of temperature feedbacks. The answer is that it did not. He has still failed to address the following points I have made:

    1. Kiehl and Trenberth do not mention temperature feedbacks anywhere in their paper. They are concerned with forcings, because their paper is concerned with the annual energy budget of the Earth, and most feedbacks do not operate over such short timescales.

    2. Kiehl and Trenberth denominate the forcings in Watts per square meter, the units in which forcings are expressed.

    3. Kiehl and Trenberth do not denominate the forcings in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, the units in which temperature feedbacks are expressed.

    Next, when I demonstrated, using one of the IPCC’s own forcing functions, that the radiative forcing (and only the forcing) from the presence of all the CO2 in the atmsophere was 24 Watts per square meter, very close to Kiehl and Trenberth’s 27 Watts per square meter CO2 forcing, and drew the obvious conclusion that either Kiehl and Trenberth were indeed talking only about forcings and not about feedbacks or that their implicit value for feedbacks is no more than an insignificant fraction of the tripling of the base forcing that the IPCC imagines, he dismissed the point – without even an attempt at argument – as irrelevant. Once again, I do not get the impression that Mr. Shore is in search of the scientific truth. If the pun be permitted, he seems more interested in Shoring up the party line even at points where it has long been seen to fail than in making any genuine attempt to understand the objective scientific truth. And truth alone, as Fr. Vincent McNabb used to say, is worthy of our entire devotion.

  168. Dave says:

    Monckton of Brenchley:

    (A little confused on the right way to address you. Should I start this with Dear Lord? :) )

    “One commenter says that creating these pages would have cost only a few hundred dollars. Quite right. But the really high-ticket item, so the Professor told me, was getting the search-engines to give all two dozen of these rubbish pages – which no one would actually want to read, because there was nothing that made any sense in them except the words “Monckton video” – a page-ranking higher than that of the page containing my speech.”

    Many thanks for your response, and I assume that was my post you were referring to. I’m still a little confused, or perhaps you are or the professor was, but I don’t know of any way to spend that much money doing what you describe. I have no doubt that it’s easy to create some pages full of gibberish, and indeed to get them to the top of the search rankings for any given term for a short time. But it costs, say, ten dollars a page, and you can’t help matters by paying Google. All you do is spam the links all over the place, like on these comments pages – hence the spam filtering. You can get a team of people in India or Taiwan or some such who’ll do it for peanuts.

    Without additional information, my best guess for the figures the professor gave is that he took the cost to have a real site optimised for search engines in a sustainable, long-term way – a costly and complicated exercise – for which a reasonable figure might well be $10,000, and applied it inappropriately to a similar short-term process which is far less costly.

    Otherwise, I can only imagine that there was presumed spending on adwords and similar – paid keywords on Google – but they are not capable of being used in the way you describe.

    I can’t help wondering if this wasn’t actually just spam. These nonsense pages are not uncommonly created for ‘viral’ keywords. The resulting revenues are not high, which says a lot about the creation cost. One might adapt the old saying about not ascribing to malice that which can be explained by incompetence to the internet: never ascribe to malice that which can be explained as spam.

    My apologies if I’ve missed some key fact which renders my speculation pointless; my intention is to help find a form of words which accurately conveys the concept you have in mind.

  169. R. Gates says:

    Smokey says:
    January 13, 2012 at 9:44 am
    Honeycutt says:

    “You might want to constrain your discussion to this because saying that AGW is merely conjecture has absolutely no basis.”

    Wrong: Basis. Get up to speed. AGW is a conjecture for the basic reason that it is not testable. Hypotheses must be testable.
    ________
    You are nothing if not entertaining Smokey. This old meme of yours is of course quite silly. The Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is just that…a theory. It might have been a “conjecture” a century ago, but has gone far beyond that. Of course, your insistence that it is just a “conjecture” helps to make it seem small and insignificant, and I would offer the “conjecture” that this brings great comfort to skeptics such yourself. At least some skeptics were bold enough to alter the title given to the Theory of AGW, and call it a “Sky Dragon”. Afterall, it would hardly be very exciting to suggest that they slew the terrible “Conjecture of AGW”. Doesn’t real grab the imagination now does it.

  170. Smokey says:

    Gates, I understand that your mind is closed, but for the benefit of our numerous readers: AGW is a conjecture, because it is not empirically testable. If it were testable it would be quantifiable, and the presumed “human fingerprint” of global warming could then be accurately measured. But that is not the case, which is why there is an ongoing disagreement over the issue.

    AGW is certainly not a “theory”, such as Evolution or Relativity. A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum, therefore AGW does not qualify. Theories make accurate predictions; AGW cannot. AGW is a conjecture based on radiative physics [and I agree with the AGW conjecture, although the effect is obviously very small; otherwise temperature would track CO2. It doesn't].

    Attempting to mis-classify AGW with the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution is nonsense, because AGW simply does not fit the definition of a theory. Or, for that matter, of a hypothesis. But thanx for your opinion. It shows that you misuse accepted scientific definitions in a lame attempt to support a weak argument. Good arguments do not need such rhetorical support.

    • • •

    Joel Shore says:

    “Smokey says:

    ‘It would settle most if not all of the debate if AGW was a testable hypothesis, and thus quantifiable.’

    “Oh, yes! After all, evolution is a testable hypothesis…And, look how little debate we get about it! Why, there is even a majority of Americans who believe in it if you define it weakly enough!”

    Joel, put down the wine glass and try to think clearly. Evolution is a hypothesis; I’m surprised that you don’t know that all Theories and Laws are also hypotheses. And the fact that there is a raging debate over the AGW conjecture proves my point that AGW is not a hypothesis. If it were a hypothesis, it would be repeatedly testable and thus verifiable. It is neither empirically testable nor quantifiable. Guesstimates range from a cooling effect through more than 100% of the [natural] warming since the LIA! These are only opinions. Quantifiable, measuable testability would nail down the specific fraction of warming attributable to AGW. Unfortunately, there is no such testability. Thus, AGW remains a conjecture.

    Correctly labeling AGW as a conjecture is the first step in the scientific method. But to elevate a conjecture to the status of a hypothesis requires that it must be testable, per the scientific method. AGW is not testable; it relies upon radiative physics. And there is a leap of faith required to presume that AGW is a hypothesis – based on a different hypothesis. Gates even insists that AGW is a Theory, putting him squarely in the lunatic fringe. You’re getting close yourself, and I would advise you to not take that final step by misusing scientific terminology.

  171. Joel Shore says:

    Finally, yet again, Joel Shore sullenly persists in his error about whether Kiehl and Trenberth’s value for the total radiative forcing from the presence of the top five greenhouse gases in the atmosphere included the effect of temperature feedbacks. The answer is that it did not. He has still failed to address the following points I have made:

    1. Kiehl and Trenberth do not mention temperature feedbacks anywhere in their paper. They are concerned with forcings, because their paper is concerned with the annual energy budget of the Earth, and most feedbacks do not operate over such short timescales.

    It is simply untrue to claim that I have not answered this point (many times!), although it is such a pathetically weak argument to start with that the fact that it has become the mainstay of your argument shows how little actual argument you have.

    I have explained to you that whether something is a forcing or a feedback depends on context. In particular, one has to imagine a certain experiment (i.e., changing some forcing or another) in order to decide what contributions might be feedbacks to that forcing. Since Kiehl and Trenberth are just trying to get the energy budget correct, they are not considering any such experiment: They are simply asking what the radiative effects are of the various components in our current atmosphere. E.g., they are not addressing how or why that particular amount of water vapor or clouds happen to be in the atmosphere. They are just taking them to be there in the amounts that they are and calculating the radiative effect of them.

    And, your claim that most feedbacks do not operate over such short timescales” is laughable: Your proposed thought experiment to determine the climate sensitivity was to look at the difference between the atmosphere with all greenhouse gases present and all removed. You were presumably considering allowing as much time as necessary for the feedbacks to operate and give the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    2. Kiehl and Trenberth denominate the forcings in Watts per square meter, the units in which forcings are expressed.

    3. Kiehl and Trenberth do not denominate the forcings in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, the units in which temperature feedbacks are expressed.

    To convert between these units of feedback and forcing, all you need to do is multiply by a temperature change. For example, if you imagine removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere, that causes a certain temperature change. If you then take this temperature change and multiply by the value for the water vapor feedback, that will give you the resulting radiative effect that occurs due to the fact that this lower temperature results in less water vapor being present in the atmosphere. (In reality, you have to solve self-consistently, since as water vapor is removed, the temperature will drop more and this will cause a further reduction in water vapor…)

    Next, when I demonstrated, using one of the IPCC’s own forcing functions, that the radiative forcing (and only the forcing) from the presence of all the CO2 in the atmsophere was 24 Watts per square meter, very close to Kiehl and Trenberth’s 27 Watts per square meter CO2 forcing, and drew the obvious conclusion that either Kiehl and Trenberth were indeed talking only about forcings and not about feedbacks or that their implicit value for feedbacks is no more than an insignificant fraction of the tripling of the base forcing that the IPCC imagines, he dismissed the point – without even an attempt at argument – as irrelevant.

    I said it was irrelevant because it is irrelevant. The experiment we are talking interested in is one in which CO2 is indeed a forcing. Hence, the question is not about how much of the CO2 should be considered a feedback rather than the forcing; rather, the question is how much of the water vapor and clouds should be considered a feedback rather than a forcing. I do not contest the notion that CO2 contributes a forcing of 27 W/m^2 in the current atmosphere.

    Once again, I do not get the impression that Mr. Shore is in search of the scientific truth.

    Maybe you get that impression because of psychological projection: As a politician, you find it hard to imagine a life such as mine, devoted to scientific research and teaching and the search for scientific truth for truth’s sake. You try to look at me, but you only see only your own reflection in the mirror.

    Here are the arguments of mine that you really truly have never even ATTEMPTED to answer:

    (1) You have never attempted to engage the substance of my argument, namely, that some of the water vapor in the atmosphere would end up condensing out of the atmosphere if we removed only the CO2 from the atmosphere (because of the resulting temperature drop). This illustrates that we do not have to reduce the forcing by the full ~100 W/m^2 that you attribute to all the greenhouse elements in order to get the full temperature reduction of 33 K. I can understand why you refuse to engage this argument, since your best hope is just to ignore it and hope people don’t notice that you are doing that.

    (2) You have never attempted to engage in a discussion of my “Bill Gates feedback” analogy that makes it clear, even for someone like yourself who seems to be so confused about forcings and feedbacks, what is wrong with your argument.

  172. Alan Statham says:

    Yes, “petty smears” are terrible, aren’t they? And “artfully-distorted”, “inconsequential”, “silly allegations”, “disinclined to waste much time on him”, “ineptly and confusedly recycled”, “serially mendacious”, “no-account non-climatologist”, “fourth-rank bible college”, “Nowheresville”, “couldn’t even get his elementary arithmetic right”, and “caveman” are not at all infantile, are they?

  173. Lance of BC says:

    video response from pothole

    [SNIP: No, Lance, those are the videos Lord Monckton is responding to and Anthony has already linked to them in the article. -REP]

  174. major9985 says:

    To see all of moncktons mistakes in context with evidence to back up where he went wrong, it is all pointed out in potholer54′s videos:

    Lord Monckton Bunkum Part 1 – Global cooling and melting ice
    [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

    Monckton Bunkum Part 2 – Sensitivity
    [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q

    Monckton Bunkum Part 3 – Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
    [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo

    Monckton Bunkum Part 4 — Quotes and misquotes
    [4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA

    Monckton bunkum Part 5 — What, MORE errors, my lord?
    [5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

    [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Yes, by all means, watch the videos and see how Hadfield erects strawmen and then claims they are Lord Monckton's mistakes. As Steve McIntyre often puts it, watch the pea under the thimble. -REP]

  175. Lance of BC says:

    [SNIP: No, Lance, those are the videos Lord Monckton is responding to and Anthony has already linked to them in the article. -REP]

    Sorry, didn’t see links in post, my bad.

  176. Alan Statham says: January 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Alan, I would describe them as witty, elegant and accurate.

  177. major9985 says:

    [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Yes, by all means, watch the videos and see how Hadfield erects strawmen and then claims they are Lord Monckton's mistakes. As Steve McIntyre often puts it, watch the pea under the thimble. -REP]

    This is a Challenge to everyone, post your findings.

    [REPLY: Fine. I'll go first. In the second part of his Monckton Answers a Troll video, available here, starting at 3:30, Hadfield comments on what he characterized as my "apology" to Lord Monckton: "... the moderator for Wattsupwiththat claimed that my rebuttals lacked any form of documentation...." ... freeze the video and read the words. I was clearly referring to The Other Brian's comment. I had no idea who or what a potholer54 was and I was certainly not going to mount a search to find out. Hadfield's characterization, though, neatly fits his narrative. Careless or mendacious? You decide. -REP]

  178. Jack Greer says:

    [snip - try toning it down - Anthony]

  179. R. Gates says:

    Smokey said:

    “Gates, I understand that your mind is closed, but for the benefit of our numerous readers: AGW is a conjecture, because it is not empirically testable. If it were testable it would be quantifiable, and the presumed “human fingerprint” of global warming could then be accurately measured.

    ——
    And so the testable and quantified AGW signal that Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 found:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Doesn’t count, right? Because it doesn’t fit with the skeptical paradigm?

    No, Smokey, my mind is far from closed, and there are many things related to the human fingerprint upon this planet, and the very operations of the planet itself that are far from settled, but as to whether AGW warming is a conjecture or theory is not one of those things.

  180. The other Brian says:

    major9985

    “… the moderator for Wattsupwiththat claimed that my rebuttals lacked any form of documentation….” … freeze the video and read the words. I was clearly referring to The Other Brian’s comment.”

    Let’s get at least one thing straightened out Mr. Watts about this totally over-the-top fuss that Lord Monckton has turned into a sideshow.

    They were NOT my comments, is that clear, NOT my comments. I merely transcribed the summary that Peter Hadfield did in his final video in the “Monckton Bunkum” series.

    You and a lot of others have obviously not watched the video so here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

    Go to 8 minutes 30 seconds and you will find almost the exact words I posted. I did have to change some wording so it made sense; the actual names of the scientists, and others, were removed and replaced with generalisations, but essentially it’s identical. But Peter Hadfield is right, I did misquote his by adding one word in one place.

    But in Lord Monckton’s reply to my post he made childish remarks about a couple of typos I made – you see them all the time on blog sites like yours. These remarks are like the “caveman” comments he is now making – but that’s the good Lord for you.

    [REPLY: NOT your comments? Here is the link. Your name. An unlinked reference to some no-named blogger. You certainly had enough to say in September. And your feelings are hurt because your spelling was criticized. Pathetic. -REP]

  181. The other Brian says:

    Dictionary meaning of Transcribe so they were NOT my comments – I’m sure the meaning would be clear to most people but alias not all.

  182. The other Brian says:

    Dictionary meaning of transcribe http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcribed
    so they were NOT my comments – I’m sure the meaning would be clear to most people but alias not all.

  183. Mike Jonas says:

    R Gates – there is a very simple way to settle your current argument with Smokey: tell us how AGW can be tested.

    “AGW” needs to be defined, of course, and the IPCC definition of it is the reasonable one to use. The IPCC define it as follows – - – oh dear!, they don’t.

    Wikipedia do describe it, and this could be taken as an implicit definition of AGW:

    Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth’s average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]
    Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10]
    “.

    There is a very serious problem with this definition, which many here will spot instantly, and that is that it is a definition of “Global Warming”, not of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. That merely demonstrates how corrupted this whole subject has become, but I would hope that we could rise above that, and accept it as a definition of AGW.

    For those who do not like or trust Wikipedia, there is ‘The Free Dictionary’.
    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropogenic+global+warming

    global warming, the gradual increase of the temperature of the earth’s lower atmosphere as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution
    .
    The temperature of the atmosphere near the earth’s surface is warmed through a natural process called the greenhouse effect. Visible, shortwave light comes from the sun to the earth, passing unimpeded through a blanket of thermal, or greenhouse, gases composed largely of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Infrared radiation
    reflects off the planet’s surface toward space but does not easily pass through the thermal blanket. Some of it is trapped and reflected downward, keeping the planet at an average temperature suitable to life, about 60°F; (16°C;).
    Growth in industry, agriculture, and transportation since the Industrial Revolution has produced additional quantities of the natural greenhouse gases plus chlorofluorocarbons
    and other gases, augmenting the thermal blanket. It is generally accepted that this increase in the quantity of greenhouse gases is trapping more heat and increasing global temperatures, making a process that has been beneficial to life potentially disruptive and harmful. During the 20th cent., the atmospheric temperature rose 1.1°F; (0.6°C;), and sea level rose several inches. Some projected, longer-term results of global warming include melting of polar ice, with a resulting rise in sea level and coastal flooding; disruption of drinking water supplies dependent on snow melts; profound changes in agriculture due to climate change; extinction of species as ecological niches disappear; more frequent tropical storms; and an increased incidence of tropical diseases.
    “.

    OK, “Global Warming” is still corrupted, but we now have a reasonable picture of what AGW is:
    - increases of greenhouse gases, created by mankind after the start of the industrial revolution, that have caused the global temperature to rise by about 0.6 deg C in the 20thC, and will cause the global temperature to rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 deg C in the 21stC. I include the ranges because the whole argument about AGW is about the strength of the effect and whether it is dangerous for the planet (ie, mankind). I don’t think that a microscopic warming effect would qualify as “AGW”, hence it is necessary to show test results quantifying the effect at something close to the figures given in the “definitions”.

    R Gates’ latest (at time of writing this) post cited Foster and Ramsdorf. That paper is not and cannot possibly be a test of AGW. At no point in their paper do they even mention CO2 or greenhouse gases. At no point in their paper do they identify any actual global warming as being caused by any actual greenhouse gases. The whole paper is an “argument from ignorance” – “The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. .

    To say that an effect is “most likely” caused by “anthropogenic factors” when they haven’t even looked at those factors can hardly be described as a test of those factors. All they could legitimately conclude from their study is that the effect is caused by something that they have not looked at, which might be anthropogenic and might not. Provided; of course, that they have correctly quantified the factors that they did look at. In other words, they have not identified anything as being AGW.

  184. Mike Jonas says:

    oops the definition should be the effect of increased greenhouse gases, not the gases themselves.

  185. major9985 says:

    It is clear that REP knew they where not the words of “The Other Brian” from his statement above,

    “I had no idea who or what a potholer54 was and I was certainly not going to mount a search to find out. ”

    You would think if the comments posted by “The Other Brian” was going to be made into a post by Anthony, a simple search would have been warranted??

  186. major9985 says:

    So is this the way things work around here REP, no background checks for some rudimentary facts regarding the posts Anthony puts on the website. I would like to address the question to Anthony, but it is clear you have all the power and hide the comments you don’t want him to see. They should call the site whats up with REP.

    REPLY: Actually, I’m the one who has snipped your comments, because I simply don’t tolerate certain types of threadjacking from anonymous hateful trolls like yourself. We get it, you don’t like Monckton, you don’t like me, you don’t like the moderators, and you don’t like WUWT. Message received – and we’ve noted that nothing would satisfy you, so we won’t play the game anymore. Be as upset as you wish, but you’re done here and all further messages go to the bit bucket. – Anthony

  187. Bill Illis says:

    Is the temperature change from 3.7 W/m2 forcing from doubling CO2 really 1.0C (1.2C) (0.7C)? (the question is, is it really? have we measured something that provides some evidence)?

    Is the temperature change at the surface, where we live, the same number?

    Is the water vapour feedback really 2.0 W/m2 per 1.0C change in temperatures? (in the ice ages as well)?

    Is the cloud feedback really 1.0 W/m2 per 1.0C change in temperatures? (in the ice ages as well, how come Antarctica actually has more clouds)?

    ———

    Technically, these numbers are all tuned to produce 3.0C per doubling. Cloud feedback, for example doesn’t have really good theory behind it that we have confidence in. If these assumptions are lower than the above in how the real actual climate responds, then the sensitivity drops exponentially.

  188. Wendy says:

    SteveE says:
    January 13, 2012 at 6:15 am
    Wendy says:
    January 13, 2012 at 4:06 am
    Anna, I don’t need to google anything….the correct term /spelling is “FRAC”. We want accuracy in climate science terms, let’s make sure we are also being accurate in other areas. Media uses the term “FRACK”, industry does not.
    Have an “accurate” day!
    —–

    The industry actually calls it hydraulic fracturing. Some shorten it to “fracing” but it’s not really an industry official term.

    http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/

    Hope you have a more accurate day than you’ve had so far
    ………………………………………………………………………..
    Thanks SteveE for verifying the correct spelling by industry as opposed to media!!
    not quite what you were attempting to do, was it. ;-)
    BTW, neither I nor the geoscientists I work with plan to “hydraulically fracture” the next well, it’s “frac”.
    TTFN

  189. Hurrah! Joel Shore at last writes: “I do not contest the notion that CO2 contributes a forcing of 27 Watts per square meter in the current atmosphere”. Forcing, not feedback. The IPCC’s second function for determining the CO2 radiative forcing shows that the presence of CO2 contributes 24 Watts per square meter of forcing. Forcing, not feedback. The two values are near-identical, so we can be sure we are talking about forcing. Forcing, not feedback. Let’s go with 27 Watts per square meter, since Mr. Shore now accepts this value for the total CO2 forcing. Forcing, not feedback.

    Since the total forcing from the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere today represents around 27 per cent of the forcing from the top five greenhouse gases (Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997), the total forcing from the presence of the top five greenhouse gases must be, as they say it is, 100 Watts per square meter or thereby. Forcing, not feedback.

    As I have explained in previous posts, the total warming from the presence of all the greenhouse gases (which is near enough the same as that from the presence of the top five) is about 33 K. So the equilibrium climate-sensitivity parameter, given that over geological time most of the temperature feedbacks that are going to act will have acted, is 33/100, or 0.33 K per Watt per square meter. Multiply that by the 3.7 Watts per square meter radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and the equilibrium climate sensitivity is demonstrated to be 1.2 K in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration.

    Since this 1.2 K is the equilibrium sensitivity that obtains after all feedbacks have acted fully, and since elementary methods (see e.g. Hansen, 1984; Roe, 2009) establish that 1.2 K is also the sensitivity that would obtain if there were no feedbacks or if they summed to zero, it is legitimate to deduce that temperature feedbacks, far from tripling the warming caused by the original forcing that triggered them, are indeed very close to net-zero.

    Mr. Shore has been trying to suggest that I have assumed feedbacks to be net-zero and have then used that assumption to develop an argument that feedbacks are net-zero. That would be a petitio principii, or circular argument, and of course I am not guilty of it here. As the brief argument outlined above surely makes clear, my contention that feedbacks are likely to be net-zero is a corollary of the argument’s conclusion that pre- and post-feedback sensitivities are pretty much identical. It is manifestly not – as Mr. Shore has been implying without evidence in recent postings – one of my argument’s premises.

    I hope he and others will now understand one of the many reasons why I suspect that climate sensitivity is not likely to be much more than one third of the IPCC’s central estimate, in which event there is no “climate crisis” and the trillions now being wasted on making this costly non-problem go away can be redeployed in directions where they are more likely to do some good, and to do it cost-effectively.

    Actually, I have reasons to suspect that climate sensitivity may prove to be even less than 1.2 K per CO2 doubling: but those reasons depend upon questioning the premises used by the IPCC and those whom it cites with approval. One merit of the above argument demonstrating low climate sensitivity is that it merely assumes that the IPCC’s premises are true, removing a very large area of potential disagreement.

    Once the premises are accepted as true, as it seems Mr. Shore now accepts them, the only question remaining is one of logic: do the premises necessarily entail the conclusion? If so, the argument is not only valid but sound, and the conclusion that climate sensitivity is low is as true as the premises are. And that, in a world where science and logic prevailed over passion and prejudice, would be the end of the story.

  190. HenryP says:

    Monckton says: At no point have I ever said CO2 has no effect on climate, for its effect was demonstrated by a simple but robust experiment as long ago as 1859.

    Henry@Monckton
    If you stay with the closed box experiments, it will lead you onto a path to nowhere.
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
    Rather say; there is (currently) no way to prove that the net effect of more CO2 in the air is warming rather than cooling.

  191. Joel Shore says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    Since the total forcing from the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere today represents around 27 per cent of the forcing from the top five greenhouse gases (Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997), the total forcing from the presence of the top five greenhouse gases must be, as they say it is, 100 Watts per square meter or thereby. Forcing, not feedback.

    A good way to get the result that you want is to assume it, which is exactly what you have done here. By saying that all of the water vapor in the atmosphere has to be put in as a forcing, you are assuming that there is no water vapor feedback, i.e., you are assuming that in order to go from an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases to an atmosphere with greenhouse gases that have a radiative effect of 100 W/m^2, you have to put all those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The reality of the situation is that if you put in the non-condensable greenhouse gases then the resulting temperature increase will cause a lot of water vapor to go into the atmosphere and will then give you a lot of the radiative effect of the water vapor without ever having to explicitly put the water vapor into the atmosphere.

    Your calculation is a complete tautology: Nobody doubts that the direct radiative effect of the 100 W/m^2 of greenhouse gases is to raise the temperature by ~33 K. That is simply what elementary considerations (Stefan-Boltzmann) tell you! The question is rather, when you add the non-condensable greenhouses in, how much change do you get in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and hence its radiative effect, how much change do you get in the amount of clouds in the atmosphere and hence its radiative effect (both due to greenhouse effects and albedo), how much change do you get in the surface albedo due to changes in ice and snow and hence its radiative effect? That is the part you have not answered with your simple calculation…and that is the actual thing that we are trying to answer.

    Your little calculation has told us exactly nothing that we did not already know.

    And, I noticed that you have continued to avoid addressing the points that I have noted that you have failed to address. That is probably a wise debating move, although it does show us that perhaps even you do not really believe your own arguments.

    Mr. Shore has been trying to suggest that I have assumed feedbacks to be net-zero and have then used that assumption to develop an argument that feedbacks are net-zero. That would be a petitio principii, or circular argument, and of course I am not guilty of it here.

    That is exactly what you are guilty of. You have assumed that all of the water vapor in the atmosphere had to be put in as a forcing. If any of it came into the atmosphere as a result of a temperature increase, then your calculation is wrong.

    You have assumed that the ice-albedo effect on on the amount of solar energy absorbed does not change as you raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If it does, then the radiative effect of such melting ice will cause a further increase in temperature increase and your calculation will be wrong.

    In other words, you have not put in any feedbacks into the calculation as feedbacks. Hence, all that you have done is repeat the no-feedback calculation!

  192. Joel Shore says:

    Once the premises are accepted as true, as it seems Mr. Shore now accepts them, the only question remaining is one of logic: do the premises necessarily entail the conclusion? If so, the argument is not only valid but sound, and the conclusion that climate sensitivity is low is as true as the premises are. And that, in a world where science and logic prevailed over passion and prejudice, would be the end of the story.

    I have not accepted your premises. In fact, I have shown you exactly and repeatedly exactly where your premises are wrong. They are wrong because the notions of forcing and feedback are defined in the context of a particular “experiment” carried out on the Earth’s climate system. Your assumption is that you could add all of the non-condensable greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would remain completely unchanged…That is precisely the assumption that you are making in considering all of the current water vapor in the atmosphere to be a forcing and not a feedback. And, that assumption is frankly ridiculous; it defies common sense.

    And, your only justification for assuming this is the fact that Kiehl and Trenberth refer to the water vapor as a forcing; however, it is clear that this is a matter of context. They call it a forcing because what they are trying to do is simply to figure out how much each of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contributes to the total greenhouse effect. They are not looking at the question of what happens to water vapor when the amount of other greenhouse gases is changed. That is investigated, for example in the paper of Lacis et al. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.short ) who show that in the climate models when you remove all of the non-condensable greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, you end up losing almost the whole atmospheric greenhouse effect.

  193. Peter Hadfield says:

    @ the moderator:

    You wrote: “Hadfield comments on what he characterized as my “apology” to Lord Monckton…”

    = I characterized this as an apology because you wrote: “I… regret any distress such comments may occasion.” =

    Was I wrong to describe this as an apology? You continue:

    =”… the moderator for Wattsupwiththat claimed that my rebuttals lacked any form of documentation….” … freeze the video and read the words. I was clearly referring to The Other Brian’s comment. I had no idea who or what a potholer54 was and I was certainly not going to mount a search to find out. =

    In fairness, the Other Brian stated clearly that he was summarizing my videos, and someone else even gave a link to them near the top of the comments page. No search had to be mounted, just the click of a mouse. Even so, I hope you agree that the fairest thing to write would have been that you had not seen my videos and could therefore not say whether they were backed by any documentation or not.

  194. Mr. Shore has now agreed with me that CO2 contributes a forcing (not containing any element of feedback) of 27 Watts per square meter. Now, it is generally well established in the literature that the forcing (not containing any element of feedback) from CO2 constitutes somewhere between 10% and 27% of the forcing (not containing any element of feedback) from all of the greenhouse gases, which accordingly exert between them 100 and 270 Watts per square meter of forcing (not containing any element of feedback). For the sake of making the premises of my argument as widely agreeable as possible, I took Kiehl & Trenberth’s total greenhouse-gas forcing of 100 Watts per square meter as the basis for my calculations.

    Now that Mr. Shore has been compelled to accept that CO2 exerts a forcing (before we start taking any feedbacks into account) of 27 Watts per square meter, perhaps he would be kind enough to give me a citation from the peer-reviewed literature that indicates what proportion of the total forcing from all greenhouse gases (before we start taking any feedbacks into account) is represented by the 27 Watts per square meter from CO2.

    If, as I think, the CO2 forcing accounts for between 10% and 20% of the forcing from all greenhouse gases, then climate sensitivity must be around 1.2 K, from which it follows that temperature feedbacks must be net-zero or thereby. It is not necessary for me to address the values of the individual feedbacks, none of which can be convincingly measured in any event, because my calculation is based on premises that I think most climate scientists would accept, and leads – in my submission validly – to a conclusion whose corollary is that temperature feedbacks are net-zero. As a matter of logic, therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate that my premises are false. And the best way to do that is to show me a paper, in the mainstream literature, that shows the forcing from CO2 to be something like thrice the 27% of total forcings given in Kiehl & Trenberth.

    It is not appropriate to attack my argument by saying that the water-vapor feedback must be positive, for two reasons. First, as Paltridge et al. have demonstrated, the water-vapor feedback may not be positive at all. And, even if it were, the formidable temperature-stability of the past few hundred million years suggests that feedbacks are either net-zero or, if anything, somewhat net-negative. However, my argument does not in any way depend upon or require the determination of individual feedbacks or even of their sum. As I have said in an earlier entry here, my finding that feedbacks are net-zero is a corollary of my argument’s conclusion. The values of individual feedbacks, or of feedbacks collectively, play no part in my argument. Therefore, in defence of that argument I am not obliged to address the question what the magnitude or mechanism of various individual feedbacks might be.

    Mr. Shore should, therefore, now address the reasonable question I have raised. If he thinks that the forcing from CO2, which he now agrees to be 27 Watts per square meter, is very substantially greater than the 27% of total forcing from the major greenhouse gases that is clear in Kiehl and Trenberth (1997), as it must be if his argument is to have any merit, then I need to see a reference justifying that substantially greater percentage. Otherwise, it necessarily follows that my argument stands valid and true: equilibrium and zero-feedback climate sensitivities are the same at 1.2 K, and that is indeed the end of the story.

  195. Joel Shore says:

    I think it should be clear to anybody who understands the science at this point that Lord Monckton’s argument relies entirely on word games and studious avoidance of the discussion of the actual scientific arguments that I have raised. His entire argument rests on his refusal to acknowledge that the use of the word “forcing” and “feedback” depends on context.

    Hence, in the context of considering the contribution of CO2 to the total radiative effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, he is correct that CO2 accounts for somewhere between about 10 and 27% (depending on whether one considers the amount temperatures would drop when the CO2 is removed with all other greenhouse gas levels held constant or if it is added to an atmosphere devoid of any greenhouse gases).

    However, what he fails to address is that when CO2 levels change, the levels of water vapor are expected to change too and hence the total radiative effect of removing CO2 once other changes in greenhouse gas levels are considered can be considerably larger than just the radiative effect due to CO2 alone. By refusing to consider the fact that some of the 100 W/m^2 of “forcing” would really come about as a feedback if CO2 levels were changed, he has done a calculation that essentially neglects the water vapor feedback (and the ice-albedo feedback) and then disingenuously claimed that he has included them.

    Since Monckton has refused to address the actual scientific arguments I have raised, I think we can conclude at this point that he is a very skillful debator but one whose arguments for a low climate sensitivity unfortunately lack any correct scientific foundation whatsoever. The fact that the argument that he presumably considers his most compelling for low climate sensitivity has been found to rest on word games rather than science, it must be inferred that all of his arguments are likely based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    The only interesting question for further speculation is whether Lord Monckton is truly this ignorant in his understanding of forcing and feedbacks or whether he knows he is incorrect but continues making an argument that is scientifically invalid for other reasons. I will not speculate on the answer to this question.

  196. Mike Jonas says:

    The fact that the argument that the IPCC presumably considers their most compelling for high climate sensitivity has been found to rest on “feedback” speculations rather than science, it must be inferred that all of their arguments are likely based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The only interesting question for further speculation is whether the IPCC is truly this ignorant in their understanding of the scientific process or whether they know they are incorrect but continue making an argument that is scientifically invalid for other reasons. I will not speculate on the answer to this question.

  197. The other Brian says:

    Now there’s an interesting proposition – Monckton Vs. the IPCC

  198. Jake says:

    Lord M wrote: “To seize on one unscripted talk by me, in which I carelessly suggested in passing that Gangotri was the only glacier receding in the Himalayas [...], and to go on and on and on and on about it when there are plenty of references to the correct position in other talks and writings by me seems less than reasonable.”

    This is an admision you were wrong when you said that, correct? It is good to see that you finally addressed it, even if with commentary that you think it’s petty to focus on this mistake of yours. Nobody expects that you must back out of your field because of one error (Well, I don’t anyway.)

    My question then is, did you understand that this comment of yours was what was referred to when you wrote this, above?:

    “Monckton says only one Himalayan glacier has been retreating. Many have.” No, I mentioned the Gangotri and Ronggbuk glaciers as being notable examples of glacial retreat in the Himalayas caused by geological instability in the region. To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating. Why did the caveman misrepresent me?”

    If you did Lord Monckton, then your answer should have been “yes” or even “yes but…” instead of “no.” If you didn’t understand, then I find it doubtful that you actually watched the videos where this quote of yours is played over and over.

  199. To Joel Shore: It is not a “word game” to ask for a reference in the scientific literature to support your contention that the forcing from CO2 is about three times greater, as a fraction of the forcings from all major greenhouse gases, than the literature seems to me to suggest. This is no debating point. If you cannot produce a reference to back up your assertion, you lose.

  200. REP says:

    Peter Hadfield says: January 14, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Welcome to Wattsupwiththat, Mr. Hadfield.

    One of the tell-tales of the mendacious propagandist is taking words out of context and assigning his own meanings to them. My comment to Lord Monckton in full is here and I don’t think any fair-minded reader is going to interpret it as an obsequious, forelock tugging “… so dreadfully sorry, m’lord, and please be assured it will never happen again, yer worship….” I also happen to regret stepping on spiders, approving harsh criticism of the defenders of consensus science, and I especially regret giving any additional publicity to your odious videos. You may take those as “apologies”, too, if you wish.

    You go on to write: In fairness, the Other Brian stated clearly that he was summarizing my videos, and someone else even gave a link to them… The Other Brian is responsible for what he posts, and that responsibility includes links. There are several moderators here at WUWT, reviewing as many as 2000 comments a day over a score of active threads. What I wrote about his comment was perfectly correct: a large number of allegations without citations. “Oh, gee, this may be important. I’d better review all the comments…” I am sorry, but a reference to some potholer54 does not meet the criterion. Posting your summary in the way he did it certainly implies his agreement and makes him responsible.

    I notice that you have had nothing to say about how you twisted my comment in your video to imply I was writing about your videos rather than The Other Brian’s comment. I presume, then you agree that your video, in that regard at least, is mendacious. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

  201. Brian H says:

    The other Brian says:
    January 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Dictionary meaning of transcribe http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transcribed
    so they were NOT my comments – I’m sure the meaning would be clear to most people but alias not all.

    The Lesser Brian keeps tripping on his lingua.
    His (repetitious) Big Finish is a characteristic malaproprism. The expression he thinks he’s typing is , “Alas, not all.” But for him, “alias” is a perfectly acceptable alias for “alas”. Alas, it is not.

  202. Brian H says:

    mod: typo, malaproprism malapropism

  203. The other Brian says:

    Here we going playing the semantics game again. Whether I agreed or was responsible is irrelevant. The plain and indisputable fact is they were NOT my comments as has been claimed.
    The links to videos had already been supplied by others and I referred to them in my post.

    Semantics: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.

    [REPLY: Let's be clear: That thing with your pseudonym at the top was your comment. The contents of your comment are yours. You own them. Whether those ideas originated with you or someone else, you disseminated them with the intention of harming Lord Monckton. "I was just repeating what I heard" is not a very good defense in a libel case, nor does it stand as impressive testimony to your intellectual acumen. -REP]

  204. freethinker69 says:

    @Mr. REP

    Sorry, but I did interpret your comment to Monckton as obsequious. The fact that you still refer to him as ‘Lord’ Monckton since his title as Lord has been debunked for sometime now is evidence of this.

    Regarding not bothering to properly research Potholer54, laziness and ineptitude is not an excuse. If you didn’t have time to do your research, then you should not have taken the time to possibly post false allegations (which you did, since Potholer54 documented his claims very well).

    As far as Potholer54 being odius, I don’t believe that he has ever sunk to the level of a grade-schooler and called Monckton anything resembling “caveman”.

    [REPLY: My, my, my; so much fodder, so little time. I'm approving this one as an illustration of the low intellectual acuity and lack of reading skills that seem to characterize Mr. Hadfield's acolytes. I'll know your apology is sincere when you change your pseudonym to "thought-free-69". -REP]

  205. The other Brian says:

    Glad to see you’re not perfect either Brian H

  206. Joel Shore says:

    To Joel Shore: It is not a “word game” to ask for a reference in the scientific literature to support your contention that the forcing from CO2 is about three times greater, as a fraction of the forcings from all major greenhouse gases, than the literature seems to me to suggest.

    That is not what I am saying and furthermore you know that is not what I am saying. Although I declined to speculate on the last question that I raised in my previous post, I think the answer is becoming fairly obvious.

  207. The other Brian says:

    It’s also not wise to assume people’s motives when it comes to the Law.

    After watching ALL the videos and the forensic approach taken by Peter Hadfield, my motive was merely to convey in written form, almost verbatim, what was in video #5 so people might watch all of them and make their own judgements – simple as that.

    The videos were already public property, including the one I quoted from.

    [REPLY: In England, Canada, the United States and Australia anyone who promulgates a libel is also guilty of libel. You never bothered to check for yourself, did you? Your little screed was not an invitation to people to rationally evaluate evidence for themselves, you were screeching at the top of your lungs about the perfidious Viscount of Brenchley. You also had nothing to say about Mr. Hadfield's misrepresentation about me, did you? Monckton answered you.... why don't you examine, for yourself, his claims and then make an informed judgment? -REP]

  208. freethinker69 says:

    Mr REP, I am not surprised that you refused to publish my reply to your last post towards me. It is proof that you were defeated.

  209. Matt says:

    At one point about halfway down (I can’t blockquote to save my life or do any fancy stuff, sorry to say), Martin keeps saying “prove it” (I picture him sounding like the guy in the mouse suit in the DCON mousetrap ads who says “prove it”), well to him I say the proof of IPCC fraud has been posted thousands of times here. Just take a gander.

  210. The other Brian says:

    Freethinker69 – you’ve had better luck than me – Mr. REP has made an informed judgement and come up with a conclusion that sits well with him – strange and diverse thing the human condition.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

  211. REP says:

    freethinker69 says: January 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm
    Mr REP, I am not surprised that you refused to publish my reply to your last post towards me. It is proof that you were defeated.

    Defeated? Hardly.

    …The fact that you still refer to him as ‘Lord’ Monckton since his title as Lord has been debunked…. Oh dear, he will be so surprised, as will Wikipedia and thepeerage.com:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
    http://www.thepeerage.com/i2065.htm#s30360
    http://www.thepeerage.com/p8126.htm#i81260

    You may not like the term, but it is in fact the correct form of address for a Viscount.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address_in_the_United_Kingdom#Peers_and_peeresses

    So, no, his claim to the title has not been “debunked”, which you would know if you’d bothered to do any research.

    You may think that the use of the honorific is obsequious, but I usually refer to people by their proper titles. As far as I know, Mr. Hadfield is in fact a “Mr.” and I usually refer to Michael E. Mann as “Dr.” and would certainly address him as such if he should grace us with his presence. William Connolly was here earlier and I would not think of addressing him as “Bill”, but since I moderated only one of his comments without any remarks of my own, I never got the chance. A few of our commenters are bonafide Ph.D.s but regular commenters tend to be a bit more informal, so while Joel Shore is in fact a Ph.D. physicist he has never stood on that. Lazy Teenager is also, I believe, a Ph.D. but calling him Dr. Lazy Teenager would sound too rude. If there are any regular commenters who would prefer I use an honorific, please let me know and I promise to be as obsequious as you like.

    Regarding not bothering to properly research Potholer54, laziness and ineptitude is not an excuse. If you didn’t have time to do your research…

    Let’s see, I approved TOB’s comment. What else do you think I should have done? Lord Monckton himself responded here. Are you suggesting that I perhaps had an obligation to research and vet each of his claims… the way you obviously did for the potholer videos? My job at WUWT is to vet comments for language, civility and being on topic and make sure that the few topics Anthony does not want to discuss on his blog (religion, and illuminati/zionist conspiracies, to name two (you can see the rest here on the policy page) don’t get in.

    ”…you should not have taken the time to possibly post false allegations (which you did, since Potholer54 documented his claims very well)…”

    That is one of the two instances I was referring to when mentioning your reading comprehension skills. I was, am, and will be referring to the appalling lack of references and evidence in TOB’s rant. You seem to have missed that part. It is also worth pointing out that Mr. Hadfield’s videos are snips of other videos. You never bothered to check their provenance, did you?

    ”As far as Potholer54 being odius…”
    Reading comprehension issues again. The statement was “I especially regret giving any additional publicity to your odious videos” – nowhere do I suggest that Mr. Hadfield is himself odious (note the correct spelling, by the way). I stand by my opinion that his videos are odious: textbook examples of gotcha journalism, as his treatment of my response to Lord Monckton in the second part of his Monckton Responds video and his comment here at WUWT demonstrate.

    Lord Monckton has, on occasion, made statements that have caused me to cringe, however he also been known to apologize. Don’t ask me to supply the reference, but I’m sure one of our other commenters who is less lazy and inept than myself will be happy to supply the link.

  212. Brian H says:

    Observer the futility of feeding trolls.

  213. freethinker69 says:

    REP said January 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm:
    “Defeated? Hardly.

    “…The fact that you still refer to him as ‘Lord’ Monckton since his title as Lord has been debunked…. Oh dear, he will be so surprised, as will Wikipedia and thepeerage.com:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    LOL. I read Monckton’s Wiki before I posted. You have since updated it. Here is what it said before you updated it:
    “The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][24] In July 2011 the House took the “unprecedented step” of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, “I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.”[25][26]”

    That paragragh is now missing.

    Here is the link showing the paragraph before you edited just a little while ago:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&diff=prev&oldid=471443288

    Why must you lie to prove your point? Let’s see if you have the guts to allow this comment to be published. You have been defeated.

  214. jim heath says:

    I live in Brisbane, we are having one of the coolest summers on record GREAT. Don’t bother wasting your breath on climate warming idiots, their argument will seem childish in a few years anyway. The Sun will take a few years to wake up, the Climate Warmist idiots may take longer, but hey wool might take off in price.

  215. One takes it that Joel Shore is unable to cite a reference to back up his claims. A shame – I am always willing to learn. However, at present we have Mr. Shore’s admission that the radiative forcing from CO2 (excluding any feedbacks) is 27 Watts per square meter, as I had said it was; and his so-far-unverified assertion that the radiative forcings from the other greenhouse gases – around 74 Watts per square meter of them – somehow include feedbacks that the CO2 forcing does not include. If that were so, Kiehl & Trenberth would surely have said something to that effect: otherwise, one must assume, as I have assumed, that all of the forcings are expressed in the same units – Watts per square meter – and are, therefore, forcings containing no element of feedback.

  216. freethinker69 says:

    [Note: Old news, since refuted. Read the WUWT archives for more info. Also, your ad hominem comments are getting tiresome, and violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  217. freethinker69 says:

    lol. what’s wrong, REP? Too scared to post my PWNAGE of you? Oh well, I posted it on Potholer’s youtube channel and sent him a private message of how I caught you red-handed telling a lie.

    [REPLY: Your really ARE a moron, aren't you? Point 1: Monckton's hereditary peerage and right to the honorific "Lord" has nothng to do with his membership in the House of Lords; Point 2: editing out that section of his wikipedia biography would have no effect on my argument; Point 3: the individual making the edits has been doing so since at least September and his talk page has at least one compliment from another editor praising his contributions; Point 4: I live on the East Coast of the United States... are you bright enough to figure out where the editor lives? Point 5: I have never edited a wikipedia entry; Point 6: I think Anthony will give me this one: you are done here. Don't come back.]

  218. freethinker69 says:

    [Please stop the name-calling. ~dbs, mod.]

  219. freethinker69 says:

    [Snip.]

  220. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    My My My…
    Listen to the terse tone from Monckton, Mod’s, Ants.
    One could easily presume that the merry cohort is feeling put upon.
    Perhaps you might need to get used to it. Thats what happens when you back the wrong side. One is prone to looking foolish. Egg on face and all that.The ever ascending stridency is probably a good indicator of that fear of chicken ova.

    By the way. Are you keeping track of the PIOMass trends for Ocean Ice Volumes? The sub 700M Ocean Heat Content figures? Read Meehl et al recently? Inconvenient ain’t it. Data.
    Queue apoplectic response in 3…2…1…

  221. freethinker69 says:

    {Snip. Insulting language. Strike two. ~dbs, mod.]

  222. freethinker69 says:

    [snip. site Policy violation. ~dbs, mod.]

  223. freethinker69 says:

    [snip. Old news, since debunked. ~dbs, mod.]

  224. HenryP says:

    Henry@Glenn Tamblyn

    Well, actually you are lucky. Here we love everybody, whether they like carbon or not. Not like other sites like Sceptical Science where they ban and censor people like me who dares to sing another tune,

    like saying that more carbon dioxide is better….
    Be blessed by knowing that driving a car (if you can still afford it) is good for the environment as it stimulates growth of more trees and greenery!

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  225. Roger Knights says:

    “These ["childish"] remarks are like the “caveman” comments he is now making …”

    That’s not vulgar abuse, just a witty tweak: Hadfield is a speleologist–i.e., a cave explorer.

  226. Joel Shore says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:

    If that were so, Kiehl & Trenberth would surely have said something to that effect: otherwise, one must assume, as I have assumed, that all of the forcings are expressed in the same units – Watts per square meter – and are, therefore, forcings containing no element of feedback.

    I have answered this non-sensical claim multiple times:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/#comment-863044
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/#comment-863396
    (to cite just a few examples in this thread)

    You, on the other hand, have never even attempted to answer my scientific points. TMy scientific points therefore stand completely unchallenged. This is not surprising, since it is clear to anyone who understands feedbacks and forcings that they are correct.

  227. Joel Shore says:

    One takes it that Joel Shore is unable to cite a reference to back up his claims. A shame – I am always willing to learn.

    In that case, I recommend reading the full article by Lacis et al.:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full

    It explains quite clearly that “in round numbers, water vapor accounts for about 50% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, CO2 20%, and the minor GHGs and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%” However, it also explains how you lose most of the ~75% of the greenhouse effect due to water vapor and clouds simply by removing the CO2 and minor GHGs.

    We’ll see if you really are “willing to learn”!

    REPLY: Joel, that could apply to you as well, lately your hubris is getting a bit out of hand – Anthony

  228. Jack Greer says:

    “REPLY: Your really ARE a moron, aren’t you? …”
    ~ REP ~

    lol. It never fails …

  229. Rob Honeycutt says:

    Roger Knights says… “That’s not vulgar abuse, just a witty tweak: Hadfield is a speleologist–i.e., a cave explorer.”

    It more of a childish rhetorical technique, something more commonly used on the schoolyard. It’s use is designed to cause the likeminded to fall into place behind the one “calling names.” It’s not very witty on the schoolyard and it’s certainly not very witty in a public response to someone. It’s a tactic that causes one to look like a bully in the eyes of the larger populace and also acts to reduce the number of bullies because the more reasonable individuals will silently divest themselves of their association with the person using such language. Of course it also causes those reduced numbers to become more vile and more vocal. All-in-all this is very consistent with MOB’s modus operandi. He’s less concerned with being correct than he is with creating a small, vocal, angry following.

  230. Joel Shore says:

    REPLY: Joel, that could apply to you as well, lately your hubris is getting a bit out of hand – Anthony

    Anthony: Lord Monckton was the one who made the claim that he is willing to learn. We will now find out if it is true. If I were you, I would be more concerned with the people lik Monckton who show hubris while spreading claims that are scientifically incorrect, rather than those of us who are trying to actually explain the correct science to people like Monckton who cannot defend their arguments scientifically but only through silly misdirection.

    REPLY: I’m concerned with how people act on this blog. You have a tendency to serial thread bomb anything you disagree with, which is why your comments get an extra level of moderation. You also seem to have trouble getting along with other people here and elsewhere. Monckton doesn’t thread bomb, he condenses his responses. You could learn something from him too. – Anthony

  231. Smokey says:

    freethinker69 says:

    [Trying to refute Lord Monckton's title]: “…his title as Lord has been debunked for sometime now…”

    I’m a little surprised no one has posted this link yet:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck

    The constant ad-hominem attacks against Lord Monckton are a weak fallback position, used because his attackers do not possess the scientific facts necessary to win the debate.

    Scientific skeptics have no need to question or belittle Michael Mann’s or Phil Jones’ titles, because their ‘facts’ are easily falsified, thus ad-hom attacks are unnecessary. And to Lord Monckton’s credit, he stands toe to toe with those nipping at his ankles and fights it out. He doesn’t back down from live debates.

    Compare that with limp-wristed academics like Abraham, Mann, Jones, and the rest of the cloistered ivory tower crowd, who run and hide whenever someone mentions the word “debate”. Taking potshots from the sidelines is more their style. It’s safer that way.

    But I would love to see a real debate between Lord Monckton and Abraham, or potholer, or Joel Shore, or Mann, or Jones [or all against one], televised, with rules, venue and Moderator selected by mutual agreement. I suspect when the smoke cleared they wouldn’t know what hit them.

  232. Joel Shore says:

    Anthony says:

    REPLY: I’m concerned with how people act on this blog. You have a tendency to serial thread bomb anything you disagree with, which is why your comments get an extra level of moderation. You also seem to have trouble getting along with other people here and elsewhere. Monckton doesn’t thread bomb, he condenses his responses. You could learn something from him too. – Anthony

    Anthony,

    I suggest perhaps you should take a broader view of how people act here. For example, you might ask if they make scientifically-honest and scientifically-correct arguments or if they use their debating skills to hide the fact that their science is incorrect (and in fact do not even try to defend their arguments scientifically but rather with word games). You might ask if, when they participate in threads, do they actually add scientific arguments and facts to those threads or do they just add noise and word games. Are they honest or deceptive in what they present?

    Sure, I have difficulty getting along with some people around here. That is because there are a lot of people around here who make scientifically-incorrect arguments, refuse to acknowledge the obvious scientific mistakes in those arguments, and so forth. This website has many intelligent posters and readers but they tend to have a large gap between what they know and what they think that they know. I am actually one of the most humble, who acknowledges the fact that I can learn from the scientists in the field and their accumulated knowledge; there are many others here who have never read a textbook on climate science and/or do not have the physical science or mathematical background to analyze the scientific arguments but nonetheless feel that they are more knowledgeable on the subject than climate scientists. Do you think this is a good thing?

    In the real world, where I am dealing with much more reasonable people, I am actually very easy to get along with. In fact, the irony is that you would find many more people saying that I should be more assertive with my thoughts, opinions, and needs than those that say I should be less so.

  233. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey:

    But I would love to see a real debate between Lord Monckton and Abraham, or potholer, or Joel Shore, or Mann, or Jones [or all against one], televised, with rules, venue and Moderator selected by mutual agreement. I suspect when the smoke cleared they wouldn’t know what hit them.

    We’ve already seen what would happen from what has happened here: I would make scientific arguments and would be met by Monckton’s misdirection and word games. Monckton’s debating skills might well convince those who are not able to evaluate the actual scientific arguments, but among a scientific audience that would not be the case.

    That is the reason why science is generally not settled by debating it before the public, and why people defending scientifically-incorrect ideas like creationism tend to want exactly that venue. It is simply a silly way to arrive at scientific truth.

  234. Smokey says:

    For someone who avoids the scientific method like Dracula avoids the dawn, Joel Shore’s scardey-cat comment tickles my funny bone.☺

  235. D Marshall says:

    Not only has this been one of the liveliest discussion threads in a while but it seems to have coincided with a considerable number of edits & reversals on Monckton’s Wikipedia page.
    Wikipedia edit history for Lord Monckton

    Graph of edit stats since 2006

    Quite an impressive start for 2012 :-)

  236. major9985 says:

    Good job Anthony in allowing Monckton to respond to potholer54′s rebuttal videos, I also like how you ensured that we could all see potholer54 videos by adding a link to the bottom of Moncktons response. You have taken my concerns I put to you head on.

  237. Fred Hillson says:

    [SNIP: I think you know why. -REP]

  238. Fred Hillson says:

    I asked if Lord Monckton was really a Lord then why did the House of Lords send this out? The moderator didn’t publish my post and responded “I think you know why” , but I don’t know why. Like Lord Monckton, I am willing to learn, so could someone please tell me why? Thank you.

  239. Smokey says:

    Fred Hillson,

    As you can see from D Marshall’s post above, alarmist propagandists fight tooth and nail to misrepresent the facts with ad-hominem bilge, because that’s all they’ve got. Forget Connolley and his mendacious claque. Get the real skinny straight from the horse’s mouth here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/20/dont-mock-the-monck

  240. Fred Hillson says:

    Thank you, Smokey, but I read that article before posting my question. Mr. O’Donoghue’s legal opinion is just the opinion of one lawyer. If O’Donoghue is correct, why doesn’t Lord Monckton sue the House of Lords and get the court’s opinion? Certainly Lord Monckton’s reputation is on the line, and isn’t Lord’s Monckton’s reputation the reason why he is suing John Abraham? Thank you.

    REPLY: Mr. Hillson, why do you keep changing handles? Previously you commented (quite angrily I might add) under the pseudonym “freethinker69″. Note that our site policy prohibits changing handles around. Choose one and stick with it. – Anthony

  241. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore, explaining why he doesn’t want to debate Lord Monckton:

    “I would make scientific arguments and would be met by Monckton’s misdirection and word games…”

    Allow me to show why Joel runs from a debate with Lord Monckton…

  242. Smokey says:

    “Fred Hillson” says:

    “Mr. O’Donoghue’s legal opinion is just the opinion of one lawyer.”

    And what is your C.V.? Or are you simply expressing your own baseless layman’s opinion? You fail at the authority stage, “Fred”.

  243. Fred Hillson says:

    **Posting again, if the post I submitted did not go through. My apologies if this is a double post.**

    Anthony, I tried posting again under freethinker69 and it wasn’t going through. so was it not banned? Or does that screenname now work?

    Smokey, my C.V. is irrelevant. The C.V. that has relevance is O’Donoghue’s His own website has his specialty listed as International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals. That is quite different than a constitutional lawyer as he is listed in your link. Would you go to a real estate lawyer if you were getting a divorce? I think not.

    Sorry, but the opinion of one single lawyer (and certainly not one working within his specialty) does not trump the official view of the UKs upper house..Not only that, but for Lord Monckton’s claim that he is an actual Lord to have any real validity, either statute law would need to be changed or the matter taken to court where a Judge would make a determination. Until then, O’Donoghue’s advice is merely an unsubstantiated opinion.

    So the fact is, the House of Lord’s has made it more than clear that Monckton is not a Lord, nor has he ever been a Lord. Thank you.

  244. Smokey says:

    “Fred Hillson” says:

    “So the fact is, the House of Lord’s has made it more than clear that Monckton is not a Lord, nor has he ever been a Lord.”

    The House of Lords has never made such a thing “clear”. That would have required passing a specific Motion [law], which was never done. And solicitor O’Donoghue is correct [and trumps your merely opinionated comment] in his educated analysis.

    You have expressed your baseless opinion. Fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. In your case, based on the facts, it is wrong. But have a nice day.

  245. Fred Hillson says:

    Smokey, since you only responded to a small portion of my previous post and did not acknowledge or deny the rest of it, I will therefore assume you had no rebuttal and agreed I was correct.

    No onto your rebuttal:

    The matter has indeed been brought up in the courts by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office).”

    In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: “In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a ‘member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house.”

    Because of this judgement, Monckton was informed that he was not entitled to call himself a member of the House of Lodsd, nor should he use parliament’s famous portcullis symbol on his letterheads or lecture slides, as he has done for a number of years.

    Since the judgement, Monckton has been using a slightly altered portcullis emblem on his lecture slides. The two chains hanging either side of portcullis are now kinked instead of straight. If Monckton himself felt he was correct, why did he change the portcullis emblem and also not bring his claim that he is a Lord into the judicial system?

    Thank you.

  246. Mike Jonas says:

    Fred Hillson – Lord Monckton was and still is a Viscount (Lord). The House of Lords Act 1999 purported to remove his right to sit in the House, as explained here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-09-29a.398.0
    However, there is a constitutional argument about the Act. As Baroness Ashton explained
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80929w0021.htm#column_WA398
    “The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.”.

    The problem is that the 1999 Act can be considered to be of “general application” because (as I understand the argument) it did not refer explicitly to those letters patent which it sought to overturn.

    As a result, there is an ongoing constitutional argument, which not many of us here, I suspect, are qualified to pass judgement on.

    In the meantime, it might be a good idea to stop the petty personal attacks and address the actual science. I suspect that it is Lord Monckton’s effectiveness in addressing the actual science that makes people like you resort to ad hominems.

  247. DMarshall says:

    It shouldn’t matter to anyone here whether Monckton’s claim on peerage is no stronger than Gore’s claim on the presidency. It should be about the validity of his arguments and rebuttals, nothing more.
    If he’s wrong, it would make no difference to me if he was next in line to the throne.
    If he’s right, he could be Borat in disguise for all I care.

  248. FaceFirst says:

    On the matter of Monckton’s title, whilst I agree that it is irrelevant to the science, it is however deeply relevant to his credibility. This article paints a rather damning picture:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

    On the radio show linked to in the article, Monckton makes the following claim:

    ‘Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it.’ (Link here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2011/07/lord-christopher-monckton-interview.html?site=sydney&program=702_breakfast)

    The letter from the House of Lords says ‘Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office).’

    Not only is the publication of this letter unprecedented, but the content and indeed intention could not be clearer. I think, in light of this evidence, the matter is settled and that Monckton needs to take steps to ensure people are not confused or misled.

  249. Smokey says:

    Mike Jonas,

    Excellent comment. D Marshall’s is also on point.

    From my handy online dictionary:

    peer n. 1 a member of the nobility in Britain or Ireland, comprising the ranks of duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron.

    Being an American, where these issues are the stuff of soap operas and breathless female talking heads, I prefer to rely on the dictionary definition of a peer, and leave it at that. There are those who cannot refute Lord Monckton’s debunking of their alarmist position, so they prefer instead to split hairs over what the dictionary definition actually means. FaceFirst’s own source states: “No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer.”

    Because they lack credible facts to support their conjectures, they attack the man. But it is just their opinion. That’s what’s going on here; opinion, no more and no less. Lord Monckton defends his position, and no one has produced a court case naming him. Until that happens, it’s like someone saying Mexicans are “beaners” and then wondering why they’re upset. People have the right to self-identify in America. [eg: the fake English royalty in Huckleberry Finn.]

    This issue is a textbook example of a red herring argument: attempting to distract from the real issue. So to get back on track: I have repeatedly proposed a testable hypothesis that has withstood all attempts at falsification. Clearly the alarmist contingent would prefer to discuss soap operas, but I will repeat my hypothesis, and challenge any of them to try and falsify it, per the scientific method [meaning no computer models; testable, real world evidence only] :

    At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    Those unable to falsify that empirically testable hypothesis can return to their soap operas.

    ["FaceFirst" will have credibility only if and when a court rules specifically against Lord Monckton's claims. And Fred Hillson has overreached: I do not agree with anything he says unless I state that I agree.]

  250. Peter Hadfield says:

    @REP: Thanks for the response. Whether or not your ‘regret’ to Mr. Monckton was an ‘apology’ or not, I am still puzzled as to why you thought it required “mount[ing] a search” to find my videos when the link was right there at the top of the page. However, now that you have found that I hope you will see that they are amply filled with documentation, of Mr. Monckton’s speeches and presentation stills, his sources, and a multitude of other papers.

  251. It would be nice to have equal space for a response to accusations that I am a mathematically inept caveman, but in the absence of that, and given the shortage of space I have here, let me at least address one of my points that Mr. Monckton attempted to answer above. In a speech at St Paul in 2009, Mr. Monckton cited a paper by Ola Johannessen, and stated the following: “What he found was that between 1992 and 2003, the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet increased by two inches a year.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM 11:40)
    However, I checked Johannessen’s paper, and it turns out he was only talking about the interior of Greenland at an elevation above 1,500 metres, not the Greenland ice sheet as a whole. In fact, Johannessen specifically warns that the vey conclusion Mr Monckton reaches cannot be made: “We cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes… for the whole Greenland ice sheet.”
    This is the point I made in my video that Mr. Monckton has failed to answer in his “response”. Since you are participating in this comments section, Mr. Monckton, over to you. I have cited two instances in the paper where Johannessen says no conclusion can be drawn about the nett loss of ice on Greenland as a whole. Please show me where the paper agrees with your conclusion that Johannessen’s findings of a thickness increase apply to the whole Greenland ice sheet.

    REPLY: You are mistaken. You have no shortage of space, comments can be as long as you wish, including links, graphics, and videos. And, you have your own venue to publish in as well. This is the place to engage. – Anthony

  252. Robert says:

    “REPLY: In England, Canada, the United States and Australia anyone who promulgates a libel is also guilty of libel. You never bothered to check for yourself, did you? Your little screed was not an invitation to people to rationally evaluate evidence for themselves, you were screeching at the top of your lungs about the perfidious Viscount of Brenchley. You also had nothing to say about Mr. Hadfield’s misrepresentation about me, did you? Monckton answered you…. why don’t you examine, for yourself, his claims and then make an informed judgment? -REP]”

    With all due respect you shouldn’t lecture others on libel when this article repeatedly makes libelous claims about Mr. Hadfield

  253. major9985 says:

    Monckton has had his chance to explain himself, now it should be time for Mr. Hadfield to respond. Being biased is very easy to spot, but not as easy to forget.

  254. Tom Curtis says:

    Anthony, equal right of reply implies equal prominence. That means if your intention is to be other than a propaganda merchant for Christopher Monckton, you would grant Peter Hadfield the opportunity of a blog post in response to Monckton’s libels and misrepresentations. As fairness is not a quality you demonstrate to any measure, I will not hold my breathe.

  255. FaceFirst says:

    @Smokey.

    I am only repeating – and documenting – the views of the house of lords themselves. They have taken what is believed to be the unprecedented step of correcting Monckton in a public letter. They highlight a judgement that shows clearly that Monckton’s claim, that he is a member of the house of lords ‘but without the right to sit or vote’, is false. They do not, however, say that he doesn’t have a peerage. They specifically state in their letter that ‘Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House.’. I contend that these are points of fact, and are not up for debate as there it is, in black and white.

    You seem to have latched on to the word ‘peer’ but what is in discussion here is a different issue. Monckton claims to be a member of the house of lords. The house of lords say he isn’t. If you can explain why the house of lords have got it wrong then I am all ears.

  256. FaceFirst says:

    @Smokey

    To follow up, you said:

    ‘”FaceFirst” will have credibility only if and when a court rules specifically against Lord Monckton’s claims.’

    Please see Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office), in which Mr Justice Lewison stated:

    “In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”

    I have now provided an example of a court ruling specifically against Lord Monckton’s claims. I’m not seeking credibility, only the truth. The article got me to check the claims of both Monckton and Hadfield – as any good sceptical thinker should do – and on this particular point of fact I have found Monckton to be wanting.

  257. DMarshall says:

    @Smokey Your indignance is amusing, given your posting history. It’s not as if I tried to SwiftBoat the Viscount.

    @Tom Curtis Poking Anthony in the eye isn’t likely to get him to agree

    @Anthony If it’s not already been suggested, I’d like to see a moderated debate between Hadfield and Monckton right here, with comment posting restricted to only a few chosen experts from both camps. It shouldn’t be difficult to find 3 or 4 from either side among the regulars.
    @Everyone Lord Monckton’s peerage is – and should be – irrelevant. I don’t recall it being a point of contention in ANY of Hadfield’s videos, which is the focus of this discussion.

  258. Smokey says:

    FaceFirst,

    You may be right. But I don’t really know, since I’m an American and the emotions raised over stuff like this seems a little absurd and old-timey to me. It is in the nature of revolutions that the new guard simply takes the place of the old guard; they never do away with the system.

    Soviet communists simply mover into the Czar’s palaces; ill-mannered, poorly educated, provincial peasants taking the place of the aristocracy. Now it seems to me that the current crop of British bumpkins is jealously guarding their new life peerages and, frightened of any disparaging comparison between themselves and those they’ve arbitrarily replaced, they are making sure there’s no comparison to be made any more. Lord Monckton routinely makes mincemeat out of debate opponents, bitch-slapping them around in a public setting. Can’t have that, can we? So get rid of Monckton politically since they are incapable of besting him with questions of science.

    This situation makes the UK class system seem even more clowish from over here. People whose only accomplishment in life is their lucky ability to garner votes in their districts leverage that luck into being the new dandies. [Now I can understand why John Lennon threw away his medals. They were only a token for the 95% tax rate he was forced to pay. And I'm assuming you know more about the House of Lords situation than I do, because I've not read the letter you referred to. Why even have a House of Lords, if it's populated by political toadies?]

    So now, let’s cut to the chase. This site is not about whose nobility is more real. That’s your thing, not ours. My concern is the hijacking of science by a reprehensible clique of climate charlatans, led by Mann and Jones. They avoid the scientific method and transparency like Dracula recoils from a crucifix. They are clearly in the game for the status, political power, fame, and the endless jaunts to holiday venues, all paid for by others, mostly taxpayers. And it is all based on a lie: the demonization of “carbon”.

    Now I would like you to ‘fess up: admit that my oft-repeated hypothesis remains unfalsified:

    At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.

    Because that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? The runaway global warming scare, which is based on the nonsense that an increase in harmless, beneficial CO2 will cause runaway global warmiing and climate catastrophe. No less an authority than the planet itself is debunking that nonsense.

    So rather than hairsplitting over questions of pre-WWII aristocracy and how it has been perverted by politics, can we keep to the central issue? Either falsify my hypothesis in a testable way, per the scientific method, or admit that the global warming / “carbon” scare is every bit as political as the question of who is a peer, and whatever that means in 2012.

  259. FaceFirst says:

    @ Smokey

    I agree with you and DMarshall that Monckton’s peerage is irreverent in terms of the scientific debate. I do, however, think that is it incumbent on a site that proclaims to approach assertions with skepticism to assess all claims, who ever makes them. Monckton has made a claim and I investigated it. In this instance it has been shown conclusively that Monckton’s claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

    This is important because once a person has been caught peddling untruths, it makes people more likely to question other claims made by that person. I think you would agree with that, wouldn’t you? This is the modus operandi of any ardent skeptic, and this site in particular has a responsibility to uphold these values.

    On to your hypothesis. I think it is worded in such a way as to be uselessly vague. Beneficial to who? Harmless to who? In a warming world, there will of course be winners and losers. In it’s current form, your hypothesis isn’t testable using the scientific method as it lacks clarity. Ergo, it cannot be falsified using the scientific method as you ask, QED.

  260. SteveE says:

    @Monckton

    “SteveE purports to quote an earlier posting by me, but he neglects to complete the quotation”

    Lets look at the full quotations then:

    “There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – but repeated reanalyses of the data have shown that it was temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentration change that followed.”

    “Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly.”

    Nope sorry in one you clear state that there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperature over 500 million years and the other you clearly state that the correlation since the Cambrian (542 million years) has been spectacularly poor.

    Changing you arguement to being about which changed first temperature or CO2 is not what was being discussed.

    What you’re trying to do is what Potholer refers to as a Monckton Manoeuvre I believe, where you change you arguement to try and make it sound like you were right.

    Now would you like to correctly respond to the allegation that you typed in the article above:

    “Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years.”

  261. FaceFirst says:

    In the article, Monckton says:

    ‘“Monckton says only one Himalayan glacier has been retreating. Many have.” No, I mentioned the Gangotri and Ronggbuk glaciers as being notable examples of glacial retreat in the Himalayas caused by geological instability in the region. To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating.’

    Yet in the video, Monckton says the following:

    ‘The glaciers are showing no particular change in 200 years. The only glacier that has declined a little is Gangotri’.

    It clear from watching the video that Monckton makes the specific claim that ONLY Gangotri is showing decline, and that ‘all the others are doing fine’.

    It is demonstrably false to suggest that it wasn’t implied that ONLY one glacier was declining as exactly that was said verbatim and on camera. This rebuttal of Hadfield’s point by Monckton does not stand up to scrutiny.

    I think a site occupied by skeptics has a duty to independently check claims for themselves and I would like others to join me in doing so. Anything less isn’t skepticism as I understand it.

  262. Smokey says:

    FaceFirst says:

    “This is important because once a person has been caught peddling untruths, it makes people more likely to question other claims made by that person. I think you would agree with that, wouldn’t you?”

    First off, these are all opinions. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, there is no court decision naming Viscount Monckton, and the general law does not seem to apply. Therefore, both sides are only giving their opinions. By labeling an opinion as an “untruth”, you are making an ad hominem attack. In an honest debate that would cost you points, the same as if I labeled your opinion as being dishonest which, based on your own rationale, I could. But I won’t, because it is all opinion.

    And once again you are falling back on this unconnected issue, because it’s all you’ve got. You cannot falsify my testable hypothesis, so you nitpick a different issue in order to avoid giving non-existent empirical evidence. Allow me to deconstruct:

    First, “ardent” skeptic is a misnomer. The only honest kind of a scientist is a skeptical scientist. You are either a skeptic, or you’re not. There is no middle ground, and there are no varying degrees of skepticism. Skeptics have nothing to prove; it is those claiming that “carbon” is a problem who have the onus to show, per the scientific method, that they are correct. So far, they have abjectly failed.

    Next, I deliberately word my hypothesis in as few words as possible, in order to avoid confusion. But you still claim to be unable to understand, so let me help: CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.

    The planet is currently starved of CO2. You say there will be “winners and losers”. Please provide testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, showing global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2. Please, no models or speculation; this is the internet’s “Best Science” site, so stick to the scientific method, or go to pseudo-science blogs like tamino, climateprogress, or any of the many others peddling anti-science misinformation. If evidence does not pass the muster of the scientific method, it is simply not science.

    As others can see, the hypothesis as stated is certainly testable. Simply provide data showing verifiable global harm due to the rise in CO2, if you can. For example, “ocean acidification” is an opinion claimed by some to show global harm caused by CO2. But that claim fails because the minuscule pH change [which is only an opinion at this point] is much smaller than either the error bars of the measuring instruments, or the normal diurnal pH changes. Further, the immense buffering capacity of the oceans will absolutely prevent “acidification”. The pH assertion is not testable because instruments have a much wider measurement tolerance than the pH changes claimed. Methane is another false claim that has been raised. It also fails the scientific method becuase methane concentrations have been decelerating, not increasing. And of course, methane is not CO2.

    Regarding your assumption that CO2 is harmless is not testable, that is wrong. Simply provide verifiable, empirical, data-based evidence showing global harm due specifically to CO2. That is eminently testable; simply show global harm. The problem for the alarmist crowd is that they have no such evidence.

    Next, you conflate “a warming world” with the hypothesis, which specifically states that CO2 is harmless. AGW is a conjecture, and since the planet has been warming along the same trend line since the LIA, it is only an unproved assumption that the natural warming trend is due to increased CO2. A small fraction of the warming may be due to rising CO2, but again, that is beneficial, not harmful. Warmth is good; cold kills.

    If you cannot provide solid evidence of global harm, then CO2 is ipso facto “harmless.” Therefore the hypothesis is falsifiable simply prove global harm due to CO2. Thus, your “QED” is simply wrong – and silly sounding – rhetoric, which takes the place of verifiable data. Give me replicable, data-based, irrefutable facts, not mere opinion. Until then, the hypothesis remains standing.

  263. major9985 says:

    Smokey says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:35 am

    The argument is not about CO2 = Plant Food = Happy Biosphere, its about sensitivity and the increased warming that is being predicted from CO2 induced downward infrared radiation. Where do you think all the extra downward infrared radiation is going Smokey? People that have an open mind to real science don’t look at 10 year temperature trends, they also have the mind power to understand that the oceans are heat sinks. http://tinyurl.com/6pjtcpx

  264. Smokey says:

    major9985,

    Please pay attention. The post above presents a specific hypothesis: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Sensitivity has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, there is a huge range of opinions about what the sensitivity number is. That is because there is no definitive evidence to support a specific sensitivity number, which anyway does not address the hypothesis.

    Likewise with “downward radiation”. That does not address the hypothesis. Likewise with “temperature trends”. That also fails to address the hypothesis. And “ocean heat sinks”; that also avoids the hypothesis.

    Those are each and every one of them strawman/red herring arguments. In order to falsify the stated hypothesis, you must provide testable, empirical data showing conclusively that CO2 is directly causing global harm.

    I have proposed my simple and straightforward hypothesis; the onus is now on others to provide empirical evidence showing specific global harm that can only be tied to the rise in CO2 – if they can. Since you have provided no such evidence, your irrelevant opinions on unrelated issues are meaningless. Pay attention to what the hypothesis states, and stick to the requirements of the scientific method in any attempts at falsification.

  265. major9985 says:

    Smokey says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:48 am

    No Smokey, it is irrelevant if increased man made CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. The debate is about the warming that has been predicted from increased CO2 in the atmosphere (http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf) and how climate sensitivity will react to that change.

  266. Smokey says:

    major9985,

    I asked you to pay attention to the specific hypothesis I presented. Instead, you went off again on another unrelated tangent. The hypothesis has nothing to say about “warming”, or “climate sensitivity”.

    If you cannot falsify the specific hypothesis presented, you are no different than anyone else; that hypothesis has withstood all attempts at falsification.

    By constantly changing the subject, and arguing instead about irrelevant matters not contained in the hypothesis, you make it clear that you are unable to falsify the hypothesis per the scientific method.

    CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. If you challenge that, then the onus is on you to prove otherwise, by posting testable, empirical evidence [ie: no 'computer models' or irreproducible claims, opinions, or WAG's]. Good luck.

  267. major9985 says:

    Smokey says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:58 am

    No smokey I don’t play games when it comes to serious topics like this..If CO2 increases temperatures to dangerous levels like science is suggesting, it is irrelevant that your garden is growing a bit better. . Lets all try to be adults here.

  268. major9985 says:

    [SNIP: Don't EVER try this again. -REP]

  269. Thanks for the clarification, Anthony. However, there is a convention that the right of reply means equal prominence as well as equal space. A lot of people will read Mr. Monckton’s piece but very few will bother to scroll down through dozens of comments to see if I have posted my two-cents’ worth in reply. Even Mr. Monckton has so far failed to respond to the single point I have made in the comments section about Johannessen’s paper. Why the unwillingness to have a free and full debate, with an equal forum for both of us?

    REPLY: Two reasons.

    1. You have an online forum or your own, Monckton does not, which is why I allow him to publish here. Your videos were already given a fair exposure here.

    2. You have not offered any equivalent “in kind”, nor even notified the subscribers on your forum of Monckton’s response.

    I don’t see any reason to offer you a larger “right of reply” here (which I assume you mean you want a guest post) when reciprocity does not exist. Even if it did, I don’t work in video essays, nor does my moderator REP, so we’d have no easy way to respond on your channel. Mostly, you just want to take advantage of the high traffic that WUWT offers. There’s no benefit for me or WUWT readers to give you guest post status. As I said, you are welcome to write a detailed reply in comments. Best I can do is make a note of it in the main post with a link. Take it or leave it.

    BTW when will you be applying your considerable video debunking skills to Al Gore? It seems he’s just as guilty of distortion as other topics you take on. If you are truly non-biased, let’s see you do one.

    - Anthony

  270. Fred Hillson says:

    Thanks for the replies, Sorry, but as far as Monckton’s claim that he is a peer – I’m siding with UK’s upper house, who obviously has real constitutional lawyers on staff. I think siding with Monckton’s laywer (whose own website has his specialty listed as International Law including Extradition and Human Rights with a particular emphasis on appeals and therefore is not a constitutional lawyer as claimed by Monckton’s supporters) is naive. It’s not much different than siding with a retired paleontologist (Dr. Bob Carter) instead of an expert climatologist when discussing the subject of climate change.

    Monckton himself has since changed the portcullis emblem on his lecture slides since being warned by the House of Lords that he is not entitled to use their porticulus emblem. Why did he change his porticulus emblem and then not have the matter settled in court if his reputation means so much to him? Maybe because if that happened then Monckton would be placed under oath and have the opportunity to be cross-examined on many of his questionable claims? I highly suspect that is the last position in which Monckton would want to be. That is also the reason Monckton will never sue John Abraham for libel and is instead offering nothing but an empty threat, much like non-scientist John Coleman and his 32,000 scientists did when threatening to sue Al Gore. And before you start comparing Gore to Monckton, please note that neither of their opinions mean anything to me regarding climate change. Neither one of them is a climatologist.

  271. Tom Curtis says:

    Fred Hillson, it is an arcane point, as befits the illogical system of hereditary peerage, but Monckton is undoubtedly a peer of the realm, ie, a Lord, in virtue of his being a Viscount. That entitles him to a better seat at a dinner table if his hosts employs the standard English rules of ettiquette. It may entitle him to a personal consultation with the Queen at his request. (That is an archaic right of peers which many believe to have lapsed, but which has not been tested in the courts as yet, nor explicitly extinguished by Parliament.) It also gains him, although it does not entitle him, to a large measure of unearned credibility among the gullible.

    What is also true (almost completely beyond doubt) is that Monckton is not a Peer of Parliament, ie, a Member of the House of Lords. The almost depends completely on the very remote possibility that the legislation ending the right of Hereditary Peers to sit by right in the House of Lords being declared unconstitutional. Failing that, the Act declares that the Clerk of Parliaments is the being able to conclusively declare whether or not a Peer of the Realm is or is not a Peer of Parliament. The Clerk of Parliament’s has so declared. It follows that in the absence of a successful court case by Monckton, he is not a Member of the House of Lords, contrary to his claims, and contrary to his (at least twice) implied claim to be not just a member by a technicality (as he now claims) but to be an actual member of the legislature.

  272. Smokey says:

    Peter Hadfield says:

    “…there is a convention that the right of reply means equal prominence as well as equal space.”

    You’re kidding, right? Explain your ‘right of reply’ to alarmist pseudo-science blogs like tamino, climateprogress, and the rest of the blogs that don’t allow even the most polite, on-point comments if they contradict the demonization of “carbon”.

    • • •

    major9985,

    It is telling that you still cannot dispute the hypothesis I posted. If it were not for strawman and red herring arguments, you wouldn’t have much to say.

    One thing is clear, though: my hypothesis remains unfalsified. CO2 is harmless to the planet and beneficial to the biosphere… which pretty much destroys the alarmist arguments demonizing “carbon”. But thanx for playing, sport, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

    • • •

    Hillson & Curtis,

    You’re both still fixated on Lord Monckton! What’s it like living in your moms’ basement? Bleating about British royalty sure beats trying to defend debunked alarmist ‘science’, doesn’t it?

  273. major9985 says:

    People in the debate over AGW don’t make so many mistakes trying to push their argument as Monckton has and not even have the tenacity to rectifier their mistakes. In light of all the evidence and Moncktons complete lack to answer the claims put to him, is WUWT just going to let this injustice be swept under the carpet? The world is watching, and I think you are going to have to give your readers a bit more credit when it comes to intelligence to see what is going on here.

  274. Tom Curtis says:

    Smokey, I have no fixation on Monckton, other than to note that great acclaim a conspiracy theorist receives among so called climate skeptics. I was merely pointing out to Hillson that he was in error with regard to his claims on Monckton.

  275. Smokey says:

    major9985,

    As usual your posts contain no verifiable facts. Scientific facts are all that matters, so you can forget your lame ad-homs. Instead, give us a few verifiable scientific “facts” that Lord Monckton is wrong about. Run along now to Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science if you need some talking points.

    And don’t forget to try and refute my hypothesis. If it cannot be credibly falsified in a testable manner per the scientific method, all the alarmist arguments are deconstructed.

  276. major9985 says:

    Smokey says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    Just to make it clear Smokey, you seem to negate the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has been shown increasing the amount of downward infrared radiation hitting the earth. “harmless” I take it you got that excellent debating stance from Michele Bachmann.

    I have referenced the one of many science papers that shows how much warming is caused by man (http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf). But I will let you get the last word regarding your ramblings smokey, there is more pending issues.

  277. Smokey says:

    major,

    Thank you for allowing me the last word.

    I note that your link states: “…In essence, it is based on a regression of the observations onto model simulated patterns.” Thus, it is model-based, and merely opinion. Such pal-reviewed nonsense is the central problem in climate science, since it ignores the scientific method [which would easily deconstruct model-based nonsense].

    My view is that Co2 is a GHG – but its effect is minuscule, and it should be disregarded as such.

    And I note once again that you seem incapable of falsifying my hypothesis stating that CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. If you cannot falsify that hypothesis, your climate alarmism fails.

  278. Brian H says:

    Smokey says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    My view is that Co2 is a GHG – but its effect is minuscule, and it should be disregarded as such.

    And I note once again that you seem incapable of falsifying my hypothesis stating that CO2 is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. If you cannot falsify that hypothesis, your climate alarmism fails.

    It’s best to do your best to suggest findings and tests that could falsify your own hypothesis. Do your damnedest to imagine the toughest challenges or possible data findings you can. Then follow up and/or invite others to do so. That’s the pure quill “scientific method”.

  279. FaceFirst says:

    @ Smokey

    I replied that your hypothesis – ‘At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.’ – was unscientific because it was so vague as to be untestable. In your response you say ‘I deliberately word my hypothesis in as few words as possible, in order to avoid confusion.’

    You then go on to offer a new hypothesis:

    ‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’

    This rather begs the question; if the original hypothesis was worded to avoid confusion, why do you need to make adjustments to it to make it testable?

    Anyway, we now have a new hypothesis that I think is testable. The hypothesis is:

    ‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’

    Now, in order to falsify this hypothesis, I would need to show an instance of more CO2 being in someway harmful to something in the biosphere. Because the biosphere is simply a sum of its parts, CO2 causing harm to any of the organisms making up the biosphere would render your hypothesis refuted.

    Please read this:

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/txr/2005/00000024/00000004/art00003

    ‘At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death.’

    I have now produced peer reviewed evidence that in fact more CO2 is not necessarily beneficial to the biosphere. This means your hypothesis is falsified. If you think I have missed the point, and that what you were getting at was something different, then that just proves my point that your original hypothesis was too vague (and this new one is too).

    In light of this evidence, I take it you will now accept your hypothesis refuted and you will stop pestering people to try and falsify it.

  280. Peter Hadfield says:

    Anthony, sorry, but you are incorrect on most points:

    1) Monckton does indeed have an online forum – not only his own page on the SPPI website, where he publishes regularly, but also a YouTube channel, where his rebuttal of Abraham was posted. When Monckton was criticised in a comment on your website, you did not tell him he could respond to the criticism in his own section of the SPPI website, you gave him space on your website for a complete rebuttal. Yet when I am criticized, not in a comment but in a headlined piece, I am not given a similar opportunity to respond.

    2) I have indeed invited Monckton to respond, and that offer has been in the ‘updates’ section of my channel for a while now. But Monckton needs no invitation anyway. Anyone, Monckton included, can post response videos to any of my videos. If Monckton ever did make a video response on my channel, I would even mirror his video to ensure that none of my 50,000 subscribers missed it. Monckton’s response on WUWT has been the subject of discussion on my channel page and I have posted a link to it.

    3) =There’s no benefit for me or WUWT readers to give you guest post status.=
    On this point I entirely agree, from a short-term perspective. My response would give details of how Monckton’s piece on your website was factually distorted, and supply evidence that supports my assertions and contradicts his. Since you seem to side rather heavily with Mr. Monckton, an open debate might bring some uncomfortable information to the attention of your readers. However, the right of reply is not meant to ‘benefit’ you, it is a courtesy granted in the interests of fairness and free debate. If my response is factually flawed, then you or Mr. Monckton are welcome to point out my errors and show that I am wrong. If, on the other hand, it turns out that my evidence is solid and that Mr. Monckton was wrong, this would also surely be of great benefit to both you and your readers. Let’s have an online debate to see who is right and who is wrong, and let your readers judge the outcome. So far Mr. Monckton seems unwilling to answer my points (as I would like to show, given the opportunity) or debate me, and you are not encouraging such an examination of the facts by giving him all the prominent space he wants and none at all to me.

    4) Your question about Al Gore is clearly based on the fact that you have not watched my videos, for reasons that I understand and sympathise with. However, it is interesting that you make the automatic assumption that I have not criticized Gore in my videos or pointed out his errors – which I have. You then go on to criticize me for something you imagine I have not done! I have also criticized various media reports that exaggerate or invent the effects of climate change. My channel is dedicated to busting anti-science claptrap on both sides of this issue – as well as on subjects such as evolution, the age of the Earth, the Big Bang and even an expanding Earth.

    Peter

    REPLY: What I meant was that Monckton has no website exclusively his own, he relies on others, as you point out, SPPI, and WUWT.

    I note you provide no links to videos on Al Gore, so it would seem you have not dedicated one to his many issues of distortion.

    You are welcome to post any comments you want on this thread provided they are within site policy. There is no space limitation, you ca link to graphs (use tinypic) and videos (Use YouTube). I will then link that rebuttal into the main post where it is highly visible. There’s no possibility of a reply in your video channel, since none of us work in that like medium as you do, and your channel gets a mere fraction of the traffic that WUWT does. So, it is an inequitable trade for exposure anyway.

    That’s my final offer, which I think is more than equitable, since I’m under no obligation of any kind. As they say in business when the negotiation is down to the last, take it or leave it.

    Anthony

  281. Peter Hadfield says:

    Confined as I am to the bottom of the comments section, I would still like Mr. Monckton to properly debate me point by point. I have taken just one question to start with, that of Ola Johannessen’s paper, which Mr. Monckton misrepresented in his talks. My re-iteration of the evidence which he did not discuss in his ‘response’ is a few comments above. Mr. Monckton, if you can expend the time and effort insulting me and thinking up perjoratives like ‘caveman’ surely you can expend a little effort explaining why Johannessen’s paper says something very different to what you claim it says.

    REPLY: see my note in your comment above – Anthony

  282. Smokey says:

    Brian H says:

    “It’s best to do your best to suggest findings and tests that could falsify your own hypothesis. Do your damnedest to imagine the toughest challenges or possible data findings you can. Then follow up and/or invite others to do so. That’s the pure quill ‘scientific method’.”

    Believe me, I’ve tried. I can find no evidence of global harm from CO2. None. The evidence just doesn’t exist.

    • • •

    FaceFirst,

    Sorry. Fail. Your link does not refer to anything global. It is a link to physiological effects of CO2 in concentrations over 10%. My hypothesis specifically states ‘current and projected’ CO2 concentrations. Currently, CO2 comprises only a minuscule 0.00039 of the atmosphere. Projected concentrations are less than double that: a still minuscule 0.00078. That is nothing compared with 10%. Maybe on you planet my hypothesis is “refuted”, but not on Planet Earth.

    The hypothesis that at current and projected concentrations CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere remains unfalsified, despite attempts by folks with weak reading comprehension.

  283. FaceFirst says:

    @ Smokey

    You are, as I anticipated, shifting the goal posts, which rather demonstrates my point that your hypothesis as stated lacked clarity. To recap, you stated:

    ‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’

    I have shown that more is in fact NOT better. Taken too far, it kills humans. You have now stated a third iteration of your hypothesis:

    ‘The hypothesis that at current and projected concentrations CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere’

    This still lacks clarity if you ask me. Do you mean NET benefit? Or do you literally mean that in no instance is an increase in CO2 harmful to anything? I can only take this new hypothesis as stated, and it is easily refuted:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19782832

    ‘When CO(2) levels reached approximately 340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events. Recovery was dependent on the vulnerability of individual reef areas and on the reef’s previous history and resilience. At today’s level of approximately 387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline…/

    /…If CO(2) levels are allowed to reach 450 ppm (due to occur by 2030-2040 at the current rates), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from multiple synergies arising from mass bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts. Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions. Reefs will cease to be large-scale nursery grounds for fish and will cease to have most of their current value to humanity. There will be knock-on effects to ecosystems associated with reefs, and to other pelagic and benthic ecosystems. Should CO(2) levels reach 600 ppm reefs will be eroding geological structures with populations of surviving biota restricted to refuges.’

    This paper shows that both current and projected CO2 levels does in fact impact negatively on certain parts of the biosphere, ergo you cannot say that it is ‘globally harmless’. I have now once again refuted your newest hypothesis, but I suspect from past performance you will adjust your hypothesis and hand wave this evidence…

  284. Smokey says:

    FaceFirst,

    I am enjoying this, because it is so easy to refute your belief system. You claim: “I have shown that more [CO2] is in fact NOT better. Taken too far, it kills humans.” A complete non sequitur. It is in fact you who are shifting the goal posts, not I. My hypothesis clearly states: “at current and projected levels.” You have shifted the goal posts, from 0.039% to >10%, twenty five times more than that stated in the hypothesis.

    My boy served in the Navy on the USS Helena for six years. Continuous CO2 levels up to 5,000 ppmv were permitted for 4 months’ duration. A level of 2,000 ppmv was permitted indefinitely. I think the Navy knows more than you about the safety of CO2 levels.

    Next, you ask: “Do you mean NET benefit?” Of course I mean on balance, as I have stated numerous times on WUWT. It is splitting hairs to say otherwise. I suppose someone could find some farfetched example and say, “Gotcha!” But I prefer to be rational. That said, I am unaware of any detrimental effects from the current rise in CO2.

    Here are a few examples of the benefits of increased CO2:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    click6
    click7

    [More examples on request. Just ask.]

    It is obvious that enhanced CO2 increases agricultural productivity. In a world where one-third of the population subsists on less than $2 a day, the rise in CO2 is saving lives. Therefore, it is a net benefit.

    Finally, the 2009 paper you linked to has been debunked. The WUWT archives confirm that coral bleaching is a function of water temperature, not CO2. That paper is based on computer models and makes outlandish predictions. As I have repeatedly stated, to falsify my hypothesis requires empirical, testable evidence per the scientific method, and models are not evidence. And bear in mind the fact that “coral bleaching” has been moved to the back burner for one reason only: corals have since rebounded, recovering almost completely – while CO2 levels have steadily increased. Therefore, my hypothesis remains unfalsified.

  285. FaceFirst says:

    @ Smokey

    It seems that we are going to have to start version tracking your various hypothesis so that we can keep an eye on how you are adjusting them to deflect evidence.

    Hypothesis V1 was – verbatim:
    ‘At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.’

    When I asked you to restate this as a testable hypothesis you came up with this:

    Hypothesis V2:
    ‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’

    Which I refuted by showing that more wasn’t in fact better. You didn’t like this, so shifted the goal posts.

    Hypothesis V3 changed again:
    ‘The hypothesis that at current and projected concentrations CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere’

    Which I refuted by showing that CO2 wasn’t, in fact globally harmless and that in some instances both current and projected levels do indeed cause harm.

    We are now on to hypothesis V4:
    ‘Of course I mean on balance, as I have stated numerous times on WUWT’

    Well, you may have stated this hypothesis before, but not to me and I can only deal with what I see here. I specifically made the point that your hypothesis needed clarification and you refuted that but clarified your position anyway…one wonders why.

    If you had actually read the paper that I linked to, you would see that it doesn’t only focus on coral bleaching, but also covers the retardation in growth of coralline algae. Unless you want to argue that algae isn’t part of the biosphere, then your hypothesis is refuted. And in case you want to argue that coralline algae isn’t affected by CO2, here is another paper studying IN THE LAB the effects:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w32h6064805l67k8/

    Your original challenge to me was to produce empirical evidence to refute your claim CO2 is harmless. I have done so. Your hypothesis is refuted.

  286. Jeff Alberts says:

    Faceplant sez:

    And in case you want to argue that coralline algae isn’t affected by CO2, here is another paper studying IN THE LAB the effects:

    How are you going to increase CO2 in the oceans if they’re getting warmer. Warmer oceans means less dissolved CO2, does it not?

  287. Smokey says:

    Jeff Alberts,

    Thank you for saving me some typing.

    • • •

    Faceplant:

    There is only one hypothesis, with the key words “harmless” and “beneficial”. All the rest was provided in response to your complaints that you were confused, and unclear about the original statement. Most people who have responded have had no problem understanding it.

  288. Mike Jonas says:

    FaceFirst – I read the abstract of the last paper you cited. It was a laboratory experiment on the effect of increased CO2 “(air+1250 ppm)” on coral. But, according to SkepticalScience.com http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm not even a modest fraction of this will happen inside the next 500-1000 years:
    … It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. … Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).“.

    However, your attempts to falsify Smokey’s hypothesis do achieve one thing: they demonstrate that you do think that the hypothesis is falsifiable. I would be interested in knowing in what ways you think that AGW is falsifiable.

  289. Smokey says:

    Mike Jonas,

    As we know, at this point the AGW conjecture is not falsifiable. It may eventually turn out to have some validity. Maybe. But as of now it remains a conjecture; an opinion.

    Personally, I tend toward the view that CO2 adds a minuscule amount of [beneficial] warming to the atmosphere. But that is simply my evidence-free opinion, since there is no testable, empirical evidence supporting that view.

    Thank you for pointing out that FaceFirst is now [impotently] trying to falsify the hypothesis that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. FaceFirst is only trying to support a failed conjecture that he has been told is reality. But it requires more than being spoon-fed a belief system to overcome the rigour of the scientific method.

  290. D Marshall says:

    1) AGW is not falsifiable, therefore probably not true.
    2) AGW might be falsifiable, therefore likely false.
    Does that adequately sum up the falsifiability “conjecture”

  291. Len says:

    @ Monckton of Brenchly and REP,
    Was Ola Johannessen talking only about the interior of Greenland or the whole ice sheet when talking about the 2inch/ year increase in thickness?

  292. Len says:

    Jeff Alberts, re Jan 18 3.57pm

    Are you not neglecting that the amount of gas dissolved into a liquid also depends its partial pressure, ie the concentration of the gas?

  293. SteveE says:

    You are welcome to post any comments you want on this thread provided they are within site policy. There is no space limitation, you ca link to graphs (use tinypic) and videos (Use YouTube). I will then link that rebuttal into the main post where it is highly visible. There’s no possibility of a reply in your video channel, since none of us work in that like medium as you do, and your channel gets a mere fraction of the traffic that WUWT does. So, it is an inequitable trade for exposure anyway.

    That’s my final offer, which I think is more than equitable, since I’m under no obligation of any kind. As they say in business when the negotiation is down to the last, take it or leave it.

    Anthony

    This suggests to me that you know that Monckton’s arguments wouldn’t stand up to a debate and so are not willing to allow this to happen on your blog. It’s fair enough, this is your blog afterall, but it does seem like you are shying away from any open debate on the issues that Monckton raises.

    Peter has been quite reasonable in asking for a reply article, and surely if it’s just the traffic you want I’m sure an open debate between him and Monckton on here would be a very popular article.

    I suspect a more likely reason is simply you don’t want this debate to take place because you know what the outcome will be, Monckton is good at public speeches as long as he doesn’t have any chance of people pointing out his errors, that wouldn’t be so easy on here.

    Hide behind the “inequitable trade for exposure” arguement if you want, it’s about as convincing as Monckton’s arguements anway!

  294. Smokey says:

    SteveE,

    I would pay a good admission price to see you debate Lord Monckton, who routinely spanks alarmists in moderated debates. AFAIK, Monckton has never lost a debate. But who knows, maybe your super intellect is upto the job.

  295. FaceFirst says:

    @ Jeff Alberts

    The hypothesis stated by smokey has nothing to do with temperature and I advise you to re-read what he has written carefully, and then look again at my replies in that context.

    @ Smokey

    I have repeatedly demonstrated that your hypothesis is false. More CO2 is not necessarily harmless. You have yet to address my evidence, nor have you admitted that you needed to clarify your hypothesis, which is what I originally suggested needed doing. Of course I do actually understand what you are driving at, but you rather arrogantly suggested that your hypothesis was fine as stated and that I was somehow inept. When I addressed your hypothesis AS STATED you needed to adjust it, thus proving my point for me.

    Before moving on, I think it is only fair that I point out that you have yet again retreated to an untestable position. Your standards-of-evidence demands for your hypothesis (V3 + V4 IIRC) are:

    ‘Please provide testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, showing global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2. Please, no models or speculation’

    Yet your hypothesis asked for ‘current and PROJECTED concentrations CO2′. So please tell me how we are going to provide empirical evidence for a projected CO2 level without modelling or, as you put it, ‘speculation’? Unless you want to test in the lab EVERY facet of the biosphere in controlled conditions (i.e. somehow come up with a ‘control’ Earth), then the hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. If you want to adjust your standards of evidence to be more reasonable and realistic then it might be possible for it to be tested, but as it stands it isn’t.

    @ Mike Jones

    You too need to re-read the evidence that I presented in the context of the hypothesis as stated by Smokey. What you are saying is correct, but that isn’t relevant to the question that I was asked to provide evidence for at that time.

    On to AGW. Of course AGW is falsifiable. All we would need is reliable and properly analyzed data that contradict the theory. This would take time, as the odd paper or observation here or there is unlikely to bring the whole theory down. It may be that parts of the theory are false or need refining; that would be entirely expected and not at all unusual for any type of explanatory framework, especially one dealing with such a complex issue.

    ————————————————-

    As a general note to everyone, I notice that you have started calling me names. Yet these same people complain of ad hominem attacks against Monckton. The mind, it boggles.

    Also, I notice that this comments section has been derailed from the original article; I will not be answering on subjects other that Monckton from here in as I regard it as off-topic and that doesn’t seem fair to others. Only a few of comments on this article have checked Monckton’s claims for themselves and what has been revealed is pretty alarming. I suggest that others continue to check the claims of Monckton and Hadfield so that WUWT can say that it is a skeptics website with a straight face.

  296. =Monckton has no website exclusively his own=
    I suggest you look at Mr. Monckton’s section of the SPPI website here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/. This is exclusively his own. To argue that it is part of a website rather than an entire website might be splitting hairs. He has an outlet on the Internet, just as I have – except that he is allowed a guest post to respond to criticism on your channel and I am not.

    =I note you provide no links to videos on Al Gore, so it would seem you have not dedicated one to his many issues of distortion.=

    You didn’t ask me for a link to my videos about Al Gore; you didn’t even ask if I had criticized Al Gore, you simply assumed that I hadn’t. The links to all my videos have been posted several times on your channel. There is one called ‘Gore vs. Durkin’ which highlights Gore’s disingenuous claims about a 20-foot sea level rise and his unsubstantiated linking of heat waves in Europe to ‘global warming.’ In the first video of the series I highlighted his misleading claims about the link between CO2 and temperature over the quaternary.

    =There’s no possibility of a reply in your video channel, since none of us work in that like medium as you do=

    On the contrary, Anthony, if you feel I have misled people about your channel or your moderator’s apology or non-apology to Viscount Monckton, I would welcome a response from you in your usual format — written form — that I can post on the front page of my channel or, if you wish, show in a video which I will post without comment. I also have a policy of correcting factual errors, and have done so many times, so you are welcome to point out any errors you find.
    However, the bone of contention over my comments about WUWT should not impede a free and fair debate about the issue of a rebuttal to Monckton, which is a matter of science. This shouldn’t be a pissing contest about who has the biggest site, because I freely admit that you’ve got a bigger one than me. This is about free and fair debate on a science issue. I have never seen a newspaper refuse a right of reply on the grounds that it is too big. If it is big enough to criticize an individual, then it should be big enough to publish a response.

    = I’m under no obligation of any kind. =

    Of course, not. My request for an equal response to Mr Monckton and a fair debate with him on your website is just that, a request.

  297. SteveE says:

    Smokey says:
    January 19, 2012 at 3:53 am
    I would pay a good admission price to see you debate Lord Monckton, who routinely spanks alarmists in moderated debates. AFAIK, Monckton has never lost a debate. But who knows, maybe your super intellect is upto the job.

    I’m not a great public debate person, so it probably wouldn’t be worth the money. The problem with Monckton’s debates are that you can say whatever you like and don’t have to back it up with any hard data. An online debate you do and can link to all your references. An online debate between Peter and Monckton would be interesting don’t you think. Or at least an article on here from Peter where he responds to Monckton’s claims?

  298. Dean Morrison says:

    Why the reluctance to allow Peter Hadfield to engage in free and open debate with Monckton Anthony? You’ve given Monckton a prominent platform to throw insults such as ‘Caveman’ at Hadfield – yet you refuse to give Hadfield, who has been impeccably polite even if you don’t agree with him, an equivalent opportunity to respond.

    Of course you don’t have to do any such thing, but on this side of the pond it would be considered good manners to do so. Despite his noble title ‘Lord’ Monckton seems to have forgotten his, there’s no need for you to follow his example…

    REPLY: I’ve offered him unlimited length, graphics, video, and an offer to put his response next to Monckton’s here in the body. Seems plenty polite enough to me, especially since I’ll never be able to respond on his channel as I don’t do that sort of stuff. Note that Hadfield never offered any opportunity for us to respond at the outset, he only offers it a s trade for getting what he wants, and I don’t consider the trade equitable. As a result of Moncktons response here he’s already gotten a huge amount of notice, but some folks always want more.

    My offer as above stands, he can take it or leave it. The smart choice would be to take it rather than whine about it. – Anthony

  299. FaceFirst says:

    @ Anthony,

    I would be interested to hear the fruits of your own investigations into the claims of both Monckton and Hadfield. I assume that since serious doubt has been cast on the veracity of Monckton’s claims, you must be looking into the things he has said and checking to see if Hadfield is presenting the truth.

    As owner of this site surely it is absolutely critical that the utmost care is taken to present the truth. If it turns out that Monckton has indeed been untruthful as Hadfield claims (and indeed he has if the instances that I have looked at are representative), one has to wonder what other untruths have been allowed on here elsewhere.

    [Reply: This site allows all points of view. You are not the arbiter of truth. Present your opinion if you like, and others will present theirs. Readers will make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.]

  300. Dean Morrison says:

    I don’t understand you Anthony – what Hadfield is asking for is quite simple – a blogpost on the same basis that you gave Monckton.
    What’s so difficult about that?
    As for Hadfield ‘not offering you any opportunity to respond at the outset’ – since you have in fact responded I don’t understand your point.
    It would be much more convenient for us watchers to follow the debate if we could see it happening in one place, instead of flipping through different sites, and pages of comments.
    Since you have ‘home advantage’ and Lord Monckton seems very confident of his position, then why the reticence to host a fair and open debate? Why do you feel the need to attach strings to your offer? Surely you’re confident your man can wipe the floor with the caveman Hadfield?

    REPLY: Fair and open would include an equal opportunity on his venue. He works in some psuedo video documentary world that I don’t so there’ really no opportunity for me to respond. Since he gets a fraction of the traffic WUWT does, he’s just gunning for the traffic here. There’s no advantage to me nor any fairness of balance. Sorry, if you don’t like it, that’s my offer: he can write up anything he wants (within site policy) using words, videos, graphs, and I’ll put it right next to Monckton’s post here. If you and Mr. Hadfield thinks that when his content is placed right next to Monckton’s in the same post that somehow it “not fair” well then his position must be very weak indeed. Or, I could just be a prick like RealClimate, Tamino, Deltoid, Joe Romm, and a host of others and tell both you and him (if you were skeptics) to go to take a flying leap as they do to me regularly. I think my offer is more than fair, especially since I don’t have to offer anything at all.

    Of course now the whining will begin anew. So, I’m not going to drag it out any further, If he doesn’t take me up on the offer within the next 24 hours, I’m simply going to close it and move on. – Anthony

  301. FaceFirst says:

    @ dbs

    I am deeply shocked at your response. I thought this site was about trying to get to the truth? How can anyone have any confidence in what is presented here if even the editors and owner are not checking the content for accuracy?

    In this instance, what is being stated by both Hadfield and Monckton is not a point of view; either Hadfield is right or Monckton is right. I think that this site in particular has a duty to present as accurate information as possible, especially considering the numerous articles published here casting aspersions on other people’s work and accusing people of shoddy scholarship.

  302. Alex C says:

    Anthony, I think that you missed Peter’s point previously about Monckton having his own YouTube channel. Contrary to the point you were trying to make as well about Monckton having to work through third party outlets, so does Peter – he’s in fact requesting that you allow him yours in the same fashion you have allowed Monckton. If you are upset that Peter did not go out of his way to ask you or Monckton to post a video on his own channel in response, before either of you asked yourselves (remember too, again, that Monckton has his own channel), why would that mean that Peter deserves no equal share when he does go out of his way to ask? If I am mistaken in that you had requested of Peter to be able to respond on his YouTube channel, prior to it being offered to you – which I must express personal doubt toward, as your ulterior excuse is apparently that you “don’t do that sort of stuff” – then please let me know.

    REPLY: Then let him ask Monckton to respond on Monckton’s channel.

    I’ve offered Hadfield the ability to write anything he wants (within site policy), including words, graphs, video, and offered to place it in the post right next to Monckton’s. Essentially in a point counterpoint style. The whining now is that somehow this isn’t “fair”.

    Nobody offers me any counterpoint on their blogs (or newspapers, or magazines) when they slime me, WUWT, or WUWT guest posters, I’ve never had a single offer of “right of reply”. Mr. Hadfield’s belief in this as some sort of protocol is just that, a belief, not reality. I’m not even allowed to comment on many sites. Yet somehow, I’m being made out to be the bad guy here when I’m not obligated to offer anything. My offer is more than fair, and more than any of the angry alarmist blogs would offer me or any other skeptic. I’m getting rather tired of the whining, so I’m putting a time limit on it 24 hours from now or the offer closes. A smart person would take it.

    - Anthony

  303. Dean Morrison says:

    Anthony, when you say this:

    “I’ve offered Hadfield the ability to write anything he wants (within site policy), including words, graphs, video, and offered to place it in the post right next to Monckton’s. Essentially in a point counterpoint style.”

    Are you offering Hadfield the opportunity to post something of equal length (2,400 words), intact and in its entirety, or are you proposing to edit in some way to achieve your desired “point counterpoint style”?

    If so would you be proposing to make these edits yourself?

    Wouldn’t it be better to save yourself the effort, and any accusations that you’d acted unfairly by simply posting Hadfield’s response intact with the title “potholer responds to Lord Monckton” and letting your astute readership make their own mind up?

    REPLY: He can write any length, with any content within policy, and I’ll place it in the body of the post point-counterpoint style. He can take it or leave it. Hadfield can also get his own blog (Blogger and WordPress both offer free), write what we wants, and ask for a link which I’ll gladly post here.

    That’s more than fair. If you feel it isn’t, you are free to disagree, but I’m not going to engage any more whining about it. – Anthony

  304. Jack Greer says:

    [snip. The constantly repeated complaints about editorial decisions have reached the point of threadjacking. Enough. ~dbs, mod.]

  305. Anthony Watts says:

    Note to Peter Hadfield – please advise if you wish to take advantage of this offer. A simple yes/no answer is all I need.

    You can write any word length (within reason, this post is 2400 words, though that’s not a limit, just a comparison), with any added content (images, video) within site policy, and I’ll place it in the body of the post point-counterpoint style. You can use Tinypic and Youtube and just post the URL’s and I’ll happily embed them for you.

    You can also get your own blog (Blogger and WordPress both offer free), write what you wish, and ask for a link which I’ll gladly post here.

    Please advise by 5PM PST 1/20

  306. Smokey says:

    Dean Morrison,

    You don’t know Anthony very well if you suspect that he would rig the deal. It’s a genuine and a generous offer. Now let’s see RealClimate make Steve McIntyre the same offer.

  307. major9985 says:

    FaceFirst says:
    January 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    If Anthony did not post the reply from Monckton to Mr. Hadfield, we would not had been able to see if Monckton could back up claims put to him. I agree that in light of the facts against Monckton, it would be wise for WUWT to distance itself from him, but sometimes you have to publish works so that others can criticise it. And if Anthony started reviewing Moncktons work before publishing it, that would give Monckton more reason to say he has had his work peer reviewed!?!.

  308. REP says:

    Len says: January 19, 2012 at 12:24 am
    @ Monckton of Brenchly and REP,
    Was Ola Johannessen talking only about the interior of Greenland or the whole ice sheet when talking about the 2inch/ year increase in thickness?

    Now, why the heck would you ask that of me? I do not speak for Lord Monckton and do not always agree with him. Regarding Johannessen, I don’t have a clue. I have no idea if Johannessen is accurate, if Lord Monckton’s interpretation of Johannessen is accurate or if any response by Johannessen is accurate….. or whether claims to be able to measure the Greenland Ice cap to within inches is realistic. I do claim that Peter Hadfield’s treatment of me, as a moderator here, was unfair and inaccurate, You may also note that Peter Hadfield has not deleted, corrected or disavowed on his site the totally untrue and potentially libelous claims that I edited a wikipedia article to discredit a commenter here.

  309. Dean Morrison says:

    Anthony I asked if you were going to post any contribution from Hadfield intact, or whether you are going to edit it. It seems to me that when you say this:

    “He can write any length, with any content within policy, and I’ll place it in the body of the post point-counterpoint style.”

    - you are making the condition that you will not post his contribution intact, but edit it by breaking it up according to your own preference.

    I’m afraid that, quite simply is not a reasonable demand to make, especially as you have admitted yourself you are on Lord Monckton’s side in this debate.

    You can avoid any suspicion of a lack of good faith on your part by agreeing to post any reply from Hadfield unedited. Since I’m sure you’re a busy man you’ll also save yourself a lot of effort. You could then give Lord Monckton another opportunity to tear down Hadfield’s arguments, an opportunity he would no doubt relish. Since Hadfield will be exposing himself in print on your blog, he’d have no escape should the Lord Monckton seek to pursue him for any libellous claims.

    I can’t see why you are so reluctant to take this very simple step, and to allow this debate to be conducted on a level playing field?

  310. =Hadfield never offered any opportunity for us to respond at the outset, he only offers it a s trade for getting what he wants=

    I never “offer” the opportunity to respond because the opportunity to respond is already and always there. I run a completely free and open channel, and I accept ALL response videos and correct any errors that are brought to my attention. No one has to negotiate or ask for a right of reply on my channel, it is just that — a fundamental right that I respect. Even now I am not “offering” you the opportunity to respond, I am trying to explain that you can respond in any format you like and it will be published on my channel. The only reason I am having to explain this to you is because you keep insisting that no such right exists.

    =I’ll never be able to respond on his channel=
    =He works in some psuedo video documentary world that I don’t so there’ really no opportunity for me to respond.=

    Again, Anthony, you can respond on my channel in any way you like. If you can’t make a video, you can send a written response that I can post on my channel page. I have also offered (and this IS an offer, since you explained the legitimate problem you have with posting a video) I will put your written response into a video and post it myself.

    =I’ve offered him unlimited length, graphics, video, and an offer to put his response next to Monckton’s here in the body=

    Sorry, Anthony, I may have misunderstood. If you are now allowing me equal prominence “next to Monckton” – by which I hope you mean either side by side in a new guest post or in a guest post of equal prominence to Monckton, then many thanks, I accept. If you are offering to put my response in the comments section, with links, then I am not quite sure how that differs from what I am already doing.
    Unfortunately I will be on the road for the next couple of weeks, so I will not be able to post replies here with much frequency. Whatever your offer is, I am making no demands on you, simply requesting. I will in any case draft my response to Monckton when I return to Australia in early February.

    REPLY: My offer is to put whatever you write (within site policy and reasonable length, but no specific limit, plus images/videos -again within site policy) into the body of the Monckton post here, as a counterpoint to it, with the title Counterpoint above it, so that both sides of the issue are in one place for people to read. I don’t know I can be any clearer or fairer. I’ll make a notice of the update in the daily thread stream for all to see, but the point counterpoint happens in this thread in one place.

    One caveat since it has come up since (see upthread) – you need to settle the separate issue with REP, separately, here in comments. I’m not going to post any response from you that contains that argument, focus on the issues raised by you and Monckton.

    – Anthony

  311. Mike Jonas says:

    Dean Morrison – That was the weakest argument yet. Note that in Anthony’s last post he says “post the URL’s” – that’s a plural so it’s not Anthony who is “breaking it up” according to his own preference, but Peter Hadfield. Anthony has made a genuine offer, and it appears that Peter Hadfield simply does not want to take it up. End of story.

  312. Dean Morrison says:

    Mike Jonas – I don’t think you read the post properly – Anthony was clearly talking about the use of URL’s to post links to images and video:

    “You can write any word length (within reason, this post is 2400 words, though that’s not a limit, just a comparison), with any added content (images, video) within site policy, and I’ll place it in the body of the post point-counterpoint style. You can use Tinypic and Youtube and just post the URL’s and I’ll happily embed them for you.”

    By his insistence on posting ‘point/counterpoint’ style he’s talking about breaking up Hadfields text and interspersing it amongst Monckton’s – something that would not only be unorthodox and confusing – but would involve Anthony in making editorial decisions as to where to break and place the text that no-one should be forced to accept as a condition of publication.

    Why insist on doing this when the simple expedient of posting an unedited reply is both simpler, and free from any possible accusations of interference? Presumably Monckton can be invited to respond – in point/counterpoint style if that’s his preference. If he’s confident of his position he should relish the opportunity, and if if feels that Hadfield oversteps the mark he’ll have him bang to rights if he wishes to sue him.

    What’s the problem?

    REPLY: You are overthinking, and apparently don’t understand what embedding means. I’m simply suggesting the title “Counterpoint” to Hadfield rebuttal – whatever it is. I have no plans to edit it unless violates site policy or says something actionable. I reserve that right as publisher – Anthony

  313. Jack Greer says:

    Dean Morrison says:
    January 20, 2012 at 5:50 am

    … What’s the problem?

    The problem is Anthony is a “skeptic” who features “skeptical” primary posts. Mr. Monckton’s behavior has been indefensible and Anthony knows it. A very, very inconvenient truth. He doesn’t want to feature a new primary post at the top of his “skeptic” site that exposes that truth – he wants it buried in an old thread, or better yet, he wants Mr.Hadfield to decline.

    REPLY:
    Are you brain damaged or just Shawshank style obtuse? I offered Hadfield the ability to put his rebuttal in this post, he’s accepted. – Anthony

  314. SteveE says:

    Anthony:
    “Nobody offers me any counterpoint on their blogs (or newspapers, or magazines) when they slime me, WUWT, or WUWT guest posters, I’ve never had a single offer of “right of reply”. Mr. Hadfield’s belief in this as some sort of protocol is just that, a belief, not reality. I’m not even allowed to comment on many sites. Yet somehow, I’m being made out to be the bad guy here when I’m not obligated to offer anything. ”

    Well this would be your oportunity to show that you are better than them. Saying that they don’t other you something so you’re not going to give somebody else the same suggests that you are really just as bad as they are doesn’t it?

    Rise above it!

  315. Dean Morrison says:

    “Anthony:
    “Nobody offers me any counterpoint on their blogs (or newspapers, or magazines) when they slime me, WUWT, or WUWT guest posters, I’ve never had a single offer of “right of reply””

    Actually Peter Hadfield has extended the offer of the right to reply to your guest poster Lord Monckton Anthony:

    “I repeat my invitation to Mr. Monckton to post a video response on this channel.”

    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/2/9K74fzNAUq4

    I can understand why quite reasonably Lord Monckton might not want to go to the trouble of making a video – in which case all the more reason to host a debate on equal terms on Monckton’s ‘home ground’ here.

    On that basis the dispute can be settled on the basis of the strength of argument alone.

    Surely neither you nor Monckton have anything to fear from such a debate Anthony?

    Since you are in touch with Lord Monckton perhaps you ought to ask him if he really welcomes the level of protection you are affording him from Hadfield. I’d imagine he might be somewhat offended by any suggestion that he is in need of any protection whatsoever, and surely would be delighted at the prospect of taking on the caveman Hadfield mano-a-mano?

  316. Dean Morrison says:

    I think due the delay in the comments approval system here we’ve missed something:

    “Sorry, Anthony, I may have misunderstood. If you are now allowing me equal prominence “next to Monckton” – by which I hope you mean either side by side in a new guest post or in a guest post of equal prominence to Monckton, then many thanks, I accept.”

    There you go Anthony – Hadfield has accepted, I hope that no problems remain, and we can look forward to an interesting debate here.

  317. Smokey says:

    I agree with Dean Morrison. Lord Monckton’s specialty is logical, fact-based debate, not video productions. Since Hadfield is the one who issued the challenge, then Lord Monckton has the right to select the weapons.

    Forget the video games. Logic at twenty paces!

  318. Dean Morrison says:

    Actually I’d say Lord Monckton’s speciality is giving PowerPoint presentations to lay audiences – most of which are available on Youtube. It seems entirely appropriate to me for Peter Hadfield to respond in the same medium, where Monckton’s actual spoken words at these presentations can be compared side-by-side with his rather different statements elsewhere.

    It would seem that Monckton has in fact already selected his weapon of choice – his guest post here on WUWT. Having selected not only the weapons but the battleground the only thing that remains is invite his opponent into the arena of combat.

    I’m sure that as an honourable man Anthony has no intention of further disadvantaging Hadfield, especially as many people here think that victory over the puny intellect of the ‘caveman’ is surely a mere formality?

    Let battle commence!

  319. Len says:

    @ REP re Jan 19 8.35pm ie “Now, why the heck would you ask that of me? …. I don’t have a clue.”
    I asked the question because it is a point that you are now very aware of from your discussions with Hadfield. It still has not been answered – at least not by Monckton. Your response that you don’t know the answer is fine, however I would like an answer from Monckton of Brenchley. It was he who started the whole thing off with his interpretation of Johannessen’s claim after all.
    Regarding the wikipedia editing, I suggest you write something on Hadfield’s channel. One thing I am confident of is that Hadfield will not stand for inaccuracies or lies if they can be shown to be such to him. If mud has been thrown that was unjust, then hey, I’m on your side.

  320. D Marshall says:

    If you’d like to watch Monckton’s 21-part video response to Abraham’s 2010 critique, it’s on the CFACT YouTube channel.

    Hadfield targets inaccuracies in both Gore’s and Durkin’s movies in part 4 of his series on climate change

  321. Peter Hadfield says:

    = I don’t know I can be any clearer or fairer. =

    With respect, you can, Anthony. You could give me exactly the same right of reply as you gave to Monckton. When he was criticized in a comment, you allowed him a guest post — a new piece that could be seen by anyone who logged onto your website. As you know, once a new piece has become dated, it slips off the front page of your website and no one who read the original Monckton piece will bother to revisit or re-read it to see if I have added a counterpoint two months later. They won’t know such a counterpoint has even been written if you don’t re-post it, or announce it on your front page, and you have made it clear that you don’t want to give my response this kind of publicity.
    However, I can only request equal treatment, I cannot demand or expect it. All I can do is use your online facility to write a response of equal wording and hope that once you see how badly Monckton has misrepresented and misquoted his sources you might think this is worth bringing to the attention of your readers, and publish it as a guest post in the same way you did with Mr. Monckton’s response. If you choose not to, it’s your site and you are entitled to organize it as you please.
    I have told fans of Al Gore – publicly, in print — that it does their cause no good to defend what are clearly errors and exaggerations. Similarly, I hope you will realize that there are some skeptics who misrepresent and misquote, and their errors should not be defended either. I have never accused either Al Gore or Christopher Monckton of lying because, as I said in a video, that means I would have to ascribe motivation to their actions, and I cannot read their minds. I can only check their sources and show where they are in error.
    So once again this is entirely in your hands, and I will leave it with you. As I said, I won’t be able to access the Internet regularly until Feb 3, so please excuse any delay in replying.

    REPLY:
    Mr. Hadfield, sometimes I think you are being purposely obtuse just so that you can sow controversy, such as when I requested a video transcript from you (due to my hearing issues, so I could be sure of what I’m hearing) and then you proceeded to browbeat me to explain why this isn’t needed.

    What part of this do you not understand?

    I’ll make a notice of the update in the daily thread stream for all to see, but the point counterpoint happens in this thread in one place.

    That means a post, among all posts in the daily thread stream, saying there’s an update to this followed by a link to it. My intent is to have both arguments together in one place for people to see, so that they don’t have to go searching for the counterpoint. You clearly want them separated, so that people will only see your side. Well, that isn’t going to happen. They’ll be right next to each other. If that isn’t acceptable to you, then write nothing because that’s not negotiable.

    For a supposed professional journalist, you seem more fixated on getting exposure, than on the facts, which is why you want a WUWT article (and the traffic it brings) so much. If you were solely interested in a factual counterpoint rebuttal, you’d just publish another video diatribe on your website, and request a link. You’ll get your coveted traffic via that update notice on the main page that day, just like any other story, assuming you write something that isn’t defamatory or otherwise out of bounds with site policy. I reserve the right to reject, and to demand a rewrite, of any submission that doesn’t meet those specifications, just like I do with any guest poster. If you don’t like those terms, then write nothing, because it isn’t negotiable.

    And as noted above, issues with my moderators or editorial policy must be dealt with separately. That’s also not negotiable. You ignored that, so I’m making it clear again.

    I don’t expect a reply, since you’ll be off grid. I also don’t expect you’ll appreciate that no other prominent climate blog gives such opportunity to opposition. If this is something you think is the correct form of debate, then I expect you’ll be asking Real Climate to include a guest essay from Steve McIntyre about why the hockey stick is a statistical fabrication, and post another potholer video diatribe about how Mann botched it badly. But you won’t because your bias and moral compass does not allow it. – Anthony

  322. Jim Cornelius says:

    Mr Watts

    If Mr Hadfield felt that Mann’s hockey stick deserved a video I’m sure he would make one. Do you not think that making remarks about Mr Hadfield’s moral compass is a somewhat dishonourable way to behave here? i think it’s a nasty and uncalled for remark. I find it particularly ironic that you are apparently able to asses Mr Hadfield’s conscience in a response to a post in which he stated that he does not attempt to read the minds of others. Your description of Mr Hadfield’s videos as diatribes suggests to me that you haven’t even bothered to watch them. If I am mistaken and you have watched the videos are you, on, Mr Monckton’s behalf as he has made no response himself, able to answer Mr Hadfield’s question regarding Johannessen’s findings on the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet? It seems a pretty straightforward matter to me.

    Jim

  323. Smokey says:

    Jim Cornelius,

    Anthony wrote:

    My intent is to have both arguments together in one place for people to see, so that they don’t have to go searching for the counterpoint. You clearly want them separated, so that people will only see your side. Well, that isn’t going to happen. They’ll be right next to each other.

    What’s wrong with that?? That seems eminently fair to both parties. It’s certainly far more fair and accommodating than any alarmist blog I can think of.

    And saying: “If Mr Hadfield felt that Mann’s hockey stick deserved a video I’m sure he would make one” side-steps the point Anthony was making: RealClimate will never allow Steve McIntyre equal time, because McIntyre would easily shred Mann’s hokey stick nonsense. Like Gore, Mann is a total control freak, and he will never allow a contrary view if it is unscripted. But that is the offer Anthony is making.

    Hadfield is a skilled video propagandist, and as such he has an advantage. Anthony is offering him far more than he is entitled to, but all you can do is complain that that every condition is not exactly to your liking. Well, that’s life, sport. Hadfield is getting more than he deserves IMHO, but Anthony is nothing if not fair. Hadfield should take what’s offered with alacrity, if he really believed he could show that Lord Monckton has been deliberately deceptive. But I suspect he knows that isn’t the case, so he’s waffling.

  324. Jim Cornelius says:

    Smokey.

    Why are giving me a reprise and a defence of Mr Watt’s offer to Mr Hadfield? I’ve offered no opinion on whether it is fair or not. Your entire comment offered in response to mine is a non sequitur. It almost seems as if you neglected to read past the first sentence and made an assumption about the rest of the comment. This make me wonder whther you might have made similar assumption s. Have bothered with viewing Mr Hadfield’s videos? if so are you able to pass comment on the answer Mr Hadfield’s question regarding Johannessen’s findings on the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet? If it’s of any help I can post links to the relevant statements by Mr Monckton.

    Jim

  325. Len says:

    Mr Watts, I too would like an answer to Peter Hadfield’s point about Greenland’s ice sheet. Was he correct or was Monckton correct? ie Was Johannessen referring only to the interior of Greenland, or the whole ice sheet when talking about the 2inch/ year increase in thickness?

  326. Jack Greer says:

    Anthony: You clearly want them separated, so that people will only see your side. Well, that isn’t going to happen.

    What, pray tell, do you think Monckton’s guest posts are? And I don’t believe Mr.Hadfield is just trying to tell just his side of the story … actually, he needs both sides to make his points.

    Anthony: … Well, that isn’t going to happen. They’ll be right next to each other. If that isn’t acceptable to you, then write nothing because that’s not negotiable.

    They can still be right next to each other in the context of the challenge in a new thread that isn’t stale and not encumbered by 325+ replies that were based solely on Mr Monckton OP. There is no real excuse, Anthony.

    And BTW, no, I’m neither brain dead nor obtuse …. You? Clearly Mr. Hadfield did not accept your proposal. Ne accepted something closer to mine.

  327. Smokey says:

    Jack Greer, I see you’re still sniveling because you can’t have everything your own way.

    Anthony has made a very generous offer, but Hadfield lacks the cojones to accept. It would be great if RealClimate made Anthony’s offer to Steve McIntyre. But of course they won’t. And you will never complain to RC about that, will you?

    Admit it, side-by-side equality isn’t good enough. You want to stack the deck your way. Well, there’s an easy way to do it: start your own blog. Then you can set all the rules. Or do you have a problem with that, too?

  328. FaceFirst says:

    @ Anthony

    It is customary in print for a right of reply to be offered, and maybe Peter Hadfield’s journalistic past is why he is seeking exactly this. My understanding of your offer is that Peter can add a reply to the bottom of this existing post, and whilst I am personally fine with that I can see why others on here would like to see a ‘proper’ post – it would demonstrate the WUWT team’s dedication to truth-seeking and show to everyone that it isn’t some kind of ‘old boys club’.

    @ Peter Hadfield

    Anthony will not, I suspect, give you a full post of your own and I think the best thing to do would be to accept his offer to allow all those at WUWT a chance to check your claims for themselves. You could (and indeed should) make a video relating to this exchange, and maybe that is enough for publicizing your reply?

    I do hope you take up the offer as Monckton is a WUWT ‘regular’ and if what you claim is indeed true then I should imagine that quite a few people who read this blog (and of course Anthony himself) will be thankful for putting things straight. If however, you are incorrect as Monckton claims then he will no doubt be keen to demonstrate that here and preserve his reputation.

  329. Caveman says:

    I only got far enough to notice that he constantly tries to insult Potholer 54. Whatever he has to say, I’m no longer interested.

  330. FaceFirst says:

    @ Anthony

    This section has gone VERY quiet which makes me understand Hadfield’s point. Maybe a guest post or some kind of post resurrection is indeed needed? I think it is only fair and would demonstrate this blog’s commitment to presenting accurate information.

  331. Anthony Watts says:

    @facefirst still doesn’t get it

  332. Jim Cornelius says:

    I don’t get it either. If Mr Monckton can’t be bothered to address the questions Mr Hadfield has already asked him on this thread i.e. (re Johannessen’s findings) then why should Mr Hadfield have an confidence that adding his response to this thread is anything more than an attempt to save face and quietly bury it on your part? That may not be your intention but that’s certainly how it comes across.

  333. FaceFirst says:

    @ Anthony

    What don’t I ‘get’? If it’s the conditions of your offer, then yes I do ‘get it’. What I am sayings is that on reflection maybe the offer should indeed be restructured to ensure that any counterpoint is given if not equal then at least some prominence. Us readers want to be reassured that at the core of this site is the desire to present accurate information.

    Or is it something else that I don’t ‘get’?

    Personally, I think you should adjust your offer, maybe through reposting the original article on the front page for a time, so that readers of that original can see if the claims made against Monckton are in fact correct.

    If they are, great, WUWT can be shown willing to present the truth, however inconvenient for regualr posters. If not, great, WUWT can be shown as having credible and reliable guest posters and any accusations of presenting a political message are undermined.

    I don’t think there is anything to lose.

  334. Richard Sharpe says:

    Can someone point me to Hadfield’s verification of Al Gore’s claims? I would like to check them as well.

  335. TedK says:

    Potholer:
    I managed to read through four or five of your supposed counterpoints; I gave up as I seriously dislike rereading sentences repeatedly trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make.
    You are seriously deluded in that you seem convinced that your rambling sentences are definitive rebuttals. Lord Monckton sticks to specific points and counters them with science, referencing not only the science but also the specific paragraphs and words used. Instead you twist the discussion so you can make it seem like you have triumphed and then you may link to a weak CAGW report or worse your own song and dance videos that supposedly gives you the absolute correct answer. There is no absolute answer in science and one or even two links or homemade graphs neither prove nor disprove a topic.

    As others have suggested; identify the errors that are rampant and thoroughly abused (abundant propaganda) on the CAGW side. Right now it seems as if you’ve accepted all CAGW claims as religion.

  336. CinbadtheSailor says:

    My God that video was boring. I am sure Buster Keaton would have had more interesting things to say about climate than Peter Hadfield.

    Since I do not think either Hadfield or Monkton have much to offer the debate I will leave them to their confragration.

  337. Jack Greer says:

    CinbadtheSailor says:
    February 7, 2012 at 9:39 am

    My God that video was boring. I am sure Buster Keaton would have had more interesting things to say about climate than Peter Hadfield.

    Since I do not think either Hadfield or Monkton have much to offer the debate I will leave them to their confragration.

    This is exactly the type of reaction I expected here at WUWT. Good luck Mr. Hadfield. Even though you points are irrefutable, your response is buried in a stale thread and the usual subjects are passing around the box of blinders.

    REPLY:
    Ah the ever irascible and whiny Mr. Greer (who’s MO is all about denigration here at WUWT) fails to notice that this “stale thread” gets top billing on WUWT today. And if he’s commenting here and are others, it can’t really be stale now can it? It’s already had about 1000 views in the little over an hour it has been up, by the end of the day, several thousand, like any other new post.

    Your argument fails as usual. – Anthony

  338. Tom_R says:

    The abstract from Johannessen:

    A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. Averaged over the study area, the increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ∼60 cm over 11 years, or ∼54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.

    That says the average ice change over all of Greenland, including both the interior and the margins, is +54 cm per 11 years (barely under two inches per year). So Lord Monckton is correct and Dr. Hadfield wrong on that point, which was the first I bothered to check since it was most frequently questioned in the comments.

  339. Smokey says:

    TedK,

    Excellent points. Hadfield is just more noise. The planet – the ultimate Authority – is making it quite clear that CAGW is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

    And FaceFirst says:

    “@ Peter Hadfield: Anthony will not, I suspect, give you a full post of your own…”

    FaceFirst, you were 100% wrong. Admit it.

  340. I must object to the derisive use of the term “caveman.” Cavemen are uniquely positioned to know first-hand that warming of the climate is not entirely bad. We may be frightened and confused by the ravings of computer models, but we have an old-fashioned common sense that is grounded in reality, and that cuts through the mumbo-jumbo of IPCC reports. We are much more frightened of a cooling world than a warming one.

  341. Charles.U.Farley says:

    What a bore-hole.

    Are all warmists as dull as the Hadfield version?

    “Smithers! Fire up the V8′s, its bloody freezing round here!”

  342. Jack Greer says:

    Tom_R says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:05 am

    The abstract from Johannessen:
    ….
    That says the average ice change over all of Greenland, including both the interior and the margins, is +54 cm per 11 years (barely under two inches per year). So Lord Monckton is correct and Dr. Hadfield wrong on that point, which was the first I bothered to check since it was most frequently questioned in the comments.

    No, Tom_R, read what Johannessen actually reports in the text of his paper referenced by Monckton. Mr. Hadfield provides a video of Monckton making his claim and then he shows exactly what Johannessen reports in the body of his paper.

  343. BigTenBob says:

    Mr. Hadfield cites an MSNBC ariticle that is very weak at best. This is the type of article the IPCC likes to cite as opposed to peer reviewed research. You have to do better than that sir. Isn’t the main point Monckton is making is that the predictions of accelerated warming have not occurred, and in fact we have had cooling over the last 10 plus years. I don’t believe he is making the claim that the period he cites is statistically significant in showing we are entering a global cooling period. But the results of this time period diverge from every single prediction the climate models produced. Some (adjusted!) temperature records show slight warming, satellites show cooling, and no records show any level of warming that could warrant concern. At what point will you admit the predictions over the last 25 plus years have failed?

    And you seem to be acknowleding that the Sun has been a much more important driver of climate change than CO2 for as far back as we can see. We agree on that.

  344. Pat Frank says:

    Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time” does not provide independent measures of CO2 and air temperature. It uses GCMs to calculate the air temperature response to CO2 levels. So, using Geocarb III to assert there exists a long-term correlation between CO2 and air temperature, as Mr. Hadfield does, is to merely assert a circular argument.

    For an alternative point of view, see Shaviv and Veizer, “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” here (pdf)

  345. MrX says:

    My favourite part is where Peter quotes researchers that agree with AGW in order to contradict Monkton. On another point, Monkton says that El Niño in 2010 essentially cancelled cooling and updated his speech afterwards. What does Peter show? That Monkton’s speeches were from 2008 and 2009 confirming what Monkton had said. Besides, it’s still not warming.

    The rest is just more silliness like this. The SIR JOHN HOUGHTON response had me laughing on the floor. Who’s side is Peter on anyhow? “No, the opinion of “a leading geologist” is not the same thing.” was hilarious. Geologists are the ones who first knew that AGW was a dubious claim because they knew that that the MWP was real and global. And now Peter wants to redefine who the experts are. Nice!

    This entire response by Peter was a complete waste of time. I’m not sure that Peter understands the concept of rebuttal.

  346. jmrsudbury says:

    Here are a few:

    ON THE COOLING EARTH:
    A graph of January 2001 to December 2008 shows a linear cooling trend.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/trend
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2008/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2008/trend

    UAH and GISS both show positive trends for that period. I don’t know what GISS showed back then though as they change their numbers.

    ON THE MELTING OF GREENLAND:
    On Greenland, “we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes—let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change—for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, be- cause the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1).” That did not stop the authors of the study from concluding that they “have presented new evidence of (i) decadal increase in surface elevation (È5 cm/year) within a study area comprising most of the Greenland Ice Sheet, 1992 to 2003, caused by accumulation over extensive areas in the interior of Greenland; (ii) divergence in elevation changes since the year 2000 for areas above and below 1500 m, with high-elevation increases and low-elevation decreases, the former in contrast to previous research (10, 13); and (iii) negative correlation between winter elevation changes and the NAO index, suggesting an underappreciated role of the winter season and the NAO for elevation changes—a wild card in Greenland Ice Sheet mass-balance scenarios under global warming.”

    In other words, other than a marginal area that could not be measured, their conclusions speak to a decadal increase in Greenland’s surface elevation within a study area. Moncton was right.

    ON THE PRE-CAMBRIAN ICE PLANET:
    You are both wrong. The highest CO2 levels were 115 million years after the glaciation was subsiding.

    “We also find that the 17O isotope anomalies of barites from Marinoan (approx635 million years ago) cap carbonates display a distinct negative spike (around -0.70permil), suggesting that by the time barite was precipitating in the immediate aftermath of a Neoproterozoic global glaciation, the [CO2] was at its highest level in the past 750 million years” — http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/nature06959.html

    John M Reynolds

  347. Jack Greer says:

    REPLY: Ah the ever irascible and whiny Mr. Greer (who’s MO is all about denigration here at WUWT) fails to notice that this “stale thread” gets top billing on WUWT today. And if he’s commenting here and are others, it can’t really be stale now can it? It’s already had about 1000 views in the little over an hour it has been up, by the end of the day, several thousand, like any other new post.

    Your argument fails as usual. – Anthony

    There are zero reasons – none – for not placing Mr. Hadfield’s reply along side with Mr. Monckton’s original points in a new so that thread replies focus on the comparative points made. Sure, it’s your site, Anthony, but don’t attempt to make claims of objectivity and fairness. You continually provide characters like Mr. Monckton unrestricted and featured “You clearly want them separated, so that people will only see your side.” posts pretty much whenever they please. Of course, that isn’t what Mr. Hadfield asked for. That’s my last comment on this unquestionably valid point.

    REPLY: LOL! What a laugh! The reason for placing both together is that I offered a point-conterpoint to Mr. Hadfield, so that readers could see both sides of this very wordy debate (that also extends into video) all together, and they can make their own decisions. It seems you are in favor of hiding one side. We have a debate here – would you also support having two debaters on the same topic present their arguments in a hall separately, weeks apart, with references back to the “other debate two weeks ago” but not have the other debater’s presentation available to each audience during the debate? That sure seems to be what you are advocating.

    I’m advocating having the debate in one place. Each side gets top billing notice on WUWT like any other story, and the traffic that brings. People can read the ENTIRE debate in one place. Tough noogies if that bothers you.

    “Sure, it’s your site, Anthony, but don’t attempt to make claims of objectivity and fairness.”

    Of course, I could be like Real Climate, Tamino, Joe Romm (where I’ve never seen “claims of objectivity and fairness”), and delete or borehole comments that challenge them, and offer nothing to HadField at all. I was under no obligation to offer anything. Yes I could have just said no, but I didn’t, and now the whining starts over some perceived slight due to my editorial formatting choice.

    Well Mr. Greer, the moment you get one of those blogs to offer an unedited right of rebuttal to me and anyone else who is skeptical of the climate issue, and to make notice of that rebuttal at the very top of the blog as I have done today, is the moment you’ll actually have a valid point. In the meantime, once again, your argument fails.

    Next you’ll be complaining that people had to click on the link on the main page to read it. -Anthony

  348. David, UK says:

    @ Anthony: Sincere thanks for allowing Peter Hadfield to post his rebuttal of Chris Monkton’s original rebuttal (not that there was ever any doubt that you would – you positively invite non-sceptics to post opinions here). I anticipate that Monckton may have a further rebuttal – to which Hadfield may have his own – and so on. So be it. I will be interested to read what each man has to say.

  349. Josh C says:

    I will also commend Mr. Watts for placing the rebuttal here. I think it is a great move, and I think Hadfield did a pretty good job.

    More of this, and we might actually get down to facts. Good job.

  350. Jack Greer says:

    @Tom_R said: February 7, 2012 at 10:05 am
    &
    @jmrsudbury said: February 7, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Re: Greenland
    Mr. Hadfield provided video with the time mark of Mr. Monckton’s Greenland claims along with Dr. Johannessen’s comments within the referenced paper and reference to further research. …. No, Mr. Monckton was not right in his claim.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM at the 11:40 mark.

  351. Peter says:

    Tom_R, the “study area” is not the same thing as the entire Greenland ice sheet. Are you stupid?

  352. More Soylent Green! says:

    If Lord Monckton looks over your work, does that make it peer-reviewed?

  353. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    “That could suggest the sun is a likely culprit for recent warming. But why didn’t Mr. Monckton tell or show his audience what Solanki wrote in the very next line?”

    “Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.” ["Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years" -- S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004]

    ++++++

    The very next line was not a fact, it was an opinion. Absent that type of expression of opinion, Nature does not publish articles about the climate unless other reported facts already support a similar position. Absent complying facts, the opinion was needed to say the facts ‘probably’ couldn’t mean the obvious might be true.

    The New Scientist Magazine admitted they demanded such things (for a time) in each article.

  354. J. Fischer says:

    Tom_R: “Averaged over the study area” does not mean “averaged over all of Greenland”. It means “Averaged over the study area”. You and Monckton are both wrong.

    Smokey: graphs of the last three years or of the last 10 years tell us nothing.

    Anthony Watts: your slur about morals was truly pathetic.

    “You have an online forum or your own, Monckton does not”

    They both have youtube channels. Why make stuff up?

    “He works in some psuedo video documentary world that I don’t so there’ really no opportunity for me to respond.”

    A shame that your attempt at an infantile ad hominem attack was so poorly spelled. If you refuse to make videos (and that seems strange for someone who apparently used to work in television) then that’s your problem, not his.

    “Since he gets a fraction of the traffic WUWT does, he’s just gunning for the traffic here”

    That might be the most immature comment on this whole thread. You really embarrass yourself saying things like this.

    REPLY: As for venues, I don’t work in video editing or video documentaries, to imply that because I “once worked in television” makes me an editor/documentary producer is feeble logic. And being profoundly hearing impaired, Hadfield’s narrative with his accent sounds like a mumble to me.

    I asked him for a transcript, he said he didn’t have one.

    And yet, despite how “terrible”you imply I am, here’s Hadfield’s response unedited and in entirety. I look forward to your arguments at RC and other venues to give skeptics such access.

    -Anthony

  355. Matt says:

    Monckton gets pwned time and time again, nicely done.

  356. jmrsudbury says:

    @Jack Greer

    Moncton’s quote:
    “The colors indicate icesheet elevation change rate in cm/year, … from … satellite altimeter data, 1992 to 2003. The spatially averaged [increase] is 5.4 +/- 0.2 cm/year.”

    From the paper:
    “The colors indicate icesheet elevation change rate (dH/dt) in cm/year, derived from 11 years of ERS-1/ERS-2 satellite altimeter data, 1992 to 2003, excluding some icesheet marginal areas (white). The spatially averaged rate is +5.4 +/- 0.2 cm/year, or ~5 cm/year when corrected for isostatic uplift.”

    I also quoted Dr. Johannessen’s comments from the paper.

    Looking at http://maps.google.com/ ‘s satellite view of Greenland, it looks like much of the margins cannot be considered to be ice sheets as they melt each year. The leading edge of glaciers are measured in extent and not elevation. Lord Moncton included the appropriate ‘icesheets’ word permits the conclusions. You don’t like that he excluded the “excluding some icesheet marginal areas (white)” portion? Fine. I don’t mind it not being there as to me it is obvious.

    The caveat is something to keep in mind, but it does not negate the conclusions.

    John M Reynolds

  357. Tom Murphy says:

    “So is it a pattern of advance and retreat? Or no particular change? Or only one glacier retreating? Which?”

    Does not a pattern of advance and retreat essentially equal no change? Put mathematically, does not 2 – 2 + 2 – 2 (advance and retreat) = 0 (no change). Mr. Hadfield appears to have an equivocation issue here in his reasoning. Regarding the “only one glacier retreating” comment, that’s commonly referred to as an exception, is it not? So, Lord Monckton’s quote (as detailed by Mr. Hadfield) could be restated as, “The glaciers are showing no particular change in 200 years[, except one…] glacier that’s declined a little is Gangoltri.”

    While I’m still working my way through the rebuttal, I’m not finding any great “gotcha” from Mr. Hadfield. Like the example above, the majority of assertions appear to be focus on the minutia and not the meaningful.

  358. kingkp says:

    potholer is typical of your middle class english twit with an arts degree. His knowledge of science is confined to reading entries on realclimate.org. Why Monckton bothers to respond to such an i**** is beyond me. @Potholer go read some Richard Feynman…shut up and calculate you fool

  359. zootcadillac says:

    All this ‘he said, she said’ nonsense puts my head in a spin. I’d rather just [SNIP: Policy. -REP] and move on.

  360. J. Fischer says:

    “The New Scientist Magazine admitted they demanded such things (for a time) in each article.”

    Oh yeah? Quote a source for that claim, please.

  361. Tom_R says:

    Peter says:
    February 7, 2012 at 11:19 am
    Tom_R, the “study area” is not the same thing as the entire Greenland ice sheet. Are you stupid?

    The study area is almost all of Greenland, as Fig 1 in the paper shows. The area outside the study area is negligible.

    Do you still beat your wife?

  362. J. Fischer says:

    “potholer is typical of your middle class english twit with an arts degree. His knowledge of science is confined to reading entries on realclimate.org. Why Monckton bothers to respond to such an i**** is beyond me. @Potholer go read some Richard Feynman…shut up and calculate you fool”

    And that typifies the level of maturity and intellectual rigour that prevails among Watts’s followers.

    [Moderator's Note: This is the last piece of rudeness or insult that will be tolerated in this thread. Address Hadfield's or Monckton's comments substantively or not at all. -REP]

  363. Tom Murphy says:

    Okay, here’s another equivocation… fallacy detailed by Mr. Hadfield which is focused on the minutia, too.

    Mr. Hadfield asserts in the rebuttal to Sir John’s misquote by Lord Monckton, “Even though it turns out my quote is correct and Mr. Monckton’s is clearly a gross misquote, he still insists in his WUWT response that he got the quote right.”

    But Lord Monckton’s WUWT response stated, “Sir John, too, tried to maintain that I had misquoted him, and even menaced me with a libel suit, until I told him I had a copy of the cutting from the London Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995, in which he had said, ‘If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster.’”

    The WUWT response reads like a clarification to me (by Lord Monckton) of the video’s quote of, “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen,” and aligns precisely to the quote referenced by Mr. Hadfield, does it not? I believe Mr. Hadfield is asserting there’s an “insistence” on Lord Monkton’s part that he got the video’s quote “right;” however, I fail to see such an assertion.

    Interestingly, the referenced “Sunday Telegraph” article wrote, “Houghton warns that God may induce man to mend his ways with a disaster,” – http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf . If you are “one of the Faith,” you listen when God speaks – period. When this notion is juxtaposed with Sir John’s quote above (as it relates to the need for having a disaster), I can understand how, “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen,” could be extrapolated from the article’s content.

  364. Tom_R says:

    J. Fischer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 11:56 am
    Tom_R: “Averaged over the study area” does not mean “averaged over all of Greenland”. It means “Averaged over the study area”. You and Monckton are both wrong.

    There’s no significant difference. See my response to Peter.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/1013/F1.expansion.html

  365. Jim says:

    Lord Monckton, two words:

    Thank You. Brilliant!

    (oops, that’s three)

  366. Allen says:

    It’s a wonderful day in the neighbourhood!

    It has become crystal clear to me that one side of this debate wants to engage in the science while the other claims to engage in the same thing but in fact does anything but. A job well done by the defenders of science, whose battle never ends…

  367. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, Mr Potholer is on the tomato tomato quest of quote for quote acting the citazione fascista, yet forgets the citations’s original context which is of the utmost import.

    Without the context a meaning has no content, it’s just an empty potholder. :p

  368. James Sexton says:

    Lmao…. On the cooling earth and he sends us to MSNBC. Trust them and not your lying eyes….

    Here we go, the time period Monckton was referencing. Remember, alarmists have a difficulty with the present participle.

  369. Dr. Dave says:

    My gosh this was tedious! I had to read through Lord Monckton’s piece again for context and then endure the extremely unconvincing “rebuttal” from this potholer character. I was somewhat amused by the references potholer cited (e.g. MSNBC, rabid AGW organizations, studies from over 10 years ago) but I don’t think he managed to lay a glove on Lord Monckton.

    Should be entertaining red meat for the trolls, though

  370. Dave N says:

    @Jack Greer

    ..and please correct me if I am wrong Anthony, however I believe anyone is welcome to guest post here, and I also believe that Anthony has invited AGW proponents to do so. Most refuse because they feel safer posting on a warmist site where there’s little or no chance of debate, or objectivity. Of course they feel there is “fairness” there because of that.

    Also, kudos to Mr Hadfield for being civil in his responses.

  371. Werner Brozek says:

    February 2009, Mr. Monckton said: “We’ve had nine years of a global cooling trend since the first of January 2001” [Ref 1 - 4:06] – and St. Paul in October 2009: “There has been global cooling for the last eight or nine years” [ibid.].

    So in my video, the period Mr. Monckton was talking about was clearly identified in his own words,

    Granted, it was only 8 years since January 2001 and February 2009. However with regards to the St. Paul speech in October 2009, let us assume we had the stats until the end of August 2009. So from January 2001 to August 2009 is 8.67 years, so there seems to be nothing wrong with saying “the last eight or nine years”. Your source tried to prove him wrong using a source that had 2005 as the hottest year. However if we take the average of the four main data sets and get the slope from January 2001 to the end of August 2009, we get a negative slope. That means cooling for “the period Mr. Monckton … clearly identified”.

    #WoodForTrees Temperature Index
    #Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
    #See http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes for details
    #—————————————————-
    #
    #File: wti.txt
    #
    #Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012
    #Selected data from 2001
    #Selected data up to 2009.67
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00881622 per year

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2009.67/trend

  372. James Sexton says:

    Tom Murphy says:
    February 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    While I’m still working my way through the rebuttal, I’m not finding any great “gotcha” from Mr. Hadfield. Like the example above, the majority of assertions appear to be focus on the minutia and not the meaningful.
    =====================================================
    I agree, I would have expected a bit more from some one who seemed eager to engage…. after the first section on temps ….. I’ve sort of lost interest in seeing what Hadfield stated. It seems context is a difficult concept for some. It is also apparent some don’t have the ability to extract their own interpretations from information provided by others. Instead, they rely on the information and interpretation of said information from the source of the information. That’s a strange way to be. It means one can’t expand nor expound upon someone else’ work. That’s laughable.

    “Johannessen said he only measured the interior of Greenland above 1,500 metres [1 – 11:59] In fact, he specifically warns that the very conclusion Mr Monckton reaches cannot be made: “We cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes… for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers,…….”

    The ice sheet is a great example. Hadfield’s argument is because Monckton came to a different conclusion with the information Johannessen offered it must be wrong because Johannessen said so. That’s an excellent rebuttal, if one forfeits their prerogative to think for themselves. No way could anyone ever look at the same information and present two different conclusions. ….. :-| Again, I find myself in mourning for western civilization.

  373. James Sexton says:

    Well, heck….. I left out the link to the cooling….. This covers from Jan 2001 to feb 2009.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009.16/trend

    Clearly that’s a cooling trend. Clearly, this covers the 8 or 9 years which was quoted.

  374. James Sexton says:

    Hadfield says, “So, as I said, he did not tell his audience there had been a 30-year decline.”

    That’s ok Petey, because you’re not telling your audience where the ice was 30 years prior to that. Goose/gander and all of that.

    How is it that it is confusing about what time frame he was talking about when you know the duration referenced on his slide? It’s difficult to believe this was an honest misunderstanding.

    When you state, “Mr. Monckton said: “The solar physicists – you might take Scafetta and West, say, in 2008, they attribute 69% of all the recent global warming to the sun.” [5 – 3:48]
    No, they don’t. In my video [5 - 4:32] I showed the actual document Mr. Monckton refers to (an opinion piece) where Scafetta and West wrote: “We estimate that the sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in the Earth’s average temperature.” ["Is climate sensitive to solar variability?" Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, Physics Today March 2008]“

    You are having a discussion on semantics rather than refuting anything. You actually took the time to create a series of videos to have a semantic discussion. You’ve wasted a good portion of my time. This is a vapid discussion. Do you have anything substantive? What was the point of posting these weak responses?

  375. Brian H says:

    JS;
    And hasn’t NASA just recently quietly downgraded 2005 and 1998 to also-rans in the hottest year sweeps? You may need to update your graphs. It’ll be a ski slope, not a hockey stick!

    ;)

  376. Doug Cotton says:

    To Lord Monckton:

    R. Gates says:
    January 11, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    Lord Monckton said:
    ” I hope shortly to be in a position to demonstrate formally that climate sensitivity is unarguably little more than one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate.”
    _________________________________________________

    Firstly, the original calculations of sensitivity were, I understand, based on an assumption that the Earth’s surface would have been -18 degrees C but for so-called greenhouse gases and water vapour.

    However, in using Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law to calculate that -18 C figure one would have to have assumed that the Earth’s surface acted like a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs and emits only radiated energy, whereas at least half of all energy which transfers between the Earth’s surface and the first millimeter of the atmosphere does so by diffusion (molecular collision) and evaporation. Hence less than half the energy remains for radiation and, obviously, this greatly affects the calculation of that -18 degree C figure which, in a nutshell, is totally meaningless.

    Secondly, spectroscopy proves that a gas does not absorb radiation from an emitter which is cooler than itself. Hence, the lower atmosphere does not absorb radiation coming from cooler carbon dioxide molecules above it. The same applies for solids and liquids in the Earth’s surface as Claes Johnson, a well-published Professor of Applied Mathematics has proved:http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf

    Hence an atmospheric greenhouse effect supposedly due to “backradiation” is a physical impossibility.

    I would like to suggest that it would be more productive to focus on these two solid facts of physics than to spend all your days arguing about whether Arctic or Greenland ice is melting, or whether the world is warming – which the 500 year trend is, but only by about 0.05 deg.C / decade, and only for another 50 to 200 years at the most.

  377. Doug Cotton says:

    To Lord Monckton

    Firstly, the original calculations of sensitivity were, I understand, based on an assumption that the Earth’s surface would have been -18 degrees C but for so-called greenhouse gases and water vapour.

    However, in using Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law to calculate that -18 C figure one would have to have assumed that the Earth’s surface acted like a blackbody. A blackbody absorbs and emits only radiated energy, whereas at least half of all energy which transfers between the Earth’s surface and the first millimeter of the atmosphere does so by diffusion (molecular collision) and evaporation. Hence less than half the energy remains for radiation and, obviously, this greatly affects the calculation of that -18 degree C figure which, in a nutshell, is totally meaningless.

    Secondly, spectroscopy proves that a gas does not absorb radiation from an emitter which is cooler than itself. Hence, the lower atmosphere does not absorb radiation coming from cooler carbon dioxide molecules above it. The same applies for solids and liquids in the Earth’s surface as Claes Johnson, a well-published Professor of Applied Mathematics has proved:http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf

    Hence an atmospheric greenhouse effect supposedly due to “backradiation” is a physical impossibility.

    I would like to suggest that it would be more productive to focus on these two solid facts of physics than to spend all your days arguing about whether Arctic or Greenland ice is melting, or whether the world is warming, which the 500 year trend is, but only by about 0.05 deg.C / decade and only for another 50 to 200 years at the most. For details on this prediction see my site http://climate-change-theory.com

  378. Doug Cotton says:

    Moderator: Please delete the first of the above two posts – it seemed to disappear so I posted again with a slight variation.

    [2:33 post is visible. Robt]

  379. J Fischer says:

    “the original calculations of sensitivity were, I understand, based on an assumption that the Earth’s surface would have been -18 degrees C but for so-called greenhouse gases and water vapour.”

    You misunderstand, then. No such assumption exists.

    “Secondly, spectroscopy proves that a gas does not absorb radiation from an emitter which is cooler than itself.”

    Replace “does not absorb” with “absorbs” and you have the truth. Atoms and molecules are not clever enough to know which photons you want them to absorb. They absorb any that quantum physics allows, regardless of where they come from.

    “only for another 50 to 200 years at the most.”

    Plucked from the pure thin air.

  380. 1DandyTroll says:

    Tom Murphy says:

    “Interestingly, the referenced “Sunday Telegraph” article wrote, “Houghton warns that God may induce man to mend his ways with a disaster,” – http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/houghton-and-god.pdf . If you are “one of the Faith,” you listen when God speaks – period. When this notion is juxtaposed with Sir John’s quote above (as it relates to the need for having a disaster), I can understand how, “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen,” could be extrapolated from the article’s content.”

    If you read the news paper edition the quote: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public”[…] is in there.

    What Mr potholer the potholder and all hippie (we-shit-on-library-cards) communists seem to miss is when the good lord Monckton, and other rational people, actually quotes someone or merely goes he said she said. :p

  381. Jack Greer says:

    Dave N says:
    February 7, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    @Jack Greer

    ..and please correct me if I am wrong Anthony, however I believe anyone is welcome to guest post here, and I also believe that Anthony has invited AGW proponents to do so. Most refuse because they feel safer posting on a warmist site where there’s little or no chance of debate, or objectivity. Of course they feel there is “fairness” there because of that.

    Also, kudos to Mr Hadfield for being civil in his responses.

    Yes, Kudos to Mr Hadfield for his civil responses and demeanor and, more importantly, the content of his arguments … but, Dave, you haven’t read through this thread re: “anyone is welcome to guest post here”. Your answer is above concerning that issue.

  382. Jack Greer says:

    Dr. Dave says:
    February 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    My gosh this was tedious! I had to read through Lord Monckton’s piece again for context and then endure the extremely unconvincing “rebuttal” from this potholer character. I was somewhat amused by the references potholer cited (e.g. MSNBC, rabid AGW organizations, studies from over 10 years ago) but I don’t think he managed to lay a glove on Lord Monckton.

    Should be entertaining red meat for the trolls, though

    Well, Dr. Dave, I hope you aren’t attempting to divine “context” from the way Mr. Monckton has re-framed it here at WUWT. The real context surrounds the veracity of skeptical arguments Mr. Monckton uses when addressing audiences or when participating in debates. I’d suggest you start with the videos provided by Mr. Hadfield. After all, that’s what Mr. Monckton was originally responding to.

  383. Doug Cotton says:

    To J Fischer:

    If you wish to argue about the actual mathematics and physics in Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation (which I linked) or give details regarding your assumed claim that the Earth’s surface acts like a blackbody (even though the surface/atmosphere interface is internal to the full Earth+atmosphere system which does act like a blackbody when viewed from space) then by all means present your calculations and data and I will happily discuss same.

    A blackbody does in fact “detect” the frequency of incoming radiation and it does in fact scatter any such radiation for which the peak frequency is significantly lower than its own peak frequency of emission – without converting the energy in that radiation to thermal energy. That is a fact of physics. You cannot show me any experiment which proves otherwise, including any contrary result to that which I quoted for gases.

    I don’t respond to the kind of assumed statements you made in your post – which is full of errors and totally lacking in proof or links to such.

  384. It seems that rebuttals of this type are subject to context, interpretation and semantics. Was there a cooling trend between 2001-2008? Yes. Was it statistically significant? Probably not. On the other hand a warmest will vehemently point out that 2010 was the hottest year on record. But was that statistically significant? No. Although actually, after reading some of the comments in this thread I revisited GISS, RSS, HADCRUT3, and UAH, and I can’t find any support for the 2010 warmist claim, much less worry about statistical significance… Monckton might find it helpful to qualify his statements to a greater degree in the future, however, and respond to and anticipate criticisms that might arise.

  385. gerglmuff says:

    love it potholer, mockton is moron, and its pretty obvious from the documents. his response cites no resources to corroborate his claims.

    i’d also challenge anyone claiming there is “big money” in green science to follow the money the other way …. how maybe trillions of dollars are made every year by companies that don’t want every policy to change, and how many lobbyist do they employ? and lets add up the billions and billions of dollars in coal, gas, and oil subsidies every year?

    if you follow the money, the money is in burning this planet to the ground, by far and away the most profitable. the entire budget of the NSF adds up to less money then even one coal companies yearly government subsidy.

  386. James Norton Zeitgeist says:

    Mr. Monckton, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

  387. Smokey says:

    gerglmuff and James Norton Zeitgeist,

    You two must have clicked on the wrong link. Your comments belong on the Grauniad’s blog, not here on the internet’s Best Science site. We like citations and science here, not raving lunatics.

  388. Doug Cotton says:

    Further to my response to J Fischer above …

    Suppose you somehow placed a small metal marble-sized ball inside a hollow soccer ball-sized metal sphere and then sucked all air out to form a vacuum inside. Now, let’s assume the small ball was a few degrees hotter than the surrounding sphere. Further assume that the outer sphere is large enough so that there is much more radiative flux coming from it than from the smaller ball. This would be due to its greater surface area which would more than compensate for its cooler temperature.

    So, we have a net radiative flux going from the cooler sphere to the warmer small ball inside it.

    Will the small ball start to get warmer or start to cool?

    Physics says that the flow of thermal energy can only be from hot to cold. But we have net radiative flux going from cold to hot. Hence the small ball must be rejecting (scattering and reflecting) the cooler radiation from the larger sphere. The large sphere will however absorb and convert to thermal energy the warmer radiation from the small ball. They each “detect” the temperature of the other because they detect the peak frequency and that frequency is proportional to the absolute temperature – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

    The significance of this fact of physics is that a warmer Earth surface does not convert radiation from a cooler atmosphere to thermal energy. So the radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is debunked.

  389. James Sexton says:

    Jack Greer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I’d suggest you start with the videos provided by Mr. Hadfield. After all, that’s what Mr. Monckton was originally responding to.
    ===================================================
    lol, well you would if you want to miss the context and concentrate on semantics. But, the better place to start would be examining Monckton’s statements, first. Then listen to Hadfield’s drivel.

    Jack, Hadfield started with an incorrect statement and it never got better.
    ON THE COOLING EARTH….. There’s a link above which clearly shows Monckton was absolutely correct when he made his statements. I forced myself to read more, but, it just got exactly as Dr. Dave stated. Tedious. And a waste of time. We move to arguments of interpretations of data and Scafetta’s inferences as opposed to declarative statements. Given that Scafetta, like all who study the climate, are not speaking the Word of God, we all infer a qualifying word in front of declarative statements, anyway. This response from Hadfield was ….. weak and honestly a disappointment.

  390. This seems to be a cold house for rationalist thinking.

  391. Daniel says:

    [snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  392. Peter Hadfield says:

    Thanks for all the responses. I suppose I should be encouraged by the fact that the best many people could do was to say that they found me boring, and an English twit, or that they gave up reading. It is, as I said, quite tough to debunk this kind of documented evidence, and much easier to resort to name-calling.
    My thanks to those few who did have a go. If Monckton’s sources really do say what you think they say then it should be very easy for him to come online and show it.
    There are too many comments to respond to, but I’ll be happy to respond to Mr. Monckton if and when he himself responds. However, there were thee common themes that several people commented on:
    Firstly, a lot of people seem to think I used MSNBC as a source. This is not correct. I cited Associated Press as a source, and there are hundreds of media organizations that use AP material, including MSNBC and Fox News.
    Secondly, there were a lot of questions as to why I don’t check Al Gore’s claims, and why I don’t point out errors on the “CAGW side.” Well of course, I do. There seems to be an assumption implicit in this charge that science is about taking “sides”, and that you can only attack the errors on the other “side” and you have to defend fabrications and exaggerations on your own “side” — and that it’s OK to fabricate and exaggerate as long as the other “side” does it too. The rationale of my channel is that it is NOT OK. Just because Al Gore gets things wrong does not mean Mr. Monckton is entitled to also. They both need to report accurately and both need to have their errors exposed. I have not only pointed out errors by Al Gore, but also by the BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, The Independent and many other media that exaggerate climate science, from the scare that it will shut down the Gulf Stream to the claim that it is inundating islands.
    Thirdly, I am not rebutting Mr. Monckton with ‘established’ climate science except where I point out that he gives no reliable source. In most cases I am going to the sources Monckton himself cites. If Mr. Monckton says a paper says something, then either it says so or it doesn’t, and in most cases it doesn’t.

    [Thank you for your effort in reading, and in replying, here. Robt]

  393. Alan Duval says:

    So much fawning over Monckton, much of it due to the title, it seems, and much out of hand dismissal of Mr Hadfield. So many “facts” posited, uncited, so much posturing, but no-one from the Monckton camp, it seems, prepared to watch Peter Hadfield’s rather entertaining videos that merely ask Monckton to clarify why his assertions are at odds with the papers he purports to cite and, on occasion, at odds with his own prior talks.

  394. James Sexton says:

    gerglmuff says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    i’d also challenge anyone claiming there is “big money” in green science to follow the money the other way …. how maybe trillions of dollars are made every year by companies that don’t want every policy to change, and how many lobbyist do they employ? and lets add up the billions and billions of dollars in coal, gas, and oil subsidies every year?
    ===============================================================
    Thanks for the laughs. You’re either vacant or you don’t pay attention. Gas?
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208477-sierra-club-took-26m-from-gas-industry-to-fight-coal

    Much of the funding for this inane alarmism is from these fellows….. http://www.us-cap.org/ Of course, BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar were part of all that until 2010. Immediately following, BP partnered with Berkeley U and warmist Secretary Steven Chu in a $500 million operation.

    If you guys can’t even educate yourselves on the most simplest of diversions, how is it you believe you can make adequate judgements on anything else? There are many, many more examples of your Big Oil and Big Gas and Big….. blah, blah in bed with the warmists. And, the warmists in bed with them. When you come to understand what is happening, come back and I’ll explain why.

  395. Mr Pinco Nico says:

    [snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  396. I am most grateful to Anthony Watts for allowing Mr. Hadfield to make various largely inaccurate and manifestly insubstantial points in response to my refutation of his criticisms of some of my talks about the climate.

    Consider the contrast between the insubstantiality of Mr. Hadfield’s allegations and Mr. Justice Burton’s identification of nine serious “errors” in Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie in the 2007 London High Court case that resulted in the Department of Education sending 77 pages of corrective guidance to every school where the movie was to be shown:

    Error one

    Al Gore said that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

    The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’.” It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia.”

    Error two

    Gore said low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls were already “being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.”

    Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

    Error three

    Gore described global warming potentially “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe.

    Judge: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was “very unlikely” it would be shut down, though it might slow down.

    Error four

    Gore asserted – by ridiculing the opposite view – that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”.

    Judge: Although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

    Error five

    Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to global warming.

    Judge: This had “specifically impressed” David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, but the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

    Error six

    Gore used the drying up of Lake Chad as what the judge called “a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming”.

    Judge: “It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”

    Error seven

    Gore attributed Hurricane Katrina and the devastation in New Orleans to global warming.

    Judge: There is “insufficient evidence to show that”.

    Error eight

    Gore referred to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears were being found that had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice”.

    Judge: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.” That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr. Gore’s description”.

    Error nine

    Gore said coral reefs worldwide were bleaching because of global warming and other factors.

    Judge: The IPCC had reported that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees Celsius, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. But separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

    A question arises from this painful contrast between the grave errors in Gore’s movie and what I shall bluntly call Mr. Hadfield’s nit-picking. Since Mr. Hadfield is so eager to correct every jot and tittle in the debate about the climate, why has he never – as far as I can discover – criticized these and other serious errors in Gore’s movie? Or in the documents of the IPCC? Or in the GISS temperature record? Or … well, the list is long and Mr. Hadfield’s silence deafening.

  397. Allen says:

    JS, the true believers are selective in what they want to accept as evidence. So when you confront them with the money trail their right eye twitches and the cognitive dissonance sets in.

  398. gerglmuff says:

    Smokey:

    do you need the numbers:

    75.2 billion dollars in government subsidies to the oil companies from 2002-2008 – http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

    oil company yearly profits in 2011:

    Exxon Mobil: 11 billion
    Chevron: 6.2 billion
    philips: 3 billion

    http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html

    4 of the top 5 (and 6 of the top 10) largest corporations in the world by revenue are oil companies:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

    7.7 billion TOTAL budget for the NSF in 2011: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=118642

    so who is making all this money off green science? cause the numbers don’t lie … the money is oil, not science. and certainly not from the government either, roughly 2 dollars for every 1 dollar of government spending goes to oil and gas, compared to the ENTIRE national science foundation.

    now, im not implying that government spending and profits should determine the scientific validity of ideas, but i am debunking the notion that these climate researchers are making tons of money selling a lie. there is a lot more money out there to say the exact opposite of what they are saying.

  399. Doug Cotton says:

    To everyone: Consider a patch of rock being warmed by the Sun in the morning. The IPCC says backradiation will add more thermal energy, so it must warm faster. (It is not just a matter of backradiation slowing the cooling rate – it must be consistent in whatever it does. Either it adds thermal energy or it doesn’t.)

    At some time soon after noon the Sun will bring the rock to a maximum temperature before it starts to cool towards evening. When at that maximum will the backradiation cause it to warm more? How could it, becuase that would be transferring thermal energy from a cold source to a warmer body. It is simply against the laws of physics. It simply cannot and does not happen. Yet the IPCC “explanation” of the GHE says it does.

    Prof Johnson has proven why it doesn’t in his Computational Blackbody Radiation. The GH theory is debunked.

  400. gerglmuff says:

    mr monkton why are you attacking al gore? potholer debunks al gore whenever he finds incorrect information in his movies too.

    do you have no response for potholers claims?

    i have seen what you said, and then read the paper you cite, saying the exact opposite that you claim it does, and i too would like an explanation.

  401. RACookPE1978 says:

    Peter Hadfield says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Secondly, there were a lot of questions as to why I don’t check Al Gore’s claims, and why I don’t point out errors on the “CAGW side.” Well of course, I do. There seems to be an assumption implicit in this charge that science is about taking “sides”, and that you can only attack the errors on the other “side” and you have to defend fabrications and exaggerations on your own “side” — and that it’s OK to fabricate and exaggerate as long as the other “side” does it too. The rationale of my channel is that it is NOT OK. Just because Al Gore gets things wrong does not mean Mr. Monckton is entitled to also. They both need to report accurately and both need to have their errors exposed. I have not only pointed out errors by Al Gore, but also by the BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, The Independent and many other media that exaggerate climate science, from the scare that it will shut down the Gulf Stream to the claim that it is inundating islands.

    Please show us your explicit criticism and corrections to Hansen; to Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”); to the schemes of not just Al Gore but NOAA, GISS, NWS, APS and their ilk; or to the US democrat party during Pelosi’s CAGW-inspired energy restriction/taxation debates in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011; to Australia’s Labor Party as it breaks that country in the name of CAGW; to Obama’s and his “science” leaders as they developed the current energy deprivation schemes and wasted billions in taxpayer money on counter-CAGW “green energy” schemes for Obama supporters and fund-raisers; against the IPCC since the AR4 debacle. Quote us your opposition to the Euro schemes of wind and solar manipulation of their energy mess.

    Show me your letters to the National Geographic magazine, the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, AP, UPI, Discover magazine, or The Economist. Show me your letters to any European magazine listing the lies and exaggerations of the CAGW claims that you debunked.

    I have seen NO public rebuttal of ANY CAGW propaganda by ANYBODY you claim as a “climate scientist” in your references or public statements. Only more propaganda for themselves, their dogma, and their future funding to murder innocent in the name of “fighting CAGW” ….

  402. C. V. says:

    I like how stupid some of the people in the comments are on this blog, acting like “Lord Christopher’s” series of strawmans, misquotations, and purely incorrect assertions were even an excuse for an argument.

  403. gerglmuff says:

    RACook –

    if you watched potholers videos, you would see the explicit corrections potholer has for al gore.

  404. James Sexton says:

    Peter Hadfield says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Thanks for all the responses. I suppose I should be encouraged …….
    =============================================================
    Oh Goodness……. Peter you were directly refuted here. And this is your response? What of your temperature decline reference? What of the polar ice? You say his slide only shows 3 years but you attempt to refute his claim by going back beyond his point of reference and declare him omitting facts, but you are doing exactly the same! What was the arctic ice area prior to the 70s? http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
    Then meaningless semantics about Scafetta’s statements? And you expect people to hang on to your ramblings? You end your Himalayan rebut with questions to Monckton?

    There are not too many comments for you to respond to. You made exactly 10 rebuts to Monckton’s rebuttals. I haven’t read all of the comments, but likely you’ve received proper criticism on all ten which would honorably be responded to or conceded. And you end with 3 generalizations…….. that’s great coming from a guy concentrated on the minutia. You could have just tweeted that in.

    I’ll ask again, do you have anything substantive?

  405. James Sexton says:

    Allen says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    JS, the true believers are selective in what they want to accept as evidence. So when you confront them with the money trail their right eye twitches and the cognitive dissonance sets in.
    ============================================================
    lol, indeed. It’s a strange thing to observe. It’s fascinating. $500 mil here or there, I guess is just numbers with zeroes and we all know zeroes count as nothing……

  406. RACookPE1978 says:

    gerglmuff says:
    February 7, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    I specifically excluded Gore’s propaganda from my list, and specifically listed a number more important, more relevant policymakers in the CAGW schemes to extort 1.3 trillion in tax money fro US citizens under the propaganda of their CAGW cause.

    Do you endorse the tens of thousands of Wikipedia edits made in CAGW topics to further propagandize this topic? Show me the documents that he has made stopping that practice to distort our children’s basic knowledge.

  407. Peter Hadfield says:

    I am delighted that Mr. Monckton has responded here. But to my amazement he doesn’t even attempt any rebuttal of my evidence – instead he rebuts Al Gore!
    Mr. Monckton, please addess the evidence I have presented. You and I are in complete agreement over the errors of Al Gore, and I have pointed them out in my videos. Here we are talking about YOUR errors, and trying to deflect attention onto someone else will not work. If you got these facts wrong, and you think they are so unimportant as to amount to ‘nitpicking,’ why not simply admit you got them wrong?

    REPLY: Mr. Monckton tells me via email he’ll respond in some greater detail when he returns from his current trip. You yourself took two weeks, so cut some slack.

    Right now he’s just echoing other commenters about your one side investigation techniques…we do look forward to your debunking Al Gore in a video (I’ve yet to see one dedicated to him let alone the five you dedicate to Monckton in references above, feel free to drop a link here), since you claim not to be biased in any way.

    - Anthony

  408. J. Fischer says:

    Doug Cotton: Shouting incorrect statements does not make them any less incorrect, so how about getting a bit less bold-happy?

    “assumed claim that the Earth’s surface acts like a blackbody” – I told you once already, there is no such assumption.

    “A blackbody does in fact “detect” the frequency of incoming radiation and it does in fact scatter any such radiation for which the peak frequency is significantly lower than its own peak frequency of emission” – nope. The definition of a black body is that it absorbs all radiation that falls on it. Which bit of “all” is it that you have a problem with?

    Your garbled understanding of how radiation works has led you quite some way up the garden path. The net flow of energy is always from hotter to colder; that’s basic thermodynamics. That does not make warm bodies invisible to cooler ones. Photons and molecules do not behave as you seem to think they should. Have you ever read any introduction to quantum physics?

  409. James Sexton says:

    lmao…. ok, a couple of alarmists are here….. cool I wonder if they can explain Mr. Hadfield’s very first assertion……. he stated,

    ON THE COOLING EARTH:
    Since Mr. Monckton failed to address the evidence, but implies I was duplicitous in my timing, let’s see what my video actually showed. In a speech given in Melbourne in February 2009, Mr. Monckton said: “We’ve had nine years of a global cooling trend since the first of January 2001” [Ref 1 - 4:06] – and St. Paul in October 2009: “There has been global cooling for the last eight or nine years” [ibid.].

    “So in my video, the period Mr. Monckton was talking about was clearly identified in his own words, as well as in the graphs he showed, and I showed the dates the speeches were made, and the studies I cited covered the same period.”

    But, we don’t need studies. We can just go here….. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009.16/trend

    …to see that Christopher Monckton was accurate and truthful, while Hadfield was obfuscating. Once this is conceded, I’ll move on to the next item of contention.

  410. Smokey says:

    gerglmuff,

    You can’t even keep straight who you’re responding to:

    “James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm [ ... ]”

    I said nothing about oil, I merely pointed out that you commented like a lunatic. Now you can add “hypocrite” to your description, unless you can show us convincingly that you never use fossil fuels, or products made or grown using them.

    Really, anyone who hates and demonizes a legitimate, law abiding industry that provides things that make their life much better than it would otherwise be, an industry that pays much more in taxes than it pays its shareholders in dividends, and which gives many $millions to eco-fascist groups every year, well, that person would have to be some kind of a lunatic, and a real hypocrite too, no?

  411. blah says:

    [Snip. Use a legitimate email address, per site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  412. Jeremy says:

    @James Sexton

    “You are having a discussion on semantics rather than refuting anything. You actually took the time to create a series of videos to have a semantic discussion. You’ve wasted a good portion of my time. This is a vapid discussion. Do you have anything substantive? What was the point of posting these weak responses?”

    Well James, when the point of the videos are constant misreadings done by Lord Mockton of his own source material, semantic discussions become inevitable. I’m sorry if you feel accurately repeating the information you are citing is an insubstantive waste of time but those of us interesting in understanding the truth realize it’s contingent on understanding what people have said.

  413. James Sexton says:

    gerglmuff says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    so who is making all this money off green science? cause the numbers don’t lie … the money is oil, not science. and certainly not from the government either, roughly 2 dollars for every 1 dollar of government spending goes to oil and gas, compared to the ENTIRE national science foundation.
    =====================================================================
    You just aren’t making the connection, are you? Gas and Oil are profiting from the vapid lunacy which passes for climate science.

  414. Mateusz Gwizdalla (Mati) says:

    After reading a few comments I feel as if nobody posting actually took the time to read the complete articles. Monckton here presents a thoroughly immature response. Instead of addressing the evidence and the inconsistencies (often outright falsehoods) that Hadfield exposes in his arguments, he calls him a caveman and other names. There is nothing intellectual or academic about his arguments. He does not cite sources accurately or at all (yet Hadfield always cites his sources and makes them readily available to readers, and I have yet to have found an inconsistency between his conclusions and the evidence he presents) and instead Monckton simply attacks Hadfield in playground bully fashion.

    People on this site may be biased to wish to believe what Monckton writes without critically thinking about it. Hadfield however encourages critical thinking and accuracy. Present Hadfield with an error and he will admit his mistake and correct it. Present Monckton with an error of his and he has a tantrum, tries to cover up previous claims or lies.

    If you have difficulty reading or listening to Hadfield then that is only because you do not like or do not wish to think in that way. Science doesn’t care about what you’d like to believe, science only cares for evidence and scrutiny. But try to! I implore you to see both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion. The same goes for myself, I read what Monckton has to say as well as Hadfield, even if I may not like or wish to because I know I cannot draw conclusions without evidence.

    When Copernicus concluded that the Earth goes around the Sun almost everyone was opposed to him because they did not wish to believe that. They liked the idea that the Earth was at the center. They were wrong. You may like to believe that we are changing the climate of this planet, but it is simply a fact, whether you like it or not. It is both immature and irresponsible to believe otherwise.

  415. James Sexton says:

    Smokey says:
    February 7, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    gerglmuff,

    You can’t even keep straight who you’re responding to:
    =====================================================
    Sry Smoke, he was already heading out to space, my links probably sent him into orbit. Hopefully, between what you’ve stated and what I’ve shared with him, he’ll consider things in a different manner…….. holding my breath.

  416. What I love here is how Moncktons supporters are damning over whether or not his title is valid and are quick to point out that they are just attacking the man and the ad hominem fallacy. Yet I hear none of them addressing Moncktons own use of the same tactics by calling Potholer54 a ‘caveman’ and him being a former ‘ “science writer” ‘. Ironic.

  417. James Sexton says:

    Jeremy says:
    February 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    @James Sexton

    “You are having a discussion on semantics rather than refuting anything. You actually took the time to create a series of videos to have a semantic discussion. You’ve wasted a good portion of my time. This is a vapid discussion. Do you have anything substantive? What was the point of posting these weak responses?”

    Well James, when the point of the videos are constant misreadings done by Lord Mockton of his own source material, semantic discussions become inevitable. I’m sorry if you feel accurately repeating the information you are citing is an insubstantive waste of time but those of us interesting in understanding the truth realize it’s contingent on understanding what people have said.
    ==========================================================
    Okay, I’ve come to grips with the fact that the “present participle” is something alarmists don’t understand. For instance, I say “the earth has quit warming for over a decade”, the alarmist give me a 30 year graph. So, I’ve given up on hope they could understand the intricacies of the English language. But, then an alarmist uses that exact same scenario in reference to Monckton’s sea ice statement, but then comes back and states, ….paraphrasing….. “technically that’s not what they said, they said, could be, not is.”

    Then your argument smacks of duplicity. Especially when the word “could” is universally implied in all scientific statements not associated with a scientific law.

    I’m sorry you hold two separate standards. But, I’m used to it. Hypocrisy and duplicity is hallmarks of alarmists. This is congruent with their misanthropy.

    James

  418. Steven says:

    Reading this comment section has been one of the most painful experiences I have ever endured, it was not enlightening nor entertaining and seemed to consist of Monckton fanboyism and an inept understanding of proper source citation and scientific debate.

    A debate does not consist of one party ignoring the others valid rebuttals nor should it ever consist of one party stating X then having the other party point out the inconsistencies of X only to have the original party merely fall upon baseless judgments of the other parties character.

    Come on, it can’t just be me that found Moncktons response to be childish playground babble that basically consisted of “NO U R WRONG! DUMMY!”, I’m more than fine with either side being correct, I have no partial bias in this entire situation (I am not blindly supporting a persons opinion), I just find it appalling that a man of science would reduce himself to the muck of character attacks in light of corrections to his assertions.

  419. Jacob says:

    @ James Sexton

    If you are really quibbling over the ON THE COOLING OF THE EARTH rebuttal, when there are nine more claims Monckton made that were factually in error, you must be really grasping at straws…

  420. TH says:

    [snip - invalid email address - a real one is required per policy and oijonoj@ijhjojwg.com is just gobbledeygook - Anthony]

  421. Goldie says:

    Look, I know this hassles some people so I thought I’d look up what Debrett’s says:

    This the fourth grade in the peerage.  A viscount is, in conversation, referred to as Lord (Chelmsford) rather than the Viscount Chelmsford.

    There are two viscountcies where an ‘of’ is used in the title: the Viscount of Arbuthnott, and the Viscount of Oxford.

    Ecclesiastical, ambassadorial and armed forces ranks precede a viscount’s rank in correspondence. For example, Major-General the Viscount ………

    When a viscount is also a privy counsellor or has received a knighthood he may use the appropriate post-nominal letters.

    The wife of a viscount is a viscountess and is known as Lady (Chelmsford). Use of the title viscountess in speech is socially incorrect unless it needs to be specifically mentioned, for example in a list of patrons.

    How to address a Viscount and Viscountess

    The recommended (social) style of address is as follows:

    Beginning of letter Dear Lord/Lady Chelmsford
    End of letter Yours sincerely
    Envelope Viscount/Viscountess Chelmsford
    Verbal communication Lord/Lady Chelmsford
    Invitation* & joint form of address Lord and Lady Chelmsford
    Description in conversation Lord/Lady Chelmsford
    List of Directors or Patrons The Viscount/Viscountess Chelmsford
    Place card The Viscount/Viscountess Chelmsford
    Legal document The Right Honourable Frederic Viscount Chelmsford, The Right Honourable Charlotte Viscountess Chelmsford

    For those that don’t know, Debrett’s is the repository of all things ettiquette. Some people who post on this site could really do with reading it.

    With respect to Lord Monkton, This seems plain enough to me and I don’t really care what our rebellious cousins over the pond think.

  422. Smokey says:

    J. Fischer says @5:28 pm [ ... ]

    J., you are on the wrong thread. This is the right one:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science

    I will answer your question there.

  423. Chris Edwards says:

    I would say the name “caveman” is flattery, he sure cherry pics his sources, quoting corruption is no answer, what we do know is there is more ice on Greenland than when the Vikings farmed it, actual real proof of the farms still being under a glacier, care to argue that my potholer?? How about turn of the last century reports of ice free areas in the arctic?? or the passage of German raiders through the NW passage in 39 (I think) now look today, way more ice, for real.

  424. James Sexton says:

    Jacob says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    @ James Sexton

    If you are really quibbling over the ON THE COOLING OF THE EARTH rebuttal, when there are nine more claims Monckton made that were factually in error, you must be really grasping at straws…
    ===================================================
    lol, that was the first one. As I stated earlier, once this is conceded, I’ll move one. But, I find it strange that you found that comment of mine but not my others. Do you believe this was my only point of contention? And, do you believe I don’t have other valid points to make which I haven’t stated, yet?

    The fact is I’ve made quite a few….. I can’t wait until we get to the pre-Cambrian era…..

    I’d list all of my points of contention about Hadfield’s responses, but given the challenge a present participle gives alarmists, I wouldn’t press my luck on their ability to retain concepts of present participles stated in the past, so, one at a time it is.

  425. Freezedried says:

    gerglmuff, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

  426. Doug Cotton says:

    J. Fischer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    “A blackbody does in fact “detect” the frequency of incoming radiation and it does in fact scatter any such radiation for which the peak frequency is significantly lower than its own peak frequency of emission” – nope.
    _______________________________________

    Yep – I presented proof – you did not present anything.

    Instead of studying what Prof Johnson has proven computationally and then pointing out any error in the mathematics presented by this Professor of Applied Mathematics, Fischer’s response is an informative “nope” – rather like his other unsubstantiated claims.

    The definition of a blackbody also says it emits all radiation that falls on it and that it does not transfer thermal energy by any means other than radiation. The Earth’s surface does not emit the SW radiation which falls upon it. The Earth’s surface does transfer thermal energy to the atmosphere and the deep oceans by several means other than radiation.

    Hence the often-quoted -18 deg.C temperature for the Earth’s surface is not valid because it is calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for blackbodies, which the Earth is not. From that -18 deg.C comes the 33 deg.C warming figure that is supposed to be due to the supposed greenhouse effect, but which is not a correct value in the first place because the -18 C is not a correct figure. Carbon dioxide is supposed to contribute a portion of this incorrect 33 deg.C which is thus also an incorrect statement and a meaningless figure. The -18C is also calculated using the assumption that the Earth is a flat disk, which makes it nearly 90 degrees different from a figure calculated by integration over a 24 hour revolution of a real spherical Earth. But both are meaningless calculations because radiation is far less than the values used.

    Yes, J.Fischer, in the 45 years since I completed my major in Physics I have continued to tutor and study such, together with climate science, I have indeed read an “introduction to quantum physics” /sarc

    Sooner or later, my friend, you will learn that people on this forum expect sensible, well-argued points backed by evidence, not waffle like your “nope.” Your style of communication appears to be learnt from the IPCC et al.

  427. Robert Austin says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 12, 2012 at 9:02 am

    C.M. Carmichael says:
    January 12, 2012 at 6:07 am

    How does caveman explain the story of “The Lost Squadron” a flight of aircraft that were left on the Greenland plateau in 1942, and recovered in recent years from under 268 ft of new ice? 25 stories of new ice in 60 years.

    There is a simple explanation for that story: put something heavy on ice and if the temperature is not too low, the ice will melt under its weight. But the melting water refreezes above the heavy weight, together with new snow deposits and as the ice sheet advances slower near the bottom/sides, the weight is covered with newer layers over time. The disturbance of the ice layers would be found more downstreams…

    Ferdinand,
    I doubt your explanation. While the pressure exerted by the undercarriage of these aircraft might plausibly cause them to sink at a rate exceeding the accumulation of snowfall, once the undercarriage was buried there would a very low loading pressure from these aluminum aircraft on the ice surface. The only reasonable explanation is that the airplanes were buried by accumulating snow.

  428. -Peely says:

    [And this one is also erased. Robt]

  429. brody says:

    [snip. Clean it up and try again. ~dbs, mod.]

  430. -Peely says:

    [snip. Read the site Policy and abide by it if you want to post here. That includes a legit email address. ~dbs, mod.]

  431. Cephas Borg says:

    Oh my, haven’t the loonies had a lot of fun here?

    For actual thinking persons who want some light relief (as if reading fatuous salutes to and defenses of the indefensible Mr Monkton weren’t enough of a giggle), may I suggest clicking on some of the URL links in the loonies’ names?

    You’ll find the most incredible “science” you’ve ever heard of. It’s such a pity that most of it is thoroughly debunked on the various Wikipedia entries, try looking under “PseudoScience”, it’s a hoot. Well, at least the stuff that wasn’t debunked decades (or centuries) ago. That’s just boring, watching people who can’t cope with logical thinking defending “science” that’s so wrong, it’s not even wrong (to paraphrase Enrico Fermi). Reading this comment list, I kinda know how he must’ve felt.

    I find it interesting that most of the “Monk-ies” attack ad-hominem preferentially, then straw-man arguments are rolled out, followed by non-sequiturs and bluster. But the vitriol is inversely proportional to the understanding of the actual subject being attacked by Mr Monkton, which always results in the most vitriol and the least humour. Pity it isn’t vice-versa.

    But go clickety-click, it’s a hoot. I had no idea that so much was misunderstood so badly by so many.

  432. Peter Hadfield says:

    Anthony Watts writes: “Mr. Monckton tells me via email he’ll respond in some greater detail when he returns from his current trip. You yourself took two weeks, so cut some slack.”

    Mr. Monckton can take the slack he requires, I have never suggested otherwise. What I am suggesting is that he actually respond to the documentary evidence, not to my criticism or lack of criticism of Al Gore, not to how awful and biased he thinks my channel is, and not to my stupidity or morals. If he can answer the points, simply answer them.

    “Oh and since you haven’t had the courtesy yet to thank me for giving you this venue, I’ll just say “you’re welcome”.”

    Anthony, I have indeed sent you a very nice e-mail thanking you. I am in a completely different time zone to you, and my first thoughts when I saw this piece (late morning) were to read the dozens of comments that were already up there, and make an announcement on my channel that the rebuttal was posted. In your own words, please cut me some slack. I’m afraid these things can’t always happen with the speed you desire.

    Best regards,
    Peter

    REPLY: Our comments crossed in the ether, so I’ve withdrawn my last sentence, thank you. – Anthony

  433. Smokey says:

    Cephas Borg,

    Thank you for a textbook example of an unthinking, un-cited, anti-science ad hominem attack. Now run along to Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, or whatever thinly trafficked echo-chamber blog that sent you here.

  434. Jacob says:
    If you are really quibbling over the ON THE COOLING OF THE EARTH rebuttal, when there are nine more claims Monckton made that were factually in error, you must be really grasping at straws…
    ==========================
    The problem is there are very few if any ‘factual errors’ and lots of arguments over “how” these facts should be interpreted. Lots of insults and name calling from both sides, of course.
    My observations over the years with regard to the Monckton of Brenchley is that the facts that he does present are not always balanced. If he is right on a point, which might well be the case, there is nonetheless a failure on his part to address the counter arguments in his talks. I suspect if he did that, his case would be stronger as it would come across with greater balance. Sceptics like those to admit uncertainty and the Monckton of Brenchley would do himself favours if he qualified many of his claims.

    On the other hand, his opponents wish to present him as a ‘raving lunatic’ or some such, but then when they have the opportunity to rebut, they come up with points like noting that *up* to 69% of warming might be attributable to the sun, not 69%. A fair if subtle point to make, but not exactly devastating as far as efforts at rebuttal are concerned.

  435. Phil. says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:00 pm
    To J Fischer:

    If you wish to argue about the actual mathematics and physics in Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation (which I linked) or give details regarding your assumed claim that the Earth’s surface acts like a blackbody (even though the surface/atmosphere interface is internal to the full Earth+atmosphere system which does act like a blackbody when viewed from space) then by all means present your calculations and data and I will happily discuss same.

    A blackbody does in fact “detect” the frequency of incoming radiation and it does in fact scatter any such radiation for which the peak frequency is significantly lower than its own peak frequency of emission – without converting the energy in that radiation to thermal energy. That is a fact of physics. You cannot show me any experiment which proves otherwise, including any contrary result to that which I quoted for gases.

    This is nonsense, a Blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it! Johnson’s paper is not science, and is not a fact of physics.

  436. Jack Greer says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    I am most grateful to Anthony Watts for allowing Mr. Hadfield to make various largely inaccurate and manifestly insubstantial points in response to my refutation of his criticisms of some of my talks about the climate.

    Consider the contrast between the insubstantiality of Mr. Hadfield’s allegations and Mr. Justice Burton’s identification of nine serious “errors” in Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie in the 2007 London High Court case that resulted in the Department of Education sending 77 pages of corrective guidance to every school where the movie was to be shown: {and on and on and on with Mr Monckton’s deflection}

    At least make an attempt at defending your misstatements, Mr Monckton. Feeble deflection.

  437. James Sexton says:

    Cephas Borg says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Oh my, haven’t the loonies had a lot of fun here?
    =============================================
    We would have expected nothing less from an alarmist. By all means, do click and comment.

  438. Doug Cotton says:

    J Fischer states that the flow of energy is always from warmer to cooler bodies, by which I presume he means the flow of thermal energy, whether by conduction or radiation. (The net flow of radiated energy can be in the opposite direction, as demonstrated in my post at 4:35pm.)

    This is why backradiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface. (For more detail see my post at 5:03pm.) So why does Fischer and the IPCC have a problem with that?

    Please respond to my posts at 4:35pm and 5:03pm which discuss these issues.

  439. Smokey says:

    J. Fischer says:

    “The net flow of energy is always from hotter to colder; that’s basic thermodynamics. That does not make warm bodies invisible to cooler ones.”

    . . .

    I’m not convinced that is totally correct. But we are in agreement if you delete the word “net”.

    I provided a thought experiment:

    Suppose a single atom at 600K was in the middle of an ideal vacuum container, and surrounded by one billion atoms at 300K, all arranged in a spherical shell a small distance away from the warmer central atom. [All held in place by laser tweezers, or a science fiction tractor beam.☺]

    So now we have a warmer atom surrounded by an almost solid shell of cooler atoms, and all the cooler atoms are emitting photons with wavelengths equal to their absolute temperatures. With a billion atoms, a large number of their photons will hit the warmer central atom.

    Will the total radiative emissions of one billion atoms be sufficient to raise the temperature of the warmer central atom to, say, 601K? The answer appears to be no, even though there are large numbers of photons from the cooler atom shell hitting the central, warmer atom.

    The reason may be that each photon “knows” that it was emitted from a cooler atom, and therefore the warmer atom is invisible to it. If that is so, then the “back radiation” hypothesis would seem to be falsified.

    I could refine that thought experiment, but it’s good enough as it is. If you believe that the central atom would continue to get hotter from the billions of close by, cooler atoms emitting photons, please explain how that would work. And explain why that would not violate the 2nd Law.

    I used atoms specifically to avoid giving wiggle room, such as using the word “net”. In this thought experiment, the ‘net’ number of photons – each carrying energy – would far exceed the number being emitted from the central atom. Thus, the central atom would keep increasing in temperature, far beyond its 600K. So tell me whether the central atom heats up, or whether it remains at or below 600K.

  440. John R. says:

    Sickening that someone would continue to misrepresent facts, change quotes, misrepresent sources, and distort data when potentialy the future of civilization is at stake. Maybe the “warmists” are wrong. Maybe. But use the FACTS. If you have to lie or distort data to convince people, that says something about your position… It’s weak.”potholer54″, and others, have called out Monckton using direct quotes that are factually wrong. When Monckton continues to use the same wording later, after learning of the error, that is lying. Despite “potholer54″ refuting much of Monkton’s clains, often using the very same sources, Monkton still has not admitted a single distortion, bias, mistake, error, or misquote. (Whereas the “caveman” has an errata video, as well as in-video corrections, for his own mistakes.)

    Mr. Monkton, global warming is a deadly serious issue. Even if completely natural (and even you don’t claim that), it could spark wars costing millions of lives. Even if completely natural, it will cost billions or trillions of dollars to mitigate the consequences. Even if physically benign, it still has major cost and social impact. Mankind, including your followers, deserve the truth, whatever that may be. Admit your mistakes, correct them, and stick to the facts.

  441. Doug Cotton says:

    Phil. says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    This is nonsense, a Blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it! Johnson’s paper is not science, and is not a fact of physics.
    _______________________________________________________

    The Earth’s surface is not a blackbody and does not act like either a black or grey body because …

    (1) It does not re-emit the SW radiation it receives from the Sun.

    (2) It does transfer thermal energy by means other than radiation.

    As with all bodies, including gases, It does not convert to thermal energy any radiated energy which comes from a cooler source, because that would amount to transferring thermal energy from a cooler body to a warmer body, which is contrary to physics and with which even your friend J Fischer would appear to agree. Prof. Johnson’s work is entirely in keeping with these statements.

    Please read all my previous posts this afternoon before responding, as I am not wishing to retype what is already explained in greater detail above.

  442. Glin says:

    Anthony, Hadfield has shown no bias. He took aim at Al Gore long before Monckton came into his sights.

  443. Smokey says:

    John R. says:

    “…global warming is a deadly serious issue. Even if completely natural (and even you don’t claim that), it could spark wars costing millions of lives. Even if completely natural, it will cost billions or trillions of dollars to mitigate the consequences. Even if physically benign, it still has major cost and social impact. Mankind, including your followers, deserve the truth, whatever that may be. Admit your mistakes, correct them, and stick to the facts.”

    ^An example of a modern day Chicken Little [Chicken Licken in the UK]. Even if there is natural warming, doom defeat and despair are coming! John R. is certain of it and so he will not accept the following facts, because he is a religious acolyte in the Church of CAGW. But for the more open-minded:

    At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better. So is more warming. The “carbon” scare is just a false alarm perpetuated by mindless lemmings who get their pseudo-science in sound bites from the likes of Michael Mann, Al Gore, and potholer54. Science it ain’t.

  444. Tom Murphy says:

    gerglmuff says:

    “mr monkton why are you attacking al gore? potholer debunks al gore whenever he finds incorrect information in his movies too.”

    Mr. Hadfield does not debunk (i.e., expose the falseness or hollowness of a myth, idea, or belief) the global warming… bunk vis-à-vis Al Gore. Rather, he states we should not accept the “fact” that Vice President Al Gore is always correct when it comes to climate change. One could imply that Mr. Hadfield believes that Gore is mostly right, as opposed to always right. But I do not desire to ascribe words to Mr. Hadfield’s thought; they are his own already.

    And yet Mr. Hadfield states, “[The] success [of changing a climate change skeptic’s mind], however, comes at a price. It means looking at the science – not scary and unrealistic images of submerged cities. It means accepting the fact that Al Gore is not always right, and he should not be defended when he’s wrong. It means acknowledging that while sceptics like Christopher Monckton and Martin Durkin fabricate a lot of their facts, many environmental activists tend to exaggerate theirs,” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism .

    Thus, we see that Mr. Hadfield asserts that environmental activists (like Vice President Gore) only “exaggerate” the facts, while climate change skeptics (like Lord Monckton) fabricate their facts (i.e., they lie). This obvious whitewashing of climate alarmism by Mr. Hadfield reveals an inherent bias on his part, which taints (possibly unconsciously) his “debunking” of any… inconvenient truths. I believe this is the very point Lord Monckton tried to make in his reply to Mr. Hadfield’s rebuttal, which has been largely lost on the same and his apologists.

    I can only presume that an activist is allowed such liberties (i.e., exaggerations of the facts) by Mr. Hadfield because of their need for an outward manifestation (even if only symbolic) of their inward passion for the cause they espouse. If this is true, then what does Mr. Hadfield assert motivates the climate change skeptic to… lie?

  445. John R. says:

    @Doug Cotton “This is why backradiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface.” Dude, find a study that supports your case in regards to atmospheric effects, and post it. Can’t find one, then do your own study.

  446. James Sexton says:

    John R. says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Sickening that someone would continue to misrepresent facts, change quotes, misrepresent sources, and distort data when potentialy the future of civilization is at stake. Maybe the “warmists” are wrong. Maybe. But use the FACTS. If you have to lie or distort data to convince people, that says something about your position… It’s weak.”potholer54″, and others, have called out Monckton using direct quotes that are factually wrong………..
    ============================================
    The other way around, sis. You got it backwards.

  447. robot says:

    [SNIP. -REP]

  448. Doug Cotton says:

    John R. says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    @Doug Cotton “This is why backradiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface.” Dude, find a study that supports your case in regards to atmospheric effects, and post it. Can’t find one, then do your own study.
    ____________________________

    Actually I did do my own backyard experiment and found no sign of any warming by backradiation as I reported recently on this forum.

    But that aside, maybe this published paper will help you understand ….

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf

    When you also read the other “experiments” I have described in posts 4:35pm & 5:03pm today we can continue this discussion. Personally I see no reason why the laws of physics should act differently in the atmosphere, but perhaps you can explain in more detail what on Earth (literally) you are talking about when you refer to “atmospheric effects.”

  449. Tomo says:

    This is the kind of post that I came to this site to find:

    http://i.imm.io/g6bB.png

    I’m a fan of Peter Hadfield because I like science, and while I do not have the time to keep up to date with all the facts, Peter has always provided what has come across as a fairly factual synopsis on issues I find of interest. Plus, he has always sourced his points so that I could easily check out the details for myself.

    Interestingly, when I came across this site I was expecting to find more of the same. I was expecting to learn more about climate change.

    Instead, here is what I learned:

    Climate change “cliques” come in 4 distinct groups:

    1.) Poncies – fans of the “aristocracy” who pride breeding, false modesty, and pseudo-eloquence over genuine honesty and and elegant arguments. These groups seem to think that because of an over-debated accident of birth that Monckton is not only infallible, he’s also better than most people, and by the sheer force of their mindless flattery they might somehow touch his greatness.

    I imagine that after they make some sort of pointless comment about how wonderful he is and how stupid anyone is for disagreeing with him, that they brag to their nearest loved-one that they “defended Lord Monckton’s honor”, with assorted bows and possibly powdered wigs to go with the affected syntax they use.

    2.) Semantic Shamans – My heart goes out to these cousins of mine who mindlessly pursue common definitions, rather than common concepts. I get this, because I think language should be clear. However, even when we all speak English, we aren’t speaking the same language.

    Somehow what gets lost in these debates is that it is more important to understand what someone is saying, rather than how they say it. I’ve gotten caught up in debates over definition before, and they can be distracting. Unless you fence in what you are saying, and everyone agrees to what they are talking about, it can be a plethora of painfully circular posts that go on ad infinum amongst two people who are on THE SAME SIDE OF THE DEBATE.

    3.) The Skeptics Squared – these are people who accuse other people of not being skeptical. In other words, they are skeptical of their opponents skepticalness. “Because you don’t agree with this point, you are OBVIOUSLY not skeptical enough.”

    This is just dumb.

    Stop it.

    These sites are so full of skepticism it borders on nihilism. We just sit on different decides of an argument that nobody can prove as easily as gravity because its a complicated issue.

    Plus, there is a TON of bad information out there, and everybody thinks that their information is “not it”.

    But…

    Since we can’t all be right, and there are 2 sides to this issue, maybe we’re all a LITTLE wrong. Maybe. We aren’t going to get there calling other people names, or getting impatient with them for not seeing “the truth” as you know it – we’ll only get there by figuring out why we are so BAD at explaining our own arguments.

    After all, if the arguments were any good, there wouldn’t be a debate. Don’t believe me? Fine.

    Anybody want to argue the point that gravity exists?

    No?

    Well, then. That issue is pretty clear, so before we start calling people idiots and accusing them of too much credulity, let’s try to get better at explaining these obvious points.

    4.) This group hurts the worst. It’s the “Not Moncktons”. Personally, I have found Monckton to be a pretentious prick with more supporters and respect than he deserves, but that’s hardly a basis for debating his arguments. However, the “Not Moncktons” seem to think that he is evil, wrong, and dastardly because he doesn’t play House with Lords, or something like that.

    Even pointing out his uses of ad hominems does NOTHING to clarify the debate. Why, if I were someone who was not only good looking and humble, but incredibly intelligent and curious about this issue, I might think that entire website is filled with nothing but uninformed jackasses and people who HATE Monckton because his ideas are poo poo.

    However, the truth of the matter is quite different.

    There isn’t a conspiracy to make Monckton look stupid or smarter than he is.

    The publisher of this site isn’t playing favorites.

    Peter Hadfield isn’t some insipid “caveman” with uninspired arguments.

    What we have are people that have an opinion, who have underestimated everybody else’s chances of being right. We don’t like to think of ourselves as closed-minded, but we all are.

    All of us.

    And if you were to admit it, if you were to be really honest with yourself, you’d admit that maybe you’re not as SURE of your arguments as you want everyone to believe you are.

    Monckton has his fans… some are dogmatic in their adoration and others are just convinced by his arguments.

    The publisher, thanks to a weird comment delay thing, has had to deal with a DELUGE of people responding to comments in posts outside of real-time, on a site that he runs, repeating himself ad nauseum and getting treated like he’s a prick.

    He isn’t.

    Peter isn’t a prick either, for asking for “fair reply”.

    But the publisher isn’t a prick either for wanting to protect his assets and brand. He WAS doing as much as he felt was right, without causing himself a bunch of extra work.

    So while doing the right thing doesn’t deserve a special pat on the back, he certainly doesn’t deserve condemnation for it either.

    Just like noone should get special condemnation for not reading this ginormous comment post. It’s huge. If someone missed a point that was mentioned before, point it out politely.

    There are delay in comment time for approval.

    There are videos people don’t have the time or wherewithal to watch.

    I say all this because, this is what I’ve learned by coming to this site.

    This is what you have all taught me.

    What you haven’t taught me was why I should care about your arguments.

    You haven’t explained to me in a way that I can understand why what you are saying is somehow more believable than what others are saying.

    I’m not a dumb man, and I don’t expect special favors.

    But if this subject is something you want others to learn more about, I have to tell you…

    You are doing this badly.

    Not the site – the commentors and readers.

    I’m a user, an expert at communicating online if you will.

    I’m pretty good – I’ve sold millions of dollars in products online, and as you guys know, numbers don’t lie.

    And my unsolicited yet expert opinion is that YOU are hurting the debate.

    You are making it difficult for others to get informed.

    You make the debates uninteresting and uninformative.

    Your disregard for others has made the issue itself unpalatable to someone like me – a curious person interested in understanding a complex issue.

    Look at the things I learned about Climate Change today. One post. Here: http://i.imm.io/g6bB.png

    Thanks for your time.

  450. Dr Chris Hancock says:

    Congratulations WUWT for publishing both tracts in full. Those who wish to maintain their respect for Mr Monckton, and feel comfortable believing climate change isn’t a problem, should just read Monckton’s comments and leave it at that.
    Unfortunately if you ignore my advice and go on to read the points made by Mr Hadley then actually CHECK them for yourselves, you’ll see that in each case he is absolutely correct. This realization could leave you disillusioned and depressed.
    Maintain your skepticism of climate science, but please don’t extend it to Mr Monckton as well. He’s on our side. So when he claims to have developed treatments for AIDS and MS, or if he says action on climate change will kill 5 to 6 billion people etc, just let the words flow over you and enjoy his lovely speaking voice instead.

  451. James Sexton says:

    John R. says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Sickening that someone would continue to misrepresent facts, change quotes, misrepresent sources, and distort data when potentialy the future of civilization is at stake. Maybe the “warmists” are wrong. Maybe. But use the FACTS. If you have to lie or distort data to convince people, that says something about your position… It’s weak.”potholer54″, and others, have called out Monckton using direct quotes that are factually wrong…… blather…..
    ========================================================
    That’s backwards, sis. It is the other way around.

    I’ll start where “potholer” started…… Monckton stated we’ve had cooling for 8-9 years. Hadfield attempted to refute him by referencing some vapid AP article…… myself and a few others have conclusively shown that the globe has, indeed cooled during the time frame Monckton referenced. And, it continues…….

    Later, in Mr. Hadfield’s own words, “Mr. Monckton showed his audience a slide covering just three years, referring to the 2007 low as a “temporary loss of sea ice” which had recovered by 2009. Then he told them: “So we’re not looking at a sort of long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic.””

    But, then Hadfield references 30 year old ice measurements to refute him……… I’m wondering, did time start in 1979? Or, is that a convenient point of reference from the alarmists? If you were to scroll up, I’ve offered a pdf from the CIA’s assessment in 1974. They stated the globe’s snow and ice cover has increased at least 10-15%. So, Hadfield is doing exactly what he’s accusing Monckton of. The fact is, both were technically correct in their statements. Both omitted/ignore scientific data prior to their point of reference. And it goes on and on from there……. what is often lost on alarmists, but not anyone one else with a reasoning synapse, is this is what Monckton is intentionally doing in many cases. Sure, Hadfield’s argument is correct, but if it is correct, he is duplicitous in his argument. And the alarmists fall for it every time. Ok, Monckton didn’t show all of the data available, but then, neither did Hadfield. He’s content to pretend arctic sea ice was in a static state prior to 1979 when no rational individual could possibly believe it.

    His entire rebut rests on similar arguments. The Cambrians being the most humorous. But, the Himalayan being fairly funny as well. The Greenland rebut was basically arguing the infallibility of a published author. If he stated his data meant this, then no one else could possibly interpret the data otherwise….. even though that is in essence how science is done. More likely Hadfield meant to say “skeptics” shouldn’t interpret data…….

    It is amazing to me how alarmists are so well versed in fallacious argument tactics but fail at legitimate argument tactics. I surmise it stems from the belief in others as opposed to reckoning their own self.

  452. George Hamilton says:

    Quite amusing how some people think that Monckton is correct. All it took me is 10 minutes to see Monckton make several claims on video which I later confirmed to be false via unrelated (unbiased to this case) sources. Monckton is allowed to make mistakes, however his unwillingness to acknowledge them in my mind set him to a degree of such irrelevance that anything he says further is of the lowest priority.

  453. Jack Greer says:

    James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Jack Greer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I’d suggest you start with the videos provided by Mr. Hadfield. After all, that’s what Mr. Monckton was originally responding to.
    ===================================================
    lol, well you would if you want to miss the context and concentrate on semantics. But, the better place to start would be examining Monckton’s statements, first. Then listen to Hadfield’s drivel. … etc.

    Semantics is exactly what folks like you rely on, James. Perhaps if you had started with Mr. Hadfield’s “drivel” in the videos that Monckton originally responded to, as I suggested, you may have an inkling of the full original context. You know, the context where Mr. Monckton said there was a global cooling trend for the past 8-9 year and that the trend was statistically significant. Among his points, Mr. Hadfield’s explained that Mr. Monckton was able to show a cooling trend by controlling the start and end points of a micro-trend. He added that the micro-trend was not statistically significant, as claimed, because of the characteristics/variability of the data – the data variability requires examination of longer timelines. Mr. Hadfield is exactly right on all counts. Mr. Monckton misleads his audience with a specious, statistically insignificant micro-trend.

  454. James Sexton says:

    Dr Chris Hancock says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    Congratulations WUWT for publishing both tracts in full. Those who wish to maintain their respect for Mr Monckton, and feel comfortable believing climate change isn’t a problem, should just read Monckton’s comments and leave it at that.
    Unfortunately if you ignore my advice and go on to read the points made by Mr Hadley then actually CHECK them for yourselves, you’ll see that in each case he is absolutely correct. This realization could leave you disillusioned and depressed.
    Maintain your skepticism of climate science, but please don’t extend it to Mr Monckton as well. He’s on our side. So when he claims to have developed treatments for AIDS and MS, or if he says action on climate change will kill 5 to 6 billion people etc, just let the words flow over you and enjoy his lovely speaking voice instead.
    ==============================================
    DEAR GOD DO YOU CHILDREN NOT READ WHAT IS PRINTED ABOVE YOU??!?!?!??!?

    As far as to the claim of killing people, let me be the first to let you know….. Doctor, people are already dying because of this fallacious bit of misanthropy.

    Given your use of the abbreviation of Dr., I’ll assume you are a medical doctor. And, I’ll ask you how hospitals run without reliable electricity? The U.N. and it’s various tentacles withhold money for coal generation plants to developing nations, but offer money for whirlygigs and pinwheels. They don’t help with energy exploration, but they do displace (and murder) large groups of people to pay the governments not to develop their lands and plant trees which will grow anyway. Anyone who believes this is the way to save lives is either incredibly vapid or simply a misanthropist. Either way, they shouldn’t be in the medical profession.

  455. James Sexton says:

    Jack Greer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Jack Greer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    I’d suggest you start with the videos provided by Mr. Hadfield. After all, that’s what Mr. Monckton was originally responding to.
    ===================================================
    lol, well you would if you want to miss the context and concentrate on semantics. But, the better place to start would be examining Monckton’s statements, first. Then listen to Hadfield’s drivel. … etc.

    Semantics is exactly what folks like you rely on, James. Perhaps if you had started with Mr. Hadfield’s “drivel” in the videos that Monckton originally responded to, as I suggested,……..
    ===============================================================
    Jack, you know as well as I know the proper place to start is with the original source, not the source of what someone said about someone saying something. This is where people lose context. Further, if you scroll up to one of my many other comments, I provided a link to a HadCrut3 graph that shows exactly what Monckton was stating was correct and within the time frame of what he stated. …….. well heck I’ll show it again…… http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2009.16/trend

    Now, don’t you feel just a little bit silly? You should.

  456. Doug Cotton says:

    Smokey says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Yes, Smokey, yours is similar to my “thought experiment” posted at 4:35pm today. But I don’t think we can expect any warmists to come to logical conclusions about thermal energy appearing to flow only from warmer to cooler bodies or gases. You see, the IPCC told them that photons (without mass or momentum) carry thermal energy along with them and spill it wherever they happen to crash into something with all the momentum they don’t have. Besides, it seems that only words, not science, flow from warm things.

    These warmists don’t understand that radiated energy is something totally different from thermal energy. Thermal energy gets shared around by molecular collisions, whereas radiated energy has to go through a process of being converted to thermal energy by cooler molecules which are able to do so.

    It’s like the sound of your voice which can be converted and broadcast as radio waves, but then may or may not be converted back to sound by something it strikes, like a radio receiver tuned to the right frequency. Ah, frequency! That’s what it’s all about. Does the radiation have a frequency above the cut-off?

    But the warmists thought the surface was blind to frequency and they have never heard of resonance and near resonance, or indeed anything much to do with physics.

  457. Alex says:

    I finally believe the end of the cagw idiocy is near judging from the reaction from the trolls. I have never seen anything like this. I bet a lot of smart climate scientist will start to gradually change the tune they sing if they haven’t done so already. I think I finally have seen the legendary tipping point,

  458. Jack Greer says:

    James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    … Now, don’t you feel just a little bit silly? You should.

    Geez, James. I can’t help it if you are completely lost. The videos are the original context. Mr. Hadfield acknowledged that Monckton showed a cooling trend. The problem is the micro-trend was statistically meaningless and misleading to the layperson for the several reason he outlines in the video. Go watch them, James.

  459. Doug Cotton says:

    Guys, why do we have to keep arguing on both sides about melting ice and temperature trends? You will always be able to find short-term trends which tell you one thing or the opposite – take your (cherry) pick.

    In the long run, and I mean just that, the only thing that is important is for the world to come to a firm, scientific conclusion about whether or not the obvious long-term slow rise in temperatures over the last 400 years or so has been caused by totally natural processes beyond the control of mankind.

    If that can be demonstrated then we need to look for correlations with possible natural causes, as indeed Dr Nicola Scafetta appears to have found and explained in an earlier article on WUWT.

    if the causes are all natural and do in fact follow natural cycles (probably related to the Sun and/or planetary orbits) then we have to accept that mankind has no control and should thus focus research on ways of coping with such natural climate change which, in the next 500 or 600 years could well lead to significant cooling.

    If the theory that there is a long-term (~1000 year) cyclic trend is correct, then projections of the observed long-term trend indicate a maximum within 200 years which should correspond to the trend being a little less than just one degree above the present in 2200. (See the green line on the plot at the foot of my Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com which shows a decreasing rate of increase.)

    Those who offer to do research on possible natural causes are now well-overdue for their share of the grants.

  460. Rational Db8 (formerly posted under Rational Debate, but this will be easier for future reference) says:

    re post by: Tom_R says: February 7, 2012 at 10:05 am

    The abstract from Johannessen:

    A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height…Averaged over the study area, the increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ∼60 cm over 11 years, or ∼54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift….

    That says the average ice change over all of Greenland, including both the interior and the margins, is +54 cm per 11 years (barely under two inches per year). So Lord Monckton is correct and Dr. Hadfield wrong on that point…

    An increase in Greenland ice seems as per your post and Johannessen’s research seems to fit the story of the Glacier Girl far better than claims of ice loss…

    In 1942 six P-38′s and two B-17 bombers were forced to ditch (crash land) on the southeastern edge of Greenland. The P-38 Lightning was one of the fastest planes in the sky during World War II. 50 years later, “The Lost Squadron” (book title of the story) of planes was found, with great difficulty, under 268 feet of ice – and drifted over a mile from the original landing/crash location. One of the planes was melted out using a “thermal meltdown generator,” then disassembling the plane at the bottom of the hole in a steam carved out cavern around the plane, and then lifting the parts to the surface. Recovery took 4 months.

    Then the plane, in pieces, was shipped to Kentucky where it was reconstructed, with the many damaged parts (as you can imagine!) being either repaired or replaced. The site I linked to states: “When this project was completed, Glacier Girl was one of the most perfect warbird restorations ever. “This is going to be the finest P-38 in the world, and it may be the finest restoration of any warbird ever done,” said Cardin [The Project Coordinator].”” Apparently he estimates that 80% of The Glacier Girl are from the original plane.

    Once completely restored, in 2002 the Glacier Girl was actually flown again.

    It’s a fabulous story in and of itself – and the amount of ice the planes wound up buried under in only 50 years seemed contradictory to claims of massive melting of Greenland ice.

  461. G. Karst says:

    major9985 says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:21 am

    …it is irrelevant that your garden is growing a bit better. . Lets all try to be adults here.

    It is all about gardens growing better. With 7 billion and increasing – it is the over-riding consideration. Unless you think a forced culling of the human race is preferable. You are thinking as a child does – no prioritization. GK

  462. William says:

    Lord Monckton. Paragraph 1. If it isn’t a quote, you can’t put it in speech marks. Did you get GCSE English? You have immediately established your level of commitment to accuracy of research and the truth. Need we go further?

  463. William says:

    [snip - probably written drunk - try again]

  464. Werner Brozek says:

    Tom Murphy says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism .

    I went to this site. Mr. Hadfield makes a lot of sense, but I just cannot agree with the following:

    “Of course, the evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing, largely because of man-made gases. And the consequences are likely to be dire.”

    Exactly how does this agree with the recent statement from:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

    “The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.”

    And since it does not seem to be temperatures that are changing, exactly how are we causing any climate change? The only conclusion I can come to is that somehow CO2 must be the culprit to cause devastation without the warming. I am well aware of the reasoning behind ocean level rise due to warming. But it is a total mystery to me why CO2 alone should have any huge effect on changing the climate. In the absence of warming, how did CO2 alone cause frosts in Florida in a recent winter; how does CO2 alone cause ocean levels to rise; how does CO2 alone cause hurricanes to be more severe? Etc.

  465. Richard Sharpe says:

    Alex says on February 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    I finally believe the end of the cagw idiocy is near judging from the reaction from the trolls. I have never seen anything like this. I bet a lot of smart climate scientist will start to gradually change the tune they sing if they haven’t done so already. I think I finally have seen the legendary tipping point,

    I do believe you are correct. So many more trolls out of late.

  466. James Sexton says:

    Jack Greer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 8:18 pm
    … Now, don’t you feel just a little bit silly? You should.

    Geez, James. I can’t help it if you are completely lost. The videos are the original context. Mr. Hadfield acknowledged that Monckton showed a cooling trend. The problem is the micro-trend was statistically meaningless and misleading to the layperson for the several reason he outlines in the video. Go watch them, James.
    ==============================================
    Geez Jack, you twit, I have watched them. Did you click on the damned link I provided? Do that and then come back to me and we can have a talk about what is and isn’t statistically meaningful, and the requisite criteria of such a label.

    Another thing we can talk about is video clips selectively chose to portray a particular aspect of the video, which may not be reflective of the entire presentation. I was under the assumption you may have been aware of such tactics, but, sadly it seems I was mistaken…… you see, Jack, a common practice, when wishing to cast a person in a particular light is to take part of their statements, or in this case videos, and then address only those parts, regardless of the context of the totality of the presentation. This is exactly what Hadfield has done. You are either ignorant of this common ploy, or intentionally being deceptive to the readers here.

    Go to the link I provide. Click on the raw data link if you don’t believe the graph run the numbers yourself and then come back and babble. If 0.1°C in less than 10 years isn’t significant, then neither is 0.6 over 100 years. But please, go to the link and address what I’ve shown and then come back. ….. this ought to be fun.

  467. Brian H says:

    Robert Austin says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    . The only reasonable explanation is that the airplanes were buried by accumulating snow.

    Indeed. Once “submerged” in ice, the planes would be “floating”, with only the net difference in displaced mass vs. plane weight operating. Since (AFAIK) the planes did not fill with ice, I suspect they were close to buoyant.

  468. James Sexton says:

    G. Karst says:
    February 7, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    major9985 says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:21 am

    …it is irrelevant that your garden is growing a bit better. . Lets all try to be adults here.

    It is all about gardens growing better. With 7 billion and increasing – it is the over-riding consideration. Unless you think a forced culling of the human race is preferable. ……….
    ===============================================================
    You know that is the intention. It is what is occurring today in Europe. http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16164350

    First you take their property and means of sustaining. Then make energy unaccessible for everyone….. then they die. Rinse and repeat as necessary. The culling has started already.

  469. Rational Db8 (easier for future reference than the formerly used Rational Debate) says:

    re post by: Will Nitschke says: February 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    It seems that rebuttals of this type are subject to context, interpretation and semantics…Monckton might find it helpful to qualify his statements to a greater degree in the future, however, and respond to and anticipate criticisms that might arise

    While I certainly agree that it helps to try to word things as accurately as possible, a common problem with either speeches, research papers, or print articles is that one is strictly limited regarding the time or space available. Often it simply isn’t possible to qualify statements to nearly the degree one might like – let alone to the degree that would manage to obviate criticisms.

    Potholer’s rebuttal seems insubstantial overall, and much of it seems to be either a petty semantics game or a failure to consider context and the conveyed meaning or intent – as do a number of the comments supporting Potholer. For example, Lord Monckton essentially says that contrary to numerous claims, overall Greenland isn’t losing ice, but gaining. He provides reference to a supporting research paper. Yet rather than debate the context ‘Greenland is losing vs. gaining,’ a number of comments here present a petty argument over the use of ‘entire’ vs. ‘vast majority’ or ‘very nearly all’ or “all but very small outlying areas” (or pick-your-very-short-phrase that manages to reasonably accurately convey the meaning of multiple sentences from the research paper). Sad, and a distraction rather than any sort of meaningful debate of the issues.

  470. twice says:

    [snip - site policy - valid email address required and screw@you.com isn't it, grow up, child]

  471. Brian H says:

    Cephas Borg says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    It’s such a pity that most of it is thoroughly debunked on the various Wikipedia entries

    Since Wikipedia has notoriously and blatantly been “cleansed” by W. Connolley of all data and entries which deflate, defeat, dispute, disparage or disprove the CAGW canon, it is true that the only articles you can find in Wikipedia are ones which parrot its claims and lame defensive screeds. Enjoy!

  472. Rational Db8 (easier for future reference than the formerly used Rational Debate) says:

    re posts by Doug Cotton

    Doug, first, thank you very much for your comments and explanations regarding blackbody radiation, scattering, etc. I do vaguely remember learning what you are saying years ago in college physics.

    I’ve just gotten to your February 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm post, with the small ball inside a large ball thought experiment, and had no problem with it – it’s correct as best I recall. I know from experience, however, that I can open blinds on windows receiving direct sunlight on a cold day outside, and the transfer of energy from sun to glass to interior of house can actually warm the house, which was already warmer than the temperatures outside, without using the furnace or any other heat source… So this seems to be a disconnect. Could you help me out here and explain how the two (metal spheres vs. house) actually fit the physics involved?

    Thanks in advance!

  473. Brian H says:

    Smokey says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    I used atoms specifically to avoid giving wiggle room, such as using the word “net”. In this thought experiment, the ‘net’ number of photons – each carrying energy – would far exceed the number being emitted from the central atom. Thus, the central atom would keep increasing in temperature, far beyond its 600K. So tell me whether the central atom heats up, or whether it remains at or below 600K.

    The problem is (see definitions of temperature) that no meaning attaches to a single atom having a temperature. Temperature is a product of collisions. Self-collision has not yet been observed.

    Follow the consequences of that observation, and you may “get” what is going on, in general terms. But there is a genuine conundrum here. What is concentrated low-frequency radiation like, in contrast to an equal energy-content amount of high-frequency radiation?

  474. Rational Db8 (easier for future reference than the formerly used Rational Debate) says:

    re post by: Alan Duval says: February 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    So much fawning over Monckton, much of it due to the title, it seems, and much out of hand dismissal of Mr Hadfield. So many “facts” posited, uncited, so much posturing, but no-one from the Monckton camp, it seems, prepared to watch Peter Hadfield’s rather entertaining videos that merely ask Monckton to clarify why his assertions are at odds with the papers he purports to cite and, on occasion, at odds with his own prior talks.

    Oh please. Talk about incorrect claims. I watched Potholer’s video back when this was first posted, feeling it only fair to evaluate his side too – and was, sorry to say it, disgusted with the waste of time, pettiness, semantics games, and lack of context and/or substance. There was nothing ‘entertaining’ about the video, and I watched the entire blasted thing. Others here have posted in the comments that they have also watched Potholer’s video(s). Yet here you are, claiming that we’re dismissing Potholer out of hand and no one has watched his video(s). What tripe.

  475. Jennifer says:

    Werner Brozek I would suggest you look up Potholer54′s Channel on youtube, along with Greenman3610, and DPRJones as they’ve all repeatedly debunked the erroneous claim that the planet isn’t warming when in fact and account to ever world authority that it is….

  476. James Sexton says:

    lol, mods, if your concerned about the problematic part of my post, feel free to take it out…… it’s late, and I’ve not much time left for this…….. well, … discourse.

  477. jessie rae says:

    Okay you do realize that the kind of people who would care about this, are also the kind to Actually fact check and read up on the claims being made against man-caused climate change right??

    If he’s going to “respond” to Potholder, he should have at least tried to pretend to do his homework. Gosh, thanx for wasting my time. I mean, honestly, this is pathetic

  478. James Sexton says:

    James Sexton says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm ……..

    Ok, I give up…. ????

  479. Doug Cotton says:

    Rational Db8 (easier for future reference than the formerly used Rational Debate) says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    re posts by Doug Cotton
    “energy from sun to glass to interior of house can actually warm … ”
    __________________________

    The frequencies of visible light and UV from the Sun are far greater than the frequencies of IR emitted within your house After all, the Sun is far hotter and of course warms the Earth’s surface every sunny day..

  480. Martin Lewitt says:

    Mr. Hadfield,

    If you persue the basis of Solanki’s statements about solar variability not being able to explain the warming “since 1970″ or over “the last three decades”, it is based on simple linear correlation analysis. Solar forcing did not increase over that period. Similarly the increase in CO2 forcing could not explain the mid-century cooling. But the latter does not mean that the CO2 emitted during the cooling that was still around was not able to contribute to the recent warming. Similarly, the increase in solar activity that occurred in the first part of the century was still at a high level during those decades of rapid warming. Solanki’s reliance on a linear analysis was inappropriate to a nonlinear dynamic system and must necessarily lack an appreciation for the climate commitment studies that were published AFTER his papers by Wigley, Meehl and others. Both the mid-century cooling and the steepness of the warming trend afterwards are mostly attributed to variation in aerosols by the climate models, the same uncertainty in aerosols which are known to explain how climate models with over a factor of 2.5 disagreement in climate sensitivity can “agree” with each other. Of course, multi-decadal climate modes and not just aerosols may be a factor in explaining the mid-century cooling and a delay in response to the CO2 forcing and the high plateau in solar forcing.

  481. James Sexton says:

    Jennifer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Werner Brozek I would suggest you look up Potholer54′s Channel on youtube, along with Greenman3610, and DPRJones as they’ve all repeatedly debunked the erroneous claim that the planet isn’t warming when in fact and account to ever world authority that it is….
    ==============================================================
    Yes, because they define this…… http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/trend ……. as warming, we should trust them and not our lying eyes. OR there’s this if you don’t like HadCrut….. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

    For rational people, a flat trend for 15 years is difficult to discern as warming…… I know it’s that present participle which is the problem…….thank you for proving my posit from earlier. There is always GISS to show the warming trend…… http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2002/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend …….. yes dear, its been getting so hot the last 10 years or so. But, by all means, trust what “ever” world authority says….. don’t believe your lying eyes.

    Just so people know, those are not my graphs. They are a graph of an environmentalist., the data used is verified as the data from the various world authorities. In fact, each graph has a link to the “raw data”. This will give you the data and the link from which the data came. People should go there.

  482. Rational Db8 (easier for future reference than the formerly used Rational Debate) says:
    While I certainly agree that it helps to try to word things as accurately as possible, a common problem with either speeches, research papers, or print articles is that one is strictly limited regarding the time or space available. Often it simply isn’t possible to qualify statements to nearly the degree one might like – let alone to the degree that would manage to obviate criticisms.
    ================================================
    That is not quite what I mean’t. For example, if Monckton of Brenchley wishes to discuss the role of the sun in the climate system he should make it clear that his position is a minority one among solar physicists – or prove otherwise. He should point out that solar physics as we currently understand it, cannot adequately explain the warming that occurred circa 1980-98. There are various ways he might deal with this in a credible way, such by discussing new theories and evidence, the primitive nature of the science in this area, and so on. If he doesn’t do this, then he leaves himself open to various obvious lines of attack.

    My impression is that most of the scientifically minded sceptics do have their reservations and often cast a jaundiced eye over many claims made by the Lord. On the other hand, his enemies do tend to underestimate him. To post comments here along the lines of “Everything Monckton wrote is factually wrong and I figured it out in 10 minutes” (no citations/links provided) doesn’t particularly make his critics look bright, most of whom have fallen over each in an effort to win the title of most vague and insulting.

  483. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    r post: Doug Cotton says: February 7, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    The frequencies of visible light and UV from the Sun are far greater than the frequencies of IR emitted within your house After all, the Sun is far hotter and of course warms the Earth’s surface every sunny day..

    Ok, so if I understand correctly, you’re saying the visible & UV from the sun is high enough frequency to transfer/convert to thermal energy on impact/excitation, but the CO2 emitted spectra is a far lower frequency that cannot reach the necessary threshold? That would make perfect sense to me if I’ve got the basic concepts correct (won’t be surprised if my terminology is a bit off tho)…. Again, thanks in advance for a reply!

  484. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re post by: Will Nitschke says: February 8, 2012 at 12:07 am

    That is not quite what I mean’t. For example, if Monckton of Brenchley wishes to discuss the role of the sun in the climate system he should make it clear that his position is a minority one among solar physicists – or prove otherwise. He should point out that solar physics as we currently understand it, cannot adequately explain the warming that occurred circa 1980-98. There are various ways he might deal with this in a credible way, such by discussing new theories and evidence, the primitive nature of the science in this area, and so on. If he doesn’t do this, then he leaves himself open to various obvious lines of attack.

    Will, in general I agree with you that a balanced or reasonably correct impression of the overall situation needs to be provided. Consider, however, that typically when Lord Monckton speaks, it’s clearly to present the skeptical side and evidence to the all too regularly and publicly trumpted CAGW claims. Also, I still have to say that time and/or length constraints all too often make even the sort of ‘solar’ example you provide above impossible. Consider that entire lectures, books, lengthy research papers etc. are written on that very subject – that single subject, trying to make clear just what the science does or doesn’t show regarding solar effects on climate. In a 45 min (or pick your time frame) speech that covers many many different issues, not just solar, one simply cannot cover the ground while adding in even the 3 or 4 sentences you did in your post including the associated proof and/or controversial research. Then the speaker must add those types of caveats not just for the one small solar aspect, but similarly for each topic touched on.

    What’s worse is that for virtually all of these topics there are quite a few contradictory research papers out there, conflicting views from the ‘experts,’ etc.

    As to your second paragraph:

    My impression is that most of the scientifically minded sceptics do have their reservations and often cast a jaundiced eye over many claims made by the Lord. On the other hand, his enemies do tend to underestimate him. To post comments here along the lines of “Everything Monckton wrote is factually wrong and I figured it out in 10 minutes” (no citations/links provided) doesn’t particularly make his critics look bright, most of whom have fallen over each in an effort to win the title of most vague and insulting.

    You’ve fallen into rampant speculation of issues for which we’ve no way to check or verify when you start getting into how many people of which disposition (regarding AGW) believe what.

    Gotta agree with you, however, that the anti-Monckton’s and CAGW folks sure do seem to be the most vitriolic and least substantial on average. /my impression {grin}

  485. Scottish Sceptic says:

    How they have fallen!!!

    Once they had the world at their beck and call as they argued whether it was 50m, 60m or 100m of catastrophic flooding. These days they are reduced to arguing whether the world is cooling or the temperature is stable on a blog with an audience of sceptics.

    But, I will leave the teasing there. A few good points. … but when an individual like Monckton has the courage to stand out against the overwhelming odds stacked in favour of tyranny almost on his own, with few resources to draw on … when one person stands out against a fabrication of institutional lies and damned right money grabbing spin … he has to make an awful lot of mistakes before what he says is less trustworthy than his opponents.

  486. Ward says:

    Reading this thread, I am not now surprised they gave Socrates the hemlock, or that he drank it willingly enough.

    -Cheers

  487. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @Rational Db8

    “…Potholer’s rebuttal seems insubstantial overall, and much of it seems to be either a petty semantics game or a failure to consider context and the conveyed meaning or intent – as do a number of the comments supporting Potholer. For example, Lord Monckton essentially says that contrary to numerous claims, overall Greenland isn’t losing ice, but gaining. He provides reference to a supporting research paper. Yet rather than debate the context ‘Greenland is losing vs. gaining,’ a number of comments here present a petty argument over the use of ‘entire’ vs. ‘vast majority’ or ‘very nearly all’ or “all but very small outlying areas” (or pick-your-very-short-phrase that manages to reasonably accurately convey the meaning of multiple sentences from the research paper). Sad, and a distraction rather than any sort of meaningful debate of the issues…”

    I second this, strongly. I have just spent (wasted) the best part of a morning reading this thread to determine whether there were indeed fundamental problems with some of Lord Monckton’s assertions, as implied. The rebuttals sounded firm, but at the end of the day they all came down to semantic arguments – and semantic arguments were then deployed in defence – resulting in a mediaeval ‘angels dancing on a pinhead’ discussion.

    This kind of argument is frequently found in the ‘intelligent design’ boards. An admission is gained that ALL aspects of evolutionary theory are not FULLY determined, and this is then taken to mean that evolution is proven wrong. Small slips and semantic assumptions which were not specified are raised to show that various sentences are incorrect. Both sides will make such slips, so both sides have a lot of material to work with, and the discussion can then continue ad-infinitum.

    I find this to be a great problem when discussing temperature anomaly rates. I maintain that a reasonable characterisation of the last 40 years is a steeply rising trend during the 1980/90s, followed by a flat trend thereafter. But if I state this to a warmist they will often respond by pointing out that the last 15 years are not precisely flat, so I am wrong….

  488. SteveE says:

    Brilliant response Peter!

    I look forward to Monckton having an online debate with you where we can all check his and your sources for ourselves.

    Regards
    Steve

  489. Gary Bennett says:

    Are comments being filtered/censored?

    [No . . kbmod]

  490. Gary Bennett says:

    Seems they are.. at least that time I got a tenuous “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”.. What of my comment that I just tried to post that resulted in nothing? :

    WOW
    You people are disturbingly obsequious. Just the same as Monkton, himself, making baseless assertions and relying solely on ad hominems.
    First, “potholer54″(Peter Hadfield) doesn’t make videos to serve any personal agenda. Otherwise, like Monkton, he’d use his real name and face and monetize his efforts. Instead, he lets facts speak for themselves, citing ALL of his material. He doesn’t promote his own opinions but sticks to sharing well-researched, peer-reviewed facts. Same as with his rebuttal here, backing up EVERYTHING he says.
    Second, how can you all so sheepishly follow someone that contradicts himself so blatantly? Within this very “response” he goes from saying of course CO2 correlates with temperature to alluding that such assumptions are fraudulent. Then, you have Peter Hadfields videos SHOWING you Monkton making statements that he refutes making in his responses.

    Last–Several of you have had the audacity to say that Peter Hadfield only makes personal attacks… Uh.. I think the 2 posts above are evidence enough of who relies on such tactics.
    How can you people so deferentially defend such garbage(pertaining specifically to refutations themselves and not the subject of refutation) when you haven’t even informed yourselves of the material being debated(I.E. Peter Hadfield’s youtube videos)? How about you actually WATCH the videos, and you will see the blatant dishonesty being dished out by Monkton. Peter Hadfield doesn’t attack Monkton, but instead attacks the false information he poses.

    It’s scary to think some of you possess the occupational/societal positions you purport. I’m of a mind to categorize the lot of you with the same kind of people that think Nibiru(planet x, whatever that garbage is) is on its way back to our solar system. People that blithely gobble up what they’re fed. Especially with Monkton’s absurd conspiracy theory of an agenda to deprive people of his youtube video.. LOL.

    [Reply: Your comment is awaiting moderation because it's 3 am here. Have some patience. ~ dbs, mod.]

  491. Gary Bennett says:

    Wow, why am I not surprised that comments are being filtered. My longer post(good thing I copied it in case this happened) didn’t go through at all and my innocuous inquiry “are comments being filtered/censored” is tenuously posted with “Your comment is awaiting moderation”

    [Reply: It is the middle of the night here. Have some patience. ~ dbs, mod.]

  492. Person says:

    Its amazing really how someone can get up on stage and misrepresent scientific papers, misquote individuals and even make things up, and then when that’s pointed out just wave it off as petty and inconsequential smears.

  493. J. Fischer says:

    Doug Cotton: don’t be so repulsively dishonest as to claim that all I said was “nope”. Here is what I said again, in its entirety:

    “A blackbody does in fact “detect” the frequency of incoming radiation and it does in fact scatter any such radiation for which the peak frequency is significantly lower than its own peak frequency of emission” – nope. The definition of a black body is that it absorbs all radiation that falls on it. Which bit of “all” is it that you have a problem with?

    Now that I see how shoddy your attitude towards discussion is, that’s the last thing I’m going to say to you.

    Smokey, your thought experiment about an atom at a temperature of 600K is invalid; individual atoms do not have temperatures, it’s a macroscopic property.

  494. SteveE says:

    And Thank you Anthony for posting this. Can I ask if you have had any thoughts on how the response from Monckton will be presented? An addition to this post for a new article that’ll allow the proper online debate?

    Regards
    Steve

  495. J. Fischer says:

    “we do look forward to your debunking Al Gore in a video (I’ve yet to see one dedicated to him let alone the five you dedicate to Monckton in references above, feel free to drop a link here), since you claim not to be biased in any way.”

    How about getting over this childish attempt to deflect attention from the actual discussion? Or is it just too upsetting for you to see Monckton’s claims actually scrutinised?

  496. Eyal says:

    > “Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” I did.

    first, he never said that, he said that your supporters say that you have been her “science advisor”, that is, an official title, not that you’ve met her once in a party, and commented on her shoes. have you been THAT? (Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor)

  497. [snip. "The use of the pejorative "denialists" violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  498. Jamie R says:

    The evidence for Christopher Moncktons lack of evidence is becoming more evident.

    As usual, Peter, well said and well sourced.

  499. witsendnj says:

    All you need to know is in this Monkton interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w833cAs9EN0

  500. John Brookes says:

    Potholer54 is basically right, and Monckton is pretty much wrong. Dodgy Geezer says, ” I maintain that a reasonable characterisation of the last 40 years is a steeply rising trend during the 1980/90s, followed by a flat trend thereafter.”

    I’ve not much of a problem with that, but Monckton does – he says that the last 10 years are cooling, not flat. So Dodgy Geezer, good to see that you don’t support Monckton.

  501. Antony says:

    Well done Potholer54! Mr Monkton was well and truly PWND!

    As to anyone who fails to see that Mr Monkton is serially disingenuous obviously hasn’t actually compared what he said with the actual ‘sources’ he cites (regardless of your views on AGW).

    Ah well – “None so blind as those that will not see.” – Matthew Henry

  502. Smokey says:

    J. Fischer says:

    “Smokey, your thought experiment about an atom at a temperature of 600K is invalid; individual atoms do not have temperatures, it’s a macroscopic property.”

    . . .

    Your reply dodges the issue. Explain why the central atom does not heat up… if you can.

  503. Jim Cornelius says:

    Smokey says:
    February 8, 2012 at 5:24 am

    J. Fischer says:

    “Smokey, your thought experiment about an atom at a temperature of 600K is invalid; individual atoms do not have temperatures, it’s a macroscopic property.”

    Your reply dodges the issue. Explain why the central atom does not heat up… if you can.

    Rolls … eyes. Smokey are you a Poe?

  504. Martin Lewitt says:

    I think I need to state more plainly that Mr. Hadfield’s responses based upon the Solanki publications are based upon a lack of understanding of the weaknesses of that part of Solanki’s work in the context of more recent literature. It is not enough to proof text from any paper no matter how old or pertinent. There must be understanding of the limitations of the work and the current state of the science. The part of Solanki’s work that is relevant to Lord Monckton’s point is in regards to solar proxy data indicated that recent solar activity levels were unusually high. The part relating to Mr Hadfield’s usage was an outdated linear analysis uninformed by the climate commitment studies. Monckton’s point stands unless the activity level part of Solanki’s work has been revised or superceded.

  505. Smokey says:

    Jim Cornelius,

    Please explain what a “Poe” is. All I want to know is: can a cooler object warm a warmer object via radiation. Roll your eyes at any frequency you like, but try to answer the question. K? thanx.

  506. ted says:

    [snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  507. Jim Cornelius says:

    Smokey

    Poe – from “Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism”. [Wikipedia].

    A Poe is someone who presents themselves as supporting some extremist position (often but not exclusively a fundamentalist Christian position) but is actually a satirist. An accusation of someone being a Poe might be made if the accused makes a comment containing such inane stupidity that the chances of them actually being that stupid pale into insignificance compared to the chances that they are actually satirising the position they are defending.

    You have already been informed that temperature is a function of atoms on a macroscopic level.

  508. melty says:

    Funny how most of the commenters do not seem to have actually read the main article but still want to get their attention fix in the comments section. Oh wait, no it’s not. AFAICS, Peter is by far the more reasonable of the two — but hey make up your own mind (after reading the rebuttals).

  509. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re posts by: Jim Cornelius says: February 8, 2012 at 6:00 am

    You have already been informed that temperature is a function of atoms on a macroscopic level.

    Oh for pete’s sake. So make it 2, or 4 atoms at 600K in the center of a billion cooler atoms. I can’t believe anyone is so dense as to not see what issue Smokey was getting at, and has to argue because he didn’t add a few more atoms at the center. Cut the obfuscation and answer Smokey’s question – or concede the point.

  510. Matt says:

    If climate change is bogus, can someone explain to me why I live in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada and there is not so much as a flake of snow on the ground and we had a green christmas. February 8, 2012 +3C and sunny. Should be -15C. If you do not believe in climate change, fine, go green for clean air. Its all a money grab, I’d rather the money go to wind power rather than coal.

  511. John says:

    @Smokey

    Heat will flow from a colder object to a warmer one via radiation but the flow in the opposite direction will be greater.

  512. Tom Murphy says:

    Regarding Mr. Hadfield’s debunking of Lord Monckton’s assertion on the Himalayan glaciers melt date, we witness the fallacy of quoting out of context.

    Lord Monckton claimed that Dr. Murari Lal, who was the co-lead author of the UN IPCC FAR’s Asia discussion (Chapter 10), included the erroneous 2035 date of Himalayan glacial disappearance – even though it was based solely on a speculative statement – solely to inflate the problem and ultimately influence the future decisions of policy makers. As a reminder to the readers, that statement was referenced by the IPCC within an article published in 1999 by “New Scientist” – http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news .

    Lord Monckton rightly questions why a co-lead author would permit such a reference as supporting “evidence,” if only to influence (i.e., bias) policy makers along an alarmist perspective. Indeed, this outright “exaggeration” of the facts is what Mr. Hadfield asserts should not be defended when encountered, “[The success of changing a climate change skeptic’s mind] means accepting the fact that Al Gore [or Dr. Lal] is not always right, and he should not be defended when he’s wrong,” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism .

    Interestingly, though, Mr. Hadfield displays an inherent bias by dismissing Lord Monckton’s legitimate point rather than accepting its correctness by not defending Dr. Lal’s wrongness, even if indirectly.

    But just for clarifications sake, what did Lord Monckton’s reference that Mr. Hadfield believes is wrong?

    Mr. Hadfield asserts in his response that the Dr. Lal’s influencing was never acknowledged by the same, “This is not even borne out by Monckton’s own source, cited in his response, which is a quote from Lal in the Daily Mail about the 2035 date: ‘We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.’ Nowhere does Lal say he knew the figure was erroneous.” And yet the UK (Daily) Mail Online (January 24, 2010) does state that, “Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research,” – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html .

    Mr. Hadfield (a bit too conveniently) forgot to include that sentence in his response. Placed in its proper context, Dr. Lal seemingly did place erroneous (i.e., not right but wrong) evidence in a report with an apparent attempt to influence (or deceive) policy makers to align their future decisions along the alarmist perspective.

    Now, the far more interesting question here is why Mr. Hadfield, a person who asserts repeatedly his climate change candor, would promote Dr. Lal’s guesswork over Lord Monckton’s observation?

    “Science is science because the knowledge we aquire (sic) comes from experimentation and observation, not guesswork, belief and hearsay,” – Peter Hadfield.

  513. Jack Greer says:

    James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Geez Jack, you twit, I have watched them. Did you click on the damned link I provided? Do that and then come back to me and we can have a talk about what is and isn’t statistically meaningful, and the requisite criteria of such a label.

    Uh, James, your graph is what Mr. Monckton presented and claimed was a statistically significant trend. I acknowledged that already and I also stated Mr. Hadfield had acknowledged that. You claim to have watched Mr. Hadfield’s videos he explains the most blatantly obvious points of statistical significance … it’s a calculated value/characteristic … yet you seem completely stumped on the issue. We can only surmise that a statistical wizard you are not. Let me illustrate the point by me picking the starting of data (another of Mr. Hadfields key points) found within the same range that you used.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/to:2009.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2008/to:2009.16/trend

    Wow! Warming at a rate of about .2C per year. Now tell me that’s not significant.

    Another thing we can talk about is video clips selectively chose to portray a particular aspect of the video, which may not be reflective of the entire presentation. I was under the assumption you may have been aware of such tactics, but, sadly it seems I was mistaken…… you see, Jack, a common practice, when wishing to cast a person in a particular light is to take part of their statements, or in this case videos, and then address only those parts, regardless of the context of the totality of the presentation. This is exactly what Hadfield has done. You are either ignorant of this common ploy, or intentionally being deceptive to the readers here.

    It’s clear you feel sorry for the poor, beleaguered Mr. Monckton, thus your eyes-closed, fingers-in-ears posture. The real “context of the totality” is that Mr. Monckton travel’s the globe giving presentations with the specific objective to discredit the potential magnitude and impact of global warming and man’s role in creating it. This would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that Mr. Monckton’s skilled presentations are frequently riddled with mis/dis-information designed to support his key arguments and to leave his audiences with inaccurate impressions that are in accord with his objectives. The only real question is how much of the deception is driven by malice vs. ignorance. I tend to believe Mr. Monckton is a pretty bright guy.

    ….. this ought to be fun.

    Yes, that was fun.

  514. G. Karst says:

    Gary Bennett says:
    February 8, 2012 at 2:58 am

    [Reply: It is the middle of the night here. Have some patience. ~ dbs, mod.]

    GB – if you cannot comprehend time zones, what value does your comments have?! Please come back when you understand that the planet rotates. Then we will be able to discuss weather and maybe a little about climate. GK

  515. J. Fischer says:

    Smokey: my reply does not dodge the issue. Your question does not make sense and cannot be answered. Temperature is not at atomic property.

  516. Steve Richards says:

    John says:
    February 8, 2012 at 6:44 am
    @Smokey

    Heat will flow from a colder object to a warmer one via radiation but the flow in the opposite direction will be greater.

    Studying the fantastic paper from CLAES JOHNSON, called “Computational Black body Radiation” gives the clear answer. The papers name may misguide some readers, it also contains a very vivid description of the process that is backed up by maths.

    CLAES JOHNSON is a professor of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

    In a nutshell, all bodies radiate heat if their temperature is above absolute zero.

    If we talk about black body ‘like’ examples, the amount of radiation they emit and the frequencies of emission follow laws named after the proposers/discoverers of said laws, Plank and Boltzman.

    Black bodies absorb all radiation, but only emit a specified profile of radiation determined solely by the bodies temperature.

    Johnson, discusses how, if a body can absorb all radiation but only radiate a lesser amount due to the carefully determined profile dependent upon the bodies temperature.

    So, two bodies in proximity and different temperatures, the hotter body radiates at a greater intensity and over a higher and wider spectrum.

    The cooler body receives the amount of radiation from the hotter body, the amount received due to the black body effect is related to its (lower) temperature, the excess radiation it receives causes it to warm up, As the cooler body warms up, its black body temperature profile increases, allowing it to emit more ‘black body’ constrained radiation.

    Eventually, (for practical purposes) the cooler body reaches the same temperature as the warmer body, the both now radiate the same amount of radiation, both receive the same amount of radiation.

    Hot bodies radiate to cool bodies and warm them,

    Cool bodies radiate to hot bodies but have no effect.

  517. Gary Bennett says:

    Aside from him saying in a Russia Today interview that our entire atmosphere only accounts for 18-20 C of our temperature[@1:12 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto%5D, he also claims in one speech that it was the US govt(or some nefarious organization therein) that tried to have HIV infected people isolated[@15:20 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=related%5D when he clearly states in another speech that it was HIM that campaigned to have HIV infected individuals isolated(even faking a cry on how he failed to accomplish this task and how many have died because he failed) [@2:16 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=related%5D.
    Me listing those obvious lies is the exact same thing that Peter Hadfield(aka “potholer54″) has done. How can you guys listen to another thing Monckton says after such obvious lies and foolishness?

  518. winston says:

    This should be called ‘Monckton Doesn’t Really Reply…’ because he fails to address the majority of critiques raised in Potholer54′s brilliant videos. How anyone can take Monckton seriously at this point is surely a reflection of their not having really looked. The man has been thoroughly debunked and shown among other things to misquote and misrepresent scientific papers; (even after being corrected by the author herself.. on Pinker’s paper for example, he continued to mis-characterize her work). Has exaggerated his own experience/credentials (“When I write a peer-reviewed paper I make sure that…” blah blah BS. As if this is something ever did, much less the regular event his comment suggests. It is especially pathetic (tho’ perhaps not surprising given that no charlatan likes to be exposed) that Monckton resorts to ad hominem in his ‘reply.’ Clearly, he cannot be taken seriously.
    Hadfield deserves thanks and praise for a job well done! Given the small space he has to reply above (so watch the videos) he cannot begin to address all the points raised. The videos are entertaining and informative but do more than just debunk this mediocre character; they teach us to question authority. To use our critical abilities. To remember that just because someone sounds informed and/or confident (beware the rapid-fire parroting of lots of ‘facts, figures and conclusions.’ does not necessarily mean they know what they’re even talking about.

  519. Gary Bennett says:

    G. Karst says:
    February 8, 2012 at 7:13 am

    GB – if you cannot comprehend time zones, what value does your comments have?! Please come back when you understand that the planet rotates. Then we will be able to discuss weather and maybe a little about climate. GK

    That is all you say because that is all you can say. Much like Monckton. Relying solely on ad hominems because you are incapable of addressing the points raised.
    However, to address your trivial concerns: Wasn’t aware there was a time schedule for which posts could be made. I tried posting(of which you see a copy of in my other post) and NOTHING happened. So, I didn’t know if it went through at all. So, I made a short comment to see if that would go through (“Are comments being filtered/censored”). It did, with the attached notice that it was awaiting moderation. Thus, I assumed my longer post had been filtered for some odd reason of which I was unaware since I’d received no notification.

    Cheers

  520. James Sexton says:

    Jack Greer says:
    February 8, 2012 at 6:55 am

    James Sexton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
    ==================================================
    lmao…. that’s it? You came back with a graph of a year to illustrate, what exactly? Oh, I see, time. 1 year is to 9 as 9 is to 30. Is that what you’re attempting to state? You can, it’s wrong, but you knew that already.

    But, this goes toward the totality of the presentation. You see, no one is refuting whether or not the globe has warmed. It generally has since coming out of the LIA. Causation is something else entirely. Tell me Jack, how quickly do GHGs start to absorb IR and re-emit the energy when in the atmosphere? Does they pause for 9-10 years before they start?

  521. Barnabas Mackay says:

    “so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.”

    Anyone else find this disturbing? Munkton has obviously [SNIP: This is speculation and adds nothing. By the way, the proper spelling is "M-O-N-C-K-T-O-N". -REP]

  522. John says:

    Steve Richards

    No part of the proceeding text supports your final conclusion that “Cool bodies radiate to hot bodies but have no effect”.
    As an aside could I suggest that thermal radiation is a well documented theory and there are many better explanations than the one you have chosen which may be worth looking at to give a less confusing overview of the subject. Comments such as “the excess radiation it receives causes it to warm up” suggest this isn’t the best source to use, there are many others.

    Anyway with regards to “Cool bodies radiate to hot bodies but have no effect”. If not then were does the radiation go? Everything above absolute zero emits radiation in all directions and it will radiate towards the hot body as well. If it doesn’t interact does it then pass straight through? We can clearly see this is wrong. Otherwise you’d be able to detect the radition from a colder object through a warmer medium. If you point a infrared camera at the wall of your house I doubt very much you’ll see the radiation from the trees outside.

  523. Jack Greer says:

    James Sexton says:
    February 8, 2012 at 8:08 am

    lmao…. that’s it? You came back with a graph of a year to illustrate, what exactly? Oh, I see, time. 1 year is to 9 as 9 is to 30. Is that what you’re attempting to state? You can, it’s wrong, but you knew that already. …lol. Do you not recognize when you’re the target of sport? We’re done, James. I’m more interested in observing how Mr. Monckton attempts to defend the indefensible, and exactly how tightly Mr. Monckton’s acolytes can affix their blinders before the blood actually stops.

  524. Steve Richards says:

    John says:
    February 8, 2012 at 8:38 am

    I am sorry my explanation left doubts, my mistake.

    Black body (BB) theory states that a BB, in thermal equilibrium emits as much radiation as it receives. If it receives more than it emits, its temperature will rise, output will rise until equilibrium is restored.

    It can only emit specified amounts of radiation determined solely by its temperature (SB equation).

    It can receive what ever you give it (obviously a massive radiation source will warm up any body BB or otherwise). If you give it more than it can emit, its temperature will rise.

    So it is easy for the BB to receive rather than give.

    The key:

    Two situations;

    1) Thermal equilibrium: two BB same temperature, both radiate and receive the same amount of radiation, towards each other, from each other, situation remains unchanging.

    2) One BB hotter that other BB: both radiate towards each other, both ‘receive’ each others radiation.

    2a) The warmer BB emits radiation at a higher temperature/frequency than the cooler BB. The cooler BB, being able to receive any and all radiation, takes in this higher level of radiation, any excess radiation above the SB limit causes the cooler body to warm.

    2a) The cooler body emits radiation, at a lower temperature/frequency, has no effect on the warmer BB, because any BB will absorb all radiation if at or below its current frequency/temperature. Any radiation received over and above its BB temperature/frequency will cause the BB to warm.

  525. G. Karst says:

    Gary Bennett says:
    February 8, 2012 at 8:01 am

    …Thus, I assumed my longer post had been filtered for some odd reason of which I was unaware since I’d received no notification.

    Take that as a valuable lesson as to: how erroneous starting assumptions lead to erroneous conclusions. Now apply what you have learned to “climate science” and consensus. Welcome to the skeptical side of the argument. GK

  526. Phil. says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 7, 2012 at 7:19 pm
    Phil. says:
    February 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    This is nonsense, a Blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it! Johnson’s paper is not science, and is not a fact of physics.
    _______________________________________________________

    This was in reply to your erroneous statement regarding a Blackbody which indicates that you don’t know what one is!
    “A blackbody does in fact “detect” the frequency of incoming radiation and it does in fact scatter any such radiation for which the peak frequency is significantly lower than its own peak frequency of emission – without converting the energy in that radiation to thermal energy. That is a fact of physics. You cannot show me any experiment which proves otherwise, including any contrary result to that which I quoted for gases”.

    A blackbody does not behave like you describe it does not scatter any light incident upon it!

    The Earth’s surface is not a blackbody and does not act like either a black or grey body because …

    (1) It does not re-emit the SW radiation it receives from the Sun.

    There is no requirement for a blackbody to do so, it will absorb all the light incident upon it and radiate at the frequencies appropriate to its temperature.

    (2) It does transfer thermal energy by means other than radiation.

    Again there is no requirement that a blackbody should not do so, just that it should have an emissivity of 1.0, it is still able to lose heat by conduction or convection.

    As with all bodies, including gases, It does not convert to thermal energy any radiated energy which comes from a cooler source, because that would amount to transferring thermal energy from a cooler body to a warmer body, which is contrary to physics and with which even your friend J Fischer would appear to agree. Prof. Johnson’s work is entirely in keeping with these statements.

    Not true, the blackbody is unaware of the temperature of the source of the light incident upon it and absorbs it all thereby converting it to thermal energy and emits radiation appropriate to the temperature it reaches. This is not contrary to any physics! The fact that Johnson’s work is in keeping with your incorrect statements is ‘prima facie’ evidence that he is also wrong.

    Please read all my previous posts this afternoon before responding, as I am not wishing to retype what is already explained in greater detail above.

    I’ve read them, as explained above they’re wrong.

  527. Phil. says:

    Steve Richards says:
    February 8, 2012 at 11:04 am
    John says:
    February 8, 2012 at 8:38 am

    I am sorry my explanation left doubts, my mistake.

    Black body (BB) theory states that a BB, in thermal equilibrium emits as much radiation as it receives. If it receives more than it emits, its temperature will rise, output will rise until equilibrium is restored.

    True for an isolated BB, not for one in thermal contact with another body though.

    It can only emit specified amounts of radiation determined solely by its temperature (SB equation).

    It can receive what ever you give it (obviously a massive radiation source will warm up any body BB or otherwise). If you give it more than it can emit, its temperature will rise.

  528. Phil. says:

    Steve Richards says:
    February 8, 2012 at 11:04 am
    Two situations;

    1) Thermal equilibrium: two BB same temperature, both radiate and receive the same amount of radiation, towards each other, from each other, situation remains unchanging.

    I assume that you are considering two identical blackbodies?

    2) One BB hotter that other BB: both radiate towards each other, both ‘receive’ each others radiation.

    Both absorb each other’s radiation.

    2a) The warmer BB emits radiation at a higher temperature/frequency than the cooler BB. The cooler BB, being able to receive any and all radiation, takes in this higher level of radiation, any excess radiation above the SB limit causes the cooler body to warm.

    Radiation has no temperature, if the total radiation absorbed is greater than that being emitted then the cooler body will warm.

    2a) The cooler body emits radiation, at a lower temperature/frequency, has no effect on the warmer BB, because any BB will absorb all radiation if at or below its current frequency/temperature. Any radiation received over and above its BB temperature/frequency will cause the BB to warm.

    The warmer body will absorb all the radiation incident upon it, if the total radiation absorbed is less than that being emitted then the warmer body will cool.

  529. wrongright says:

    If you want to know what happens when two confessed non-experts (and their fans) go to battle over a scientific topic then kindly read the abysmal collection of comments on this page.

    At least Peter Hadfield, in his infant knowledge of climate science, knows when a source is required, knows how to properly cite a source, knows how to properly read said source, responds in a respectful manner without ad homs, and is concerned with elucidating truth rather than fatuous propaganda and personal opinion. The same is clearly not true of Monckton. In fact, I’m puzzled as to how he acquired so many blind and lazy fanboys with such a glaring lack of attention to detail.

  530. NotTheAussiePhilM says:

    I first came across Pothole54 on youtube a couple of years ago, when I stumbled across this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=1&ob=video-mustangbase#p/u/52/irVqVKdiohE

    - the surprising title caught my attention!

    Anyway, although I’m a fan of Potholer54, and like way he tries to debunk bunkum when he finds it, I do think he’s missing some bunkum debunking opportunities when it comes to AGW issues like the Hockey stick, and general level of hyped up BS that surrounds AGW….

    On the subject of this thread, I’d say he wins his points about 75% of time!
    25% Monckton wins…

  531. Werner Brozek says:

    James Sexton says:
    February 8, 2012 at 12:05 am

    Jennifer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Thank you James, but was it a typo when you said: “There is always GISS to show the warming trend”? Even GISS is negative over the last 10 years:
    #Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012
    #Selected data from 2002
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000177096 per year

    Now I agree the magnitude is extremely small and NOT significant, but it certainly does not show warming.

    I want to add a word about significance. Suppose the temperature reaches its peak at 3:00 P.M and you record the temperatures from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. If you were to plot a graph and draw the best straight line through all data, it would have a positive slope. But that does NOT mean the temperature could not be dropping after 3:00 P.M. Now if we assume the temperatures DO in fact drop after 3:00 P.M. what is wrong with stating that fact? Whether it is significant by a given dictionary definition or not is not relevant. So if Monckton claims the temperatures dropped over the last 8 years, and if the slope is indeed negative for this period, what is wrong with just saying so? You may disagree with how significant it is, but that does not mean it is not cooling over that period.

    Up the thread, someone asked about the 2010 year being the warmest. It was the case for GISS, but not the other three main data sets. Lubos Motl has the highest 30 or so years for the four main data sets at: http://motls.blogspot.com/
    Just go to his site and type in ‘RSS’ under ‘search’ if that is what you are interested in for example. Here are the warmest 6 for each data set:
    RSS: 1 {1998, 0.55},
    2 {2010, 0.476},
    3 {2005, 0.334},
    4 {2003, 0.324},
    5 {2002, 0.316},
    6 {2007, 0.261},

    UAH: 1 {1998, 0.428},
    2 {2010, 0.414},
    3 {2005, 0.253},
    4 {2002, 0.223},
    5 {2009, 0.188},
    6 {2003, 0.187},

    GISS: 1 {2010, 0.63083333},
    2 {2005, 0.61916667},
    3 {2007, 0.58416667},
    4 {1998, 0.58},
    5 {2009, 0.5675},
    6 {2002, 0.56333333},

    Hadcrut3: 1 {1998, 0.548},
    2 {2005, 0.482},
    3 {2010, 0.478},
    4 {2003, 0.475},
    5 {2002, 0.465},
    6 {2004, 0.447},

    Note that three of the sets have 1998 as the hottest year.

    If you want to know what happened over the last 10 years, taking an average of these four would show the following negative slope:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980/plot/wti/from:2002/trend

    #WoodForTrees Temperature Index
    #Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, offset to UAH/RSS baseline (-0.0975K)
    #See http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes for details
    #—————————————————-
    #
    #File: wti.txt
    #
    #Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012
    #Selected data from 2002
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00342538 per year

  532. jasonpettitt says:

    “Tell me Jack, how quickly do GHGs start to absorb IR and re-emit the energy when in the atmosphere? Does they pause for 9-10 years before they start?”
    ~James Sexton February 8, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Who says that CO2 warming has paused?

    Thought Game \o/
    If you removed 9 years of CO2 from the atmosphere, do you think it might result in cooler Mean Surface Temps?

  533. Gary Bennett says:

    G. Karst says:
    February 8, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Take that as a valuable lesson as to: how erroneous starting assumptions lead to erroneous conclusions. Now apply what you have learned to “climate science” and consensus. Welcome to the skeptical side of the argument. GK

    Again.. because you can’t address what is actually relevant.

  534. Werner Brozek says:

    Brian H says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm
    What is concentrated low-frequency radiation like, in contrast to an equal energy-content amount of high-frequency radiation?

    Let me illustrate this with the following example. Suppose we had 500 three year old kids who could each lift a pound two feet up. Then we have a huge weightlifter who can lift 500 pounds two feet up all by himself. The energy is the same, but one is ‘high-frequency’ and the other ‘low-frequency’. And as far as atoms are concerned, at least as far as the photoelectric effect is concerned, the single high-frequency photon can do things that the 500 low-frequency photons cannot do.

  535. Martin Lewitt says:

    A warm black body near a cooler black body will lose heat slower than if next to an even colder black body. The 4th power exponential makes this effect difficult to detect in most real world situations. Hmmm, I wonder if inductive heating is an example of a cooler object heating a warmer with only radiation?

  536. jackson10 says:

    I don’t know who this Potholer is, but I bothered watching his videos and he has a point. Not only did he point out several lies, or at least misinterpretations on Monckton’s part, which wouldn’t be too bad since everybody can be wrong about anything, but Monckton obviously tried to talk himself out of it without any arguments whatsoever. Calling someone a caveman a couple dozen times isn’t the right way.
    I realize that this website is full of Monckton fans, but the way you’re handling this isn’t in agreement with the scienitfic method. Whether you like the person who’s right or wrong doesn’t matter. Potholer backed his claims up with evidence and it’s clear that he knows what he’s talking about. Just because you don’t like him or because you think Monckton is infallible doesn’t matter. He was and is wrong. Period. Plus, why should anybody call him “lord”? If I may quote “The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.” Not only is he lying about his title, but if he feels like being the center of attention by making up a title, maybe he’s knowinlgy lying about other things as well.
    Keep badmouthing Potholer all you want, but when it comes to this argument, he’s right and Monckton is wrong. A bigger fanbase and insults don’t count as any form of argument.

    [Please correct your email address to a valid entry, or get your replies erased. Robt]

  537. Anthony Watts says:

    A note to Jack Greer, since he was wailing and whining (as were others) about Peter Hadfield not being able to get “proper exposure” due to me putting his rebuttal next to Monckton’s on the same thread so people could read both sides in one place.

    Here’s a screencap from my stats page today:
    Stats

    After just one day, the updated Monckton-Hadfield post is the third most viewed in all WUWT posts in the past week with nearly 12,000 views and climbing. Not bad for (as Jack Greer put it) a “stale thread”.

    Therefore, it is with certainty that I kindly suggest to Mr. Greer that he take his concerns about my editorial decision in this matter and insert them into the bodily orifice of his choice.

    Cheers!
    Anthony

  538. Martin Lewitt says:

    jasonpettitt,

    CO2 warming has paused in the past, consider the mid-century cooling, or was CO2 not rising during that time?

    “If you removed 9 years of CO2 from the atmosphere, do you think it might result in cooler Mean Surface Temps?”

    The climate would be cooler barring a mode shift, but the temperatures might not be cooler if natural variation was greater and resulting in warmer temperatures at the time. Without significant net positive feedback, the direct effects of the GHG forcing only result in about 1 degree C per doubling, which is less than natural variation. The climate could be warmer 100 years from now but the global temperature actually cooler for a few decades. Without significant net positive feedback, the warming may reach statistical significance, but not real human significance. That is why the science is focused on model based and model independent assessment of net feedback. Currently, the models are not ready to attribute and project a phenomena this small. Even the 0.1W/m^2 accuracy that Hansen admits is needed to assess the energy imbalance, may not be enough. Current models need to improve by at least a couple orders of magnitude.

  539. Allen says:

    Anthony, this is one epic thread and I commend the job you and your mods have done in keeping it reasonably clean. The trolls have attempted to hijack the thread but others come along to beat them down. It appears that sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant (props to Brandeis for that metaphor).

  540. jasonpettitt says:

    “CO2 warming has paused in the past, consider the mid-century cooling, or was CO2 not rising during that time?”
    ~Martin Lewitt

    It did?

    Did radiative physics temporarily stop do you suppose?

    My point, of course, is that Mean Surface Temps are not an isolated plot of the enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions. They’re the amassed total of every anthropogenic and natural factor contributing to warming and every factor contributing to cooling. To claim to isolate the cause by doing no more than looking at ~9 years of surface temp data seems… well, lets just say I’m wearing my best quizzical face.

  541. Some European says:

    Anthony, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this spectacularly interesting post. There’s a lot of tension and hatred in the air, distraction also. It’s not easy to stay calm. I don’t agree with you on just about everything in life, but there are a few details that have caught my attention, such as your removal of the sentence where you said Mr. Hadfield had not had the courtesy to thank you, which really scored some points.
    Through all the smoke and shouting, there is still room for some respect and decency.

  542. Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:

    re posts such as: Barnabas Mackay says: February 8, 2012 at 8:31 am and others along these lines…

    Lord Monckton said: “so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.”

    Anyone else find this disturbing? Munkton has obviously [SNIP: This is speculation and adds nothing. By the way, the proper spelling is "M-O-N-C-K-T-O-N". -REP]

    Would the punctuation police please lay off, and especially stop the mendacious hysterics of “he lied!” in this regard? Lord Monckton made it clear up front that he was doing this little common and well known thing called paraphrasing. Had he simple put the paraphrase in asterisks ‘…’ rather than double asterisks “…” there’d be zero for any of you to complain about, even if he’d never bothered to say: “so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.” As he made it crystal clear up front he was paraphrasing, which avoids even the accidental misunderstanding by some of the difference between ‘…’ vs. “…” – attacks on this line are trivial and frankly absurd. Trying to claim he’s somehow lying or trying to deceive is, well, beyond words. I didn’t even dignify such claims with a response the first few instances, but here it is yet again in Barnabas’s comment.

    That some quote Lord Monckton’s very clear caveat and the punctuation error in the same post and STILL try to make an issue of it….. good gawd. Just more evidence of hunting for the tiniest thing to make a Mount Everest out of a tiny anthill and attempt to distract from any discussion of substance.

  543. Jack Greer says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    February 8, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    After just one day, the updated Monckton-Hadfield post is the third most viewed in all WUWT posts in the past week with nearly 12,000 views and climbing. Not bad for (as Jack Greer put it) a “stale thread”.

    Therefore, it is with certainty that I kindly suggest to Mr. Greer that he take his concerns about my editorial decision in this matter and insert them into the bodily orifice of his choice.

    Cheers!
    Anthony

    Give it up, Anthony. What do think the stats w/b if you had given the now changed interactive focus of this discussion it’s own thread, as it deserved? We haven’t even gotten to the stage where Mr. Monckton and Mr Hadfield directly interact presenting their point-by-point positions under direct interactive scrutiny. Again the focus of that interaction is different than that of the original and typical propaganda variety you grant … just as this thread started along with about 335 comments driven by that original bent. There is no excuse. No need to risk injury trying to pat your own back. Let’s see what you do next time Bob Tisdale wants to start three separate threads on the very same subject within a week …

    REPLY: LOL! The fact that you are irritated and now go off on a different even more pointless tack pleases me immensely. Even Hadfield is satisfied with the results – Anthony

  544. Smokey says:

    Jack Greer says:

    “Wow! Warming at a rate of about .2C per year. Now tell me that’s not significant.”

    What is significant is the fact that all of the cited warming happened within two months. Greer is a typical alarmist, trying to make a natural fluctuation into impending doom. Greer is either stupid or dishonest. And I don’t think he’s stupid. But of course, he is free to disagree.

    This is a long term view of the natural warming from the LIA. Here is another view. And this graph, with a normal y-axis, shows why the alarmist crowd is sounding a false alarm.

    The planet has been in a natural warming trend since the 1600′s. There is no indication that CO2 has any effect. It might, but any such effect is so small that it is not measurable. Thus, the CO2=CAGW conjecture, upon which the entire debate is centered, is based on belief, not on empirical measurements.

    The alarmist crowd resorts to minor nitpicking like pothole’s for one reason: they do not have the science to support their belief system. And we can see that once a belief takes hold, it is almost impossible to make the scales fall from their eyes. They are immune to reason. Climate alarmism simply fills the hole that religion satisfies in others. Climate alarmism is pseudo-science, akin to astrology or Scientology, and its born-again true believers spout nonsense like: “Wow! Warming at a rate of about .2C per year. Now tell me that’s not significant.”

  545. James Sexton says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    February 8, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    James Sexton says:
    February 8, 2012 at 12:05 am

    Jennifer says:
    February 7, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Thank you James, but was it a typo when you said: “There is always GISS to show the warming trend”?
    ===============================================
    Werner, sorry for the confusion, but I was adding a bit of sarcasm. If you had clicked on the link I provided, you’d see that it does show the same slope as you stated. Sometimes, I forget that not everyone has my discussion/debate style. I entirely agree with the information you’ve provided.

  546. Jack Greer says:

    REPLY: LOL! The fact that you are irritated and now go off on a different even more pointless tack pleases me immensely. Even Hadfield is satisfied with the results – Anthony

    What are you talking about? I would suggest you review my earlier comments as I’ve been entirely consistent re: my “track”.

    Start here, Anthony, and work your way down ==> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/#comment-872507

    I’m not sure about what “pleases you immensely” but others have commented, including, I believe, in this thread, about the childish, petty nature of many of your replies … just add your latest to the heap.

    Your most recent cherping aside, setting up the direct interaction between Mr. Monckton and Mr. Hadfield is a huge plus. I greatly appreciate this possibility – it definitely adds value toward more accurate information and understanding. If you had put your pettiness aside from the beginning and given this phase of discussion it’s own thread, it would have been a bigger win for you.

  547. James Sexton says:

    jasonpettitt says:
    February 8, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    “CO2 warming has paused in the past, consider the mid-century cooling, or was CO2 not rising during that time?”
    ~Martin Lewitt

    It did?

    Did radiative physics temporarily stop do you suppose?

    My point, of course, is that Mean Surface Temps are not an isolated plot of the enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 emissions. They’re the amassed total of every anthropogenic and natural factor contributing to warming and every factor contributing to cooling. To claim to isolate the cause by doing no more than looking at ~9 years of surface temp data seems… well, lets just say I’m wearing my best quizzical face.
    ========================================================
    You should wear your best quizzical face. Obviously, CO2 doesn’t have the impact on our temps as we were told. BTW, to answer your question, no, if we removed the last nine years of CO2, I would not expect the earth to cool. I don’t think is has that significant of an impact. ~9 years? lol, try 15 years for the most recent example. And, this answers the question. The earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 15 years with ever increasing CO2, so why would removing it cool it?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

    But, that’s not the worst of it….. In our past, we’ve had continual increase of CO2, but for 70 years, no increase in temps. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/30-years-is-needed-to-confirm-the-null-hypothesis/ No, I’m not doubting the properties of CO2, I’m just saying the significance of it is entirely overstated. One might wish to consider all of the IR bands which pass right through CO2.

  548. Jack Greer says:

    Smokey says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Jack Greer says:

    [snip. You were given a 48 hour time out. ~dbs, mod.]

  549. Harry Lebowski says:

    “And this graph, with a normal y-axis, shows why the alarmist crowd is sounding a false alarm.”

    Hahahaha! Fahrenheit, between 30 and 80? That’s normal?? I’ll say it again: Hahahaha! And you completely miss Jack Greer’s very simple point, which is that the trend he quoted is not statistically significant. Nor is the trend that Monckton quoted. But, surprise surprise surprise! You don’t like the not-real warming trend, but you luuurve that non-real cooling trend! Sorry, dude, but you can’t have it both ways.

  550. Damian says:

    Is Mr. Monckton going to enter into an online debate on this channel with Mr. Hadfield about the specific points rasied by Hadfield or not? It would be a simple process for all those watching to accurately check the relevant material to see which party had been dishonest and misrepresented their sources. I for one would like to see the person deceiving his audiences exposed.

  551. James Sexton says:

    jackson10 says:
    February 8, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    I don’t know who this Potholer is, but I bothered watching his videos and he has a point………..
    ==============================================
    Oh dear, yes, everyone here is this naive. You don’t know who he is, but you watched his videos. Even though Hadfield is referenced a couple of hundred times here. But, you read the comments…… but don’t know who he is….. but if you read the comments, then you’d see Hadfield was more than adequately responded to. Then you blather crap about peerage which you obviously know nothing about.

    Can I ask you a serious question? Why do people, so plainly dishonest and so plainly ignorant of the issues feel compelled to engage and display their dishonesty and ignorance? I see it often, I just don’t understand it…….

  552. jasonpettitt says:

    “Obviously”
    ~James Sexton

    No.

    “I’m not doubting the properties of CO2, I’m just saying the significance of it is entirely overstated”
    ~James Sexton

    What you’re forgetting to do is any of the legwork needed to establish your claim that its significance is entirely overstated. And I shall carry on wearing my quizzical face until you do.

    p.s. – Re your 70 years claim: you may find the following helpful
    http://www.art.ccsu.edu/Gallery/2008-2009/Sustainable/Graph%20wikimedia.orgwikipediacommons990CO2-Temp.jpg

  553. James Sexton says:

    Damian says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Is Mr. Monckton going to enter into an online debate on this channel with Mr. Hadfield about the specific points rasied by Hadfield or not? It would be a simple process for all those watching to accurately check the relevant material to see which party had been dishonest and misrepresented their sources. I for one would like to see the person deceiving his audiences exposed.
    =========================================================
    Check the dates….. this is what is so funny for me. Monckton gives a presentation. Hadfield puts together a laborious 5 part series of video. Monckton, in due time responded here on Jan 11. Hadfield takes nearly a month to say…… well, not much…. he was wrong about the temps, he was wrong about the Himalayas, (a new paper is out in Nature today which verifies exactly what Monckton stated.) oops. Someone owes an apology…… He pointed out Monckton’s inferred “could” wasn’t explicitly stated. Hadfield shows he knows how to use quote marks appropriately, but doesn’t understand the concept of paraphrasing….. Hadfield used the exact same fallacy he’s accusing Monckton of with the ice cap…… what is there to respond to? It took Hadfield a month to respond with drivel. Why bother?

  554. James Sexton says:

    jasonpettitt says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “Obviously”
    ~James Sexton
    ==========================================
    Yeh, and if I just had the belief in the veracity of that graph I might come away with a different perspective. But, that graph denies the reality of many things, history not being the least. Did you click on my second link I provided?

    “What you’re forgetting to do is any of the legwork needed to establish your claim that its significance is entirely overstated.”
    Jason, I’ve done the led work and have demonstrated it. If people wish to invent works of fiction to rationalize the times the earth doesn’t respond in the manner they wish, well, I can’t help that. But, hey, here’s a couple of graphs which show responses and temps and CO2….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/what-does-this-mean/
    That time concept is a bitch, isn’t it? So, tell me again, what is the amount of time we can expect temps to respond to atmospheric CO2? 9 years? 15 years? 70 years? No? None of them? Well if it isn’t 70 years then what happened in the 90s? Something that happened in 1910? Oh, wait! You showed me a graph of 1000 years! 1,000,000 seems like it should generally correlate as well. I do love conversing with sophists.

  555. James Sexton says:

    Jack Greer says:
    February 8, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I was making sport of James Sexton re: cherry picking start points and too short timescales … the crimes Mr. Monckton is guilty of.
    =======================================================
    Hey, that’s good timing! I’m glad you’re back, Jack! Yes, timescales too short……. I asked about when we think that dastardly CO2 will kick in….. and I was kinda wondering how long it takes for it not to kick in before we concede that doesn’t really affect our temps. I’ve a series of graphs for you to check out at your leisure, of course, and maybe between you and Jason you can ‘splain this tricky stuff to me……. ’cause you guys are all sciency and that….. It’s weird, because I was under the impression CO2 immediately starts to absorb and then re-emit energy once it became excited……
    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/30-years-is-needed-to-confirm-the-null-hypothesis/

  556. Damian says:

    I believe both men where in various processes of travel and not able to respond due to work committments, nevertheles avoiding an online deba
    te that can easily be critiqued by viewers does draw suspision on one party. Why so reluctant to have your lectures and speeches publicly checked for accuracy? Mr. Monckton should debate Hadfield right here as challenged on all the points Hadfield raised in his video’s

  557. Gino says:

    and in today’s news we have:

    ” The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

    and here’s the money quote
    “The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the “third pole” – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.”

    So it would seem climate scientists can now confirm that glaciers melt from the bottom and fill from the top.

  558. Robert Austin says:

    Matt says:
    February 8, 2012 at 6:36 am

    “If climate change is bogus, can someone explain to me why I live in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada and there is not so much as a flake of snow on the ground and we had a green christmas. February 8, 2012 +3C and sunny. Should be -15C. If you do not believe in climate change, fine, go green for clean air. Its all a money grab, I’d rather the money go to wind power rather than coal.”

    Matt:
    I live down the road in London, Ontario. Our delightful (unless you are a snowmobiler or crosscountry skier) winter is easily explained. It’s called weather. Me being on the far side of 60 years old, I have experienced other mild and pleasant winters in Southern Ontario along with some brutal ones. I can even recall drinking coffee and eating pie on my deck with no coat on in January of 1980. We happen to be benefiting from the rather stagnant northerly excursion of the jet stream (Rossby wave) in Eastern North America bringing warm tropical air northward into our area. Just as we benefit from this northerly excursion, so other parts of the northern hemisphere are suffering from brutal cold due to the extreme southerly excursion of the jet stream. Witness the present cold snap in Europe with ice forming on the canals in Venice and many cold related deaths. And why do you think it should be -15C in Kitchener when the normals for today are -2C high and -9C low?

  559. Smokey says:

    Harry Lebowski says:

    “Hahahaha! Fahrenheit, between 30 and 80? That’s normal??”

    You can’t be that clueless… can you?

    Look at the chart again, and at least try to understand. [Hint: it's the blue line that matters, not the range. And it would look about the same in °C. See?]

  560. Karl says:

    How is this Potholer a ‘Warmist’ by challenging Monckton? All I can see is someone who has checked references, discovered they were taken out of context or non-existent, and offered a rebuttal. Sounds like science to me, any other scientists or skeptics in here? Or (by the looks of the posts), do we have a comfy western lifestyle to defend at all cost?

  561. James Sexton says:

    Karl says:
    February 8, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    (idiotic blathing)… Or (by the looks of the posts), do we have a comfy western lifestyle to defend at all cost?
    ===============================
    Karl, I don’t know where you’re at…… I don’t really care… but, if you’ve bothered to look around at this “life style”, you’d know there are people suffering all around you. You’ve got to be the most complete idiot who has ever bothered to come to this site. Oh, yeh, really comfy western lifestyle…. compared to what? The third-world countries which the U.N only funds whirly gigs instead of real power plants? Or the second-world countries whose citizens are literally freezing to death RIGHT NOW!!! Because of the vapid desire to deliver expensive and unreliable energy and fuel!!!!

    [snip]

  562. Brendan H says:

    Rational Db8: “Often it simply isn’t possible to qualify statements to nearly the degree one might like – let alone to the degree that would manage to obviate criticisms.”

    That’s a reasonable point, but one should always strive to accurately present the views of one’s opponents. Importantly, one should also strive to be true to one’s own words.

    Case in point: the Houghton quote. According to Peter Hadfield, “Monckton claims Houghton wrote this in the Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

    Monckton responds: “Sir John, too, tried to maintain that I had misquoted him, and even menaced me with a libel suit, until I told him I had a copy of the cutting from the London Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995, in which he had said, “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster”…”

    The alert reader will have noted that the two sentences are quite different in both words and meaning, and that Monckton does not defend his own words, but refers to the [correct] words of the newspaper. Monckton’s reluctance to stand by his own words does not engender confidence in his veracity.

    It may be that His Lordship has a busy schedule and in his haste overlooked Hadfield’s words. Nevertheless, words do matter, because they not only reveal one’s attitude to the truth, but also the character of the speaker.

  563. Sannebree says:

    I’ve watched Hadfield’s videos and read Monckton’s rebuttals. All I can conclude as a complete outsider in this debate is Monckton has a whole of explaining and apologizing to do. Hadfield clearly shows Monckton misrepresents research data and changes his claims several times when confronted.

    Did the believers even watch Hadfield’s videos?

  564. Johannes Wiberg says:

    Why is everyone in this forum so rude? It seems to go both ways too, “alarmists” and “apologists” alike. Why is a civil debate such a difficult thing? I planned to add some examples, but that would be pointless since more than half of the comments above are uncivil, some extremely so.
    Peter Hadfield is uncivil too, but at least in a more polemic and less “stick it up the *ss you moron” fashion. But Christopher Monckton refers to Hadfield as a “caveman”.
    Shouldn’t correct facts backed up by peer reviewed scientific literature be able to speak for themselves? Why behave like school children?

  565. GSW says:

    I think he is making he is making a joke Johannes.

    caveman = potholer, i.e. a man who spends his time in caves. Not so much abuse as having a little fun at Hadfields ridiculous nom de guerre. I’m all for keeping it good humoured, potholer54 takes himself far to seriously as it is.

    ;)

  566. jasonpettitt says:

    “Jason, I’ve done the [leg] work and have demonstrated it. If people wish to invent works of fiction to rationalize the times the earth doesn’t respond in the manner they wish, well, I can’t help that. But, hey, here’s a couple of graphs which show responses and temps and CO2….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/what-does-this-mean/
    ~James Sexton

    No you haven’t. Not once.

    None of you graphs show temperature sensitivity to CO2. None of those graphs isolate GHG forcing, let alone the CO2 part. None of your graphs (or your interpretations of them) account for the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temps. And none of your graphs account for any of the myriad of factors that influence climate.

    You’ve not done ANY of the analysis needed to assess the influence of CO2. Other people (smart people) have.

    That you refer to physics as fiction tells me that you’re probably firmly attached to predetermined conclusions and that you’re closed to reason. Perhaps Anthony has more patience than me and could put some posts together on what science and careful estimates really say about historical and contemporary influence of CO2 on climate.

  567. Johannes Wiberg says:

    GSW: “I think he is making [...] a joke Johannes.”
    Yeah I saw the joke, but it was still ad hominem and unnecessary. Hadfield does it himself sometimes, and I enjoy it when it is done in a relaxed context, but not in a more serious discussion. And to me, this is serious stuff.

    GSW: “I’m all for keeping it good humoured, potholer54 takes himself far to seriously as it is.”
    I strongly disagree. If he is correct in his statements, that Mockton has made so many errors, then this is indeed a serious issue. Whether global warming is truth or false, this is serious. And ad hominem attacks greatly detracts from the issue at hand. Don’t call someone troll unless you have proven so (and it’s nearly impossible to prove intent). Don’t call someone an idiot however idiotic the reasoning is. Just behave yourselves with civility and respect.

  568. I’m not at all surprised to find that my post was filtered by the moderator, given this site’s obvious bias against science. While the reason given was that I used “the pejorative term Climate Change Denialist”, I don’t actually believe that use of pejorative terms was the reason. I believe that the actual reason was that I used pejorative terms for the “wrong side” of the “debate”. This is evidenced by the limitless use of pejorative terms by those posters who support the site’s bias, including Monckton’s own use of “caveman” to describe the excessively polite Hadfield. I expect you to deny this post as well, no matter how carefully I attempt to word it to be polite. I again state the key point of my last post, for the moderator only since I believe you will filter this as well: You have made your bias clear by your works. True skeptics like Hadfield will continue to check your information very carefully and will continue to expect you to produce biased half-truths. The following is an example of what I’m talking about, in this case the cherry-picking of data sets to produce the desired results from legitimate data sets:

    Again and again in this thread, posters have used graphs like this one:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/trend
    to show a recent cooling trend. The intent appears to be to cast doubt on the long term trend by carefully choosing the portion of the data that produces the results one wants, ignoring the fact that as the climate is a very complex system with many natural cycles and other such sources of variability, short term data sets are useless for spotting the long term trends. An example of this can be seen with a simple thought experiment: take a 1 year daily data set of temperature data for a single point in the northern hemisphere. Now choose a subset of the data set, lets say from August through December. Clearly we have a cooling trend! If we wait another six months, obviously it will be colder still! Or we could take all of our data set and fit the trend line: The line is now flat! We con now expect next year to be much like last year. Now lets apply some of the same principles to the graph above so beloved by the posters here, the one showing the recent cooling trend using only 7 years of data. First, one showing 15 years, from 1996 to 2011:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/trend
    Lookie! Now the same data set shows clear warming over the same period! This is likely more accurate, but still doesn’t include anywhere near all the data available. How about the same data set over 30 years?
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2011/trend
    60 years?
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1951/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1951/to:2011/trend
    100 years?
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1911/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1911/to:2011/trend
    The point should be obvious: If one wants an accurate picture of long term AGW trends, he should use as much data as he has, not cherry-pick a portion of the data set with an unreasonably short period, shorter than some of the natural cycles that impact the data set. This is simply a single example of the dishonest manipulation of the data sets perpetrated again and again on the pages of this website, both in the articles themselves and the supporting comments you allow to be published, while you reliably censor anyone in opposition who calls your side anything but “skeptics” and allow your supporters to use pejorative terms unrestricted.

    Publish my whole comment and respond without being pejorative yourself. I dare you.

  569. Phil Joseph Juliansen says:

    I’ve always been on the side of Monckton. But calling someone a “caveman” is not what I expect from someone who claims to be a member of the House of Lords (incorrectly, as it appears).

  570. FaceFirst says:

    A dispassionate reading of the rebuttal and a watching of the initial videos confirms that Hadfield’s criticisms are robust and that Monckton’s representations are shaky at best.

    In light of this evidence, I take it that the skeptical readers of WUWT will now check the claims of all guest posters from now on, so as not to be misled in the future. What we cannot allow is for this site to be regarded as a platform for misinformation, and Anthony in particular has a lot of credibility to gain from ousting authors who misrepresent facts.

  571. Daniel says:

    “the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.”

    What?! :D
    You even don’t understand, or care, about stablished rules of qouting others, now wonder you don’t know what peer review means.
    Next time when you don’t have the exact qoute, or as you don’t want to spend your invaluable time on finding the exact qoute, just paraphrase it and don’t put it in qoutation marks. It’s that simple.

  572. TGB says:

    Reading through a lot of the comments here provides a sterling showcase of “bro science” at its best. Armchair experts, who have most likely never conducted or published any actual research in their lives (at least pertaining to the relevant field of study), spouting worthless conjecture about how they believe matters such as solar physics, oceanography etc. should work – all under the premise that the people with actual qualifications who do it for a living have somehow gotten it wrong or are lying. Just unbelievable.

    In a lot of the comments no actual science is even discussed at all; just sycophantic Monckton fans lashing out with personal attacks, or parroting the same tired mantra about the IPCC being a corrupt syndicate of bureaucrats and evil socialists seeking to consolidate a world Marxist government. It is worth noting that the Pulitzer Prize-winning publication Politifact evaluated this claim in 2009 and deemed it “not only unsupported but preposterous”, for which Monckton was bestowed their prestigious ‘Pants on Fire’ award.

    The infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is also routinely stigmatized and referred to pejoratively, despite the fact that it has been investigated, corroborated and deemed methodologically sound by the National Academy of Sciences. Why is this rarely mentioned by anyone?

    The whole issue of appealing to authority is an interesting double standard that seems to arise often in Monckton’s repertoire. He will, one one hand, insist that science is not done by consensus and that the IPCC et al. can’t be trusted, yet in the same breath assert that everything he says can be backed up by the very peer review process which he so readily derides and dismisses. He will invoke the opinions of obscure researchers with questionable credibility, and in some cases reputable scientists (Prof R. Pinker) who have gone so far as to outwardly contradict and disown his specious interpretation of their work.

    His overall message appears to be “The experts agree with me…unless they don’t…in which case they’re wrong”.

    Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

    Bottom line: Monckton’s response was essentially nothing but a string of weak ad-hominems which didn’t even come close to debasing of any of the points made by Hadfield, and I’m not surprised. His intellectual dishonesty has been well exposed and is pretty much untenable at this point. The most beautiful part about it is that Hadfield doesn’t even really need to cast any aspersions of his own, but simply contrast the most damning contradictions made by Monckton in his own words by presenting them side by side, verbatim. Should anyone argue that anything has been taken out of context, sources are thoroughly provided so that they can be examined in their entirety.

  573. Steve Jenkins says:

    Potholer has addressed [snip . . if you wish to refer to someone by all means do so but try for accuracy not childish nonsense . . kbmod] sloppy science in such a thorough and meticulous manner. Anyone paying close attention to the full argument can see that [snip . . ibid] is a fraud.

  574. Jackiofiblades says:

    Snappy work as always Potholer54.
    I object strenuously to Monckton’s attitude when accused of intellectual dishonesty and misrepresenting the research of more highly acclaimed scientists than himself. His recourse to snide jabs and his lack of any sort of cohesive referencing with regard to quotations and papers has about it the air of the demagogue rather than that of the researcher. Misrepresentation of another researcher’s intellectual premise and research is the height of poor scientific method.

    Keep the game clean :)

  575. James Sexton says:

    jasonpettitt says:
    February 9, 2012 at 1:23 am

    “That you refer to physics as fiction tells me……”
    ============================================
    I never once did refer to physics as fiction. And, I’d appreciate it of you withdraw your baseless lie. I find it incredibly ironic that you would project that towards me, when the very last graphic you offered for me to look at, http://www.art.ccsu.edu/Gallery/2008-2009/Sustainable/Graph%20wikimedia.orgwikipediacommons990CO2-Temp.jpg ………. IS IN A DAMNED ART GALLERY!!!! And you think that has anything to do with physics? You are aware, are you not, that the science most of those graphics are derived from isn’t the application of physics, but rather, biology, or more specifically, dendrochronology. You don’t even know what science you’re babbling about and you send me works of art to buttress your arguments.

    Some more irony,…… one of the leading advocates of this psuedo-science, Mike Mann, has just been part of a recently published study which at least acknowledges one of my criticisms of this inanity. …. to wit….. they can’t really detect the low end of the temp signal from trees. If you can’t detect the low end, then you can’t possibly come up with an average. Again, while there are physical processes involved, this isn’t an application of what is commonly known as the school of physics. Further, we also need to understand, the other chronologies suffer from similar weaknesses as well.

    Continuing…. it isn’t my intention to demonstrate why CO2 and temps don’t relate to each other, it suffices that I only show that they don’t. And, I have. I have shown it on decadal timescales as well as a 1/2 century and longer timescale. I’ve offered other evidence which shows CO2 and temps don’t follow one another. If you don’t like it, arguing against the accuracy of the temp record. Or argue against atmospheric CO2 beliefs.

    Jason, if you want to argue the maths, that’s fine, I’m more than happy to do so. If you want to argue the sciences, you should at the very least understand what school of thought you’re arguing, and you really need to understand that neither physics, nor biology put much stock in WORKS OF ART..

  576. lljames says:

    Didn’t anyone read both articles in their entirety? Its mind blowing that most of these comments are based on hype rather than the peer review. People, I implore you to read the peer review and learn how to analyze it. Stop reading just ARTICLES. They don’t count. ONLY the peer reviewed data can help one understand the measurements, not what someone says on stage or on a video. LOOK at the peer review. LOOK at the source peer review scientific papers NOT articles, speeches, etc. PLEASE GET A BRAIN!!!

  577. Lenny Hipp says:

    *sigh*
    Why am i not surprised “Lord” Monc has to resort to childish name calling? It’s so childish you’d think Peter must have started it by calling him “googlie-eyed monckton” or something… and then a dozen of LM’s cronies jumping in on the tongue lashing without first checking the facts. it’s embarrassing.

    REPLY: Actually, its a play on his nom de plume, potholer… most people miss that as you have. -A

  578. mofife says:

    Let’s see… Mockton provided no sources in his article to contrast his arguments against the data (zero points). Potholer provided all sources in his article to contrast his arguments against the data (100 points). Where are the sources, Mockton? I can’t read a driveling article of personal attacks against someone and expect it to be an elevated topic. That’s why I don’t read People magazine. I prefer National Geographic and Smithsonian. Maybe you can be published in People mag? As an intellectually honest person, I can only believe an argument if it is backed up by the original studies and articles, because I will never take someone’s word for it. As a citizen of the free world, I will not sacrifice my freedom to choose based on taking someone’s word for it. I need sources so that I can check the accuracy for myself, because I refuse to believe either side unless they provide sources that I can check. Thank you.

  579. Smokey says:

    lljames says:

    “ONLY the peer reviewed data can help one understand the measurements…”

    Ridiculous. You can learn more here, and you will read both sides of the debate, not just the sanitized views coming out of the journal industry. Modern peer review is a big money construct. If Albert Einstein had to deal with today’s journals he would have a difficult time getting published, because he was well outside the “consensus”.

    Apparently you are not aware that the climate peer review system has been utterly corrupted. It is actually “pal review”, as has been demonstrated time after time in the Climategate emails. A small clique of self-serving reprobates led by Michael Mann connived to force mass resignations from journal boards, dishonestly conspired to artificially increase the number of peer reviewed publications, got scientists fired for simply expressing scientific views that Mann disagreed with, and covertly arranged to have friendly “anonymous” reviewers promptly approve their papers, while skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist] were forced to wait for years in some cases to get published [if they got published at all], while Mann and his pals typically gets his submissions published within a few months – or less.

    It is absolutely untrue that “ONLY peer reviewed can help one understand…”. That is simply an appeal to a corrupt authority. Mann is guilty of every accusation made against Lord Monckton here, doubled and squared. And you will learn more honest science here than you will find in the pal reviewed literature. You will learn that Mann’s infamous MBH99 “Hockey Stick” graph has been completely debunked by multiple scientists and scientific organizations, so that the IPCC can no longer publish it [and the IPCC loved that scary chart]. You will learn that Mann knowingly used a corrupted proxy [Tiljander] because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted – even though he was informed before he published that the proxy was no good and should not be used. Mann has done this repeatedly. And his climate charlatan pals use outlandish “treemometer” proxies like thousand year old trees to preposterously claim to know millennium old temperatures within a tiny fraction of a degree. You will learn that the claim common to the climate charlatan crowd is that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming. And you will also learn that the only real Authority, planet earth, is solidly debunking that belief.

    For plenty more on the reprehensible Michael Mann and his cronies, I recomment A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, available on the right sidebar. It is thoroughly referenced, unimpeachable, and you will never again view climate peer review as being anything other than a self-serving vehicle to promote the interests of Mann’s clique. For a taste of Montford’s writing, see here.

  580. James Sexton says:

    Daniel says:
    February 9, 2012 at 3:51 am

    What?! :D
    You even don’t understand, or care, about stablished rules of qouting others, now wonder you don’t know what peer review means.
    =============================================================
    Yes, because punctuation and appeals to authority are so important to climatology. Oddly, spelling isn’t.

  581. David Hitchen says:

    [snip]
    “And of course there are scientists who say CO2 is “largely responsible” for the warming: that is the principal conclusion of the IPCC’s 2007 report, reached on the basis of a fraudulent statistical abuse: comparison of the slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines on the global-temperature dataset falsely to suggest that “global warming” is accelerating and that it is our fault. Not that one has ever heard the caveman utter a word of condemnation of the IPCC’s too-often fictional “science””

    Why don’t you write a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal detailing this alleged “fraudulent statistical abuse”?

  582. Smokey says:

    David Hitchen says:

    “Why don’t you write a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal detailing this alleged “fraudulent statistical abuse”?”

    Why doesn’t pothole write one? Answer: Because no journal would publish it.

  583. Phil Joseph Juliansen says:

    “You will learn that Mann’s infamous MBH99 “Hockey Stick” graph has been completely debunked by multiple scientists and scientific organizations, so that the IPCC can no longer publish it [and the IPCC loved that scary chart].”

    Is this a joke? What you’re saying is the exact opposite of reality… The hockey stick has been confirmed over and over again… where were you?

  584. Smokey says:

    Phil Joseph Juliansen says:

    “What you’re saying is the exact opposite of reality…”

    We’ll see who is grounded in reality. As I made clear, the chart I referred to was the MBH99 chart. Specifically, this chart.

    If you can produce the current IPCC Assessment Report showing that chart, I will concede. Don’t try bait and switch by showing some silly spaghetti chart, or other imitation of Mann’s debunked hokey stick chart. Show the original, which the IPCC used over and over – until McIntyre & McKitrick proved it was complete junk science.

    And if you can’t show Mann’s original chart in a current IPCC AR publication, then answer a question for me: what color is the sky in your reality?☺

  585. James Sexton says:

    Phil Joseph Juliansen says:
    February 9, 2012 at 11:06 am

    “You will learn that Mann’s infamous MBH99 “Hockey Stick” graph has been completely debunked by multiple scientists and scientific organizations, so that the IPCC can no longer publish it [and the IPCC loved that scary chart].”

    Is this a joke? What you’re saying is the exact opposite of reality… The hockey stick has been confirmed over and over again… where were you?
    =============================================
    Sigh……… are you kidding me? Tell me Phil, what temperature is indicative of no ring growth? That is to say, when the tree rings are not growing, what is the temperature? What’s the average temperature? What is the low and what is the high? Confirmed? Confirmed by what? More dendrophrenology? And before you start blathering about anything, you should read Mann’s acknowledgment of missing cool summers from the chronology record…… then I’d ask you to do a bit of critical thinking on your own and try to understand the implications of such an acknowledgment. Turns out, becoming a brain surgeon never really was an option for many of these people.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-tree-underestimate-climate-response-volcanic.html

  586. James Sexton says:

    REPLY: Actually, its a play on his nom de plume, potholer… most people miss that as you have. -A
    =================================================
    You do realize you’re taking away a point of which I could have ridiculed these people about……. :-(

  587. Jack Greer says:

    [snip - calling other posters brain damaged and then diagnosing specific brain ailments isn't gonna fly here. Take a 48 hour timeout Mr. Greer - Anthony]

  588. Tea Kay says:

    [snip]

  589. Tea Kay says:

    You don’t even allow an open forum.. I knew it.. Why not? Tell me?

    REPLY: Read the policy page – your comment violated policy, this one does not. If you really want “open” then I suggest you put your name to your denigrations. -A

  590. GSW says:

    @Johannes

    Johannes your “And to me, this is serious stuff”, “I strongly disagree”, ” so many errors”, “this is indeed a serious issue” and ” this is serious” are totally out of proportion. The “Caveman” thing is a bit of harmless fun. I *Strongly* suggest you either,

    A. Locate a sense of humour.
    B. Get a Life, or
    C. Drop the “Concern Troll” personna and return to whichever “Believer Cesspit” you originate from. Haven’t you got any any “precautionary principle” stairs that need hiding under?

    Cheers!

    ;)

  591. LeMorteDeArthur says:

    It is hard to read through all the nonsense posted here.
    All I can say is look at Hadfield’s YouTube channel. Besides the Monckton videos he has a whole series on Climate change found here:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#g/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8

    Watch them. I’m not sure what the obsession is with Al Gore but let it go people. As Hadfield says in his video series he is not for or against he is about the science and how accurately it is portrayed. He then corrects and goes through the entire major for and against and in the end it’s simple:
    Man greatly contributes to Climate Change
    There will be drastic results of CC if it’s not corrected.
    Some results are happening now while most will be in the future and the longer we take to start the correction the longer the fix will take.

  592. Wayne Shaw says:

    An argument online is kind of like competing in the “Special Olympics”.
    Even if you win;
    Your Still riding the “Short Bus”…

  593. Johannes Wiberg says:

    @GSW
    What started as a tongue-in-cheek response to my initial comment has now turned into ad hominem and uncivility. It took just one post.
    I don’t originate from any believer cesspit. If you call someone a caveman (and then referred to as “a caveman” over and over again), no matter how “witty” the namecalling might be, you’re losing the argument and you’re behaving like an adolescent. That is my opinion.
    Laugh at me all you want and call me humorless. I don’t think that is a good tool when people are trying to have a serious scientific discourse while others (or rather, most participants) are engaged in namecalling. That’s tragedy rather than comedy. And I don’t see how my phrasing can be “out of proportion” when we’re discussing climate change/fraud. Do you really think it is not a serious issue?
    I don’t know what gives you the right to presume I have no sense of humor, I have no life and I’m a “concern troll”. Neither is the case. But I don’t let that enter into an scientific internet debate. There’s enough personal stuff on here already, don’t you think?

  594. Jose_X says:

    Smokey, a cooler object can warm a hotter object via radiation. Lasers are used all the time to melt materials with very high melting points. Temperature is an average. We can concentrate radiation enough to have a very high temp in a small area. The second law of thermo is about entropy. We can achieve very high temps essentially if we spend enough energy to do so. Lasers can even be used to cool an object via radiation down to near 0K. The latter is a case of a warm object cooling a colder object.

    The atmosphere concentrates energy given by the sun over time to raise temperature much as an oven concentrates over time to raise its temperature when the oven door is closed. At equilibrium, the same energy comes in as goes out but the cavity stays at a high temperature.

  595. Jose_X says:

    Doug Cotton, I agree we should consider many alternatives that show promise.

    You have a link to your website, but I see no opportunity to comment on that page. I would like to read the material and have you give me a decent opportunity to reply to the material you posted there (I haven’t read it yet).

  596. Smokey says:

    I don’t agree with the criticism of Monckton here. Every human being makes mistakes, but the incessant nitpicking amounts to pointing out the mote in Monckton’s eye, while ignoring the beam in Michael Mann’s eye. Mann is a real charlatan, still trying and failing to resurrect his thoroughly debunked hokey stick.

    But there is a bigger issue: there is not one alarmist climatologist who is not deathly afraid to go toe-to-toe with those on the other side, like Lord Monckton routinely does. Taking potholeshots from the sidelines in the manner of the craven coward Abraham [who scurried back to the safety of his ivory tower, and who remains in hiding there] is the preferred method of taking the spotlight off of the fact that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. None of the endlessly predicted CO2=CAGW disasters have happened. And the ultimate Authority, the planet itself, is falsifying the belief system promoted by the Mann/Jones clique: the trend from the LIA is the same, no more and no less, over the past several centuries. The rise in CO2 has made zero measurable difference in the natural global warming since the 1600′s. The CO2 scare has been shown by planet Earth to be a false alarm.

    So let