Monckton’s Slide Presentation to the California Assembly

As readers have seen here and here, Monckton presented a presentation to committee members of the California Assembly yesterday at the invitation of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove of Bakersfield. There were no Democratic members present during the presentation that I was aware of, as they made their intentions known early on.

The slide show in entirety is presented below, click to download and view the PDF file.

Monckton_ca_assembly_presentation (PDF 11.2 MB)

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

And here’s the summary:

Testimony of

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

California State Assembly

21 March 2012

IN the 6 decades since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to 2 F°/century. The IPCC’s central estimate is that in the 9 decades to 2100 the rate will be 6 F°/century, three times the observed rate.

Two-thirds of the warming predicted by the IPCC’s (non-peer-reviewed) models is supposed to arise from temperature feedbacks. None of these feedbacks can be measured. There is no consensus about how big they are. There are powerful scientific reasons to suspect the IPCC has very greatly overstated them.

The principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC Assessment Reports are questionable:

  • 2007: The IPCC twice concludes that the rate of warming is speeding up and we are to blame. But it uses a false statistical technique to reach its conclusion.
  • 2001: The IPCC concludes that today’s temperatures are warmer than in 1300 years. How it reached this conclusion is under criminal investigation.
  • 1995: The scientists had concluded that no discernible human effect on climate could be found. Just one man rewrote the report to say the opposite.
  • 1990: The IPCC predicted rapid warming. A generation has passed and the predicted warming has not happened. This and many other predictions are overblown:
  • Global temperature is rising more slowly than IPCC’s least estimate;
  • Sea level has been rising for eight years at just 1.3 inches/century;
  • Ocean heat content has barely risen in 6 years;
  • Hurricanes and tropical cyclones are quieter than for 30 years;
  • Global sea-ice extent has changed little in 30 years;
  • Methane concentration is up just 20 parts per billion since 2000;
  • The tropical hot-spot the IPCC predicts as our footprint is absent;
  • Outgoing radiation is escaping to space much as usual.

California’s carbon tax, with other statewide measures to curb CO2 emissions, will cost $450 billion by 2020. Even if 25% of California’s emissions are abated by 2020, just 0.4% of global emissions will have been abated; CO2 concentration by 2020, instead of the business-as-usual 413 parts per million by volume the IPCC predicts, will be 412.9 ppmv; just one-thousandth of a Fahrenheit degree of warming will be abated; the cost of abating the 0.3 F° warming the IPCC predicts to 2020 by measures as cost-(in)effective as California’s policies would be $180 trillion, or $25,500 per head of global population, or a third of global GDP over the period; and the cost of preventing the 6 F° warming the IPCC predicts by 2100 would be $2700 trillion, or more than 10 times the maximum 3%-of-GDP cost of climate-related damage arising from not mitigating this predicted 21st-century warming at all.

Environmental over-regulation, cap-and-tax, “renewable”-energy mandates, and a 40-year ban on most offshore drilling are crippling California. The Monterey Shale holds 15 billion barrels of oil, yet over-regulation has cut production by more than a third to just 200 million barrels a year. Now 11% are jobless in California, second only to Nevada in the US (50% are jobless in construction); the 2012/13 State deficit is $6 billion; unfunded pension liabilities are $250 billion; 50,000 rich Californians (one-third of them) fled in 2007-2009, taking their businesses and jobs with them: twice as many firms fled the once-Golden State in 2011 as in 2010; Intel says it will never build another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled. The wagons are heading East.

The bottom line: No policy to abate global warming by taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or replacing greenhouse-gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation. CO2 mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of any warming that may occur is many times more cost-effective. Since the premium greatly exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. Every red cent spent now on trying to stop global warming is a red cent wasted. Don’t mitigate: sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary. That, however unfashionable, is the economically prudent and scientifically sensible course.

About these ads

127 thoughts on “Monckton’s Slide Presentation to the California Assembly

  1. As a Californian and someone whose retirement depends on one of those public employee pensions, I wish they would listen.

  2. OK so Lord Monckton makes some simple quantitative unambiguous points based upon solid science as reported by reputable third parties.
    However the counter argument is as follows:
    “WAAHHHHHH!!!! HE IS NOT A PROPER LORD!! WAAAHHH!!! HE ISN’T A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!! THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF 77 SCIENTISTS!! WAAHHHHHH!!!!!!”

    Both sides make a good case and I must admit I am struggling to come to a conclusion on this one…
    /sarc

  3. The trolls Mandia, Honeycutt, Walker et al are out denigrating Lord Monckton at the CalWatchdog link. Go give it to them … I’ve started the ball rolling.

  4. The fact that they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change” demonstrates their lack of confidence in the hockey stick. The name “climate change” allows them to declare a crisis whether the temperatures warm or cool. The alarmists don’t care what the crisis is, they just need something to justify shutting down the industry and development that sustains human population. The idea that we don’t need to do anything is the last thing they will tolerate. When Lord Monckton makes the case that the “economically prudent and scientifically sensible course” is to “sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary”, it is blasphemy of the highest order. To the self-appointed high priests of Gaia, such talk can have no other effect than to make him public enemy number one in their eyes. And that’s why I admire his courage in addition to his well-thought-out science and unassailable logic.

  5. Lew skannen australia is starting the carbon tax on the 1/07/2012 stand back see us being destroyed all in the name of saving the planet and most of us know it is one big fraud very sad

  6. Grove said she extended an invitation to debate with Lord Monckton to Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, because Skinner is a self-described “climate change expert.” But Grove reported back that Skinner refused the offer to debate. Skinner said Lord Monckton “is not worthy” of talking with her. Grove reported that Skinner said Monckton has no credibility, and isn’t even a member of the House of Lords.

    If the science is on your side then surely you would relish the opportunity to embarrass this so called Lord Monckton and settle the debate once and for all. Right?
    / End poking fun ;-)

    Had she turned up to debate she would have been eviscerated. And Lord Monckton is not even a climate scientist. Says it all really.

  7. Web says—A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.
    JK Says—–Why don’t you tell us what is wrong with his facts.
    Where are his factual errors?

    And why don’t you also tell us just what is the evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming. (Only evidence please, no citation to authority, references to drowning cuddly carnivores, or correlations – just solid evidence.)

    Thanks
    JK

  8. Web says:
    March 23, 2012 at 12:33 am
    A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.
    ——

    Ok, web, so we know about you. But what about Lord Moncton’s excellent presentation?

  9. No democrates.
    What makes the whole issue a political/religious issue for the warmists? The refusal to listen to anything that might disturb their beliefs. Follow dictates from the party

  10. It is quite amazing that the fanatic AGW believers do not have a basic understanding of the facts. The madness of converting food to biofuels is one example. A second example is economic impact of the Western Countries’ green scam programs.

    Western Countries must compete with so called developing countries China and India for jobs. As most are aware hundreds of thousands of jobs have moved to Asia. The “green” subsides and green boondoggles are only applied to Western Countries. The carbon trading, carbon offsets, carbon taxes, carbon sequestration, conversion of food to biofuel, will not substantially reduce the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will destroy any possibility of economic growth. Western governments do not have surplus funds to send on boondoggles.
    The wily Chinese are playing us for fools.

    The following is the current estimated carbon dioxide emission by country and by geographic region in percentage of total world emissions. Also included below is the percentage change (comparing 2008 to 2010) of carbon dioxide emission for the country in question and the geographic region.

    The largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China. China currently emits 25% of the world total, 50% more than the US. China’s carbon dioxide emissions are projected to significantly increase in the future, as China is putting one new large coal fired power plant into service every week. The yearly growth of electrical production in China is sufficient to power five cities the size of New York.

    Attached below is an article and a link to a presentation by Richard Muller that presents the projected yearly increase in carbon dioxide emissions for the world based on the current observed changes in carbon dioxide emissions and theoretical changes in emissions based on last year’s Copenhagen meeting.

    Source of data used to produce the table below.

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx

    Projected emissions based on the Copenhagen proposed agreement.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html

    2008 to
    2010
    % Change___% of Total World
    -3.2% 16.4% US
    -4.7% 1.5% Canada
    -2.0% 1.4% Mexico
    -3.2% 19.3%Total North America

    2008 to
    2010
    % Change___% of Total World
    -1.3% 0.6% Argentina
    6.7% 1.3% Brazil
    -6.4% 0.2% Chile
    11.3% 0.2% Colombia

    9.1% 0.1% Ecuador
    13.3% 0.1% Peru
    0.2% 0.1% Trinidad and Tobago
    3.2% 0.5% Venezuela
    -2.1% 0.5% Other S. & Cent. America
    3.1% 3.6% Total S. & Cent. America

    2008 to
    2010
    % Change___% of Total World
    -6.5% 0.2% Austria
    -14.8% 0.1% Azerbaijan
    -6.4% 0.2% Belarus
    -2.8% 0.3% Belgium & Luxembourg
    -18.2% 0.1% Bulgaria
    -6.4% 0.3% Czech Republic
    -4.9% 0.1% Denmark
    12.1% 0.2% Finland
    -3.8% 1.1% France
    -3.1% 2.3% Germany
    -6.8% 0.3% Greece
    -8.6% 0.1% Hungary
    -6.3% 0.1% Republic of Ireland
    -8.3% 1.2% Italy
    1.3% 0.7% Kazakhstan
    -8.1% 0.0% Lithuania
    4.0% 0.5% Netherlands
    1.4% 0.2% Norway
    -1.9% 0.9% Poland
    -1.4% 0.2% Portugal
    -17.2% 0.2% Romania
    -1.2% 5.0% Russian Federation
    -16.0% 0.1% Slovakia
    -16.6% 0.8% Spain
    -2.1% 0.1% Sweden
    -3.4% 0.1% Switzerland
    4.0% 0.9% Turkey
    8.6% 0.2% Turkmenistan
    -13.5% 0.8% Ukraine
    -5.7% 1.5% United Kingdom
    -5.2% 0.4% Uzbekistan
    -6.7% 0.6% Other Europe & Eurasia
    -4.2% 20.0% Total Europe & Eurasia

    2008 to
    2010
    % Change___% of Total World
    6.7% 1.7% Iran
    -2.3% 0.2% Israel
    9.6% 0.3% Kuwait
    9.4% 0.2% Qatar
    13.9% 1.5% Saudi Arabia
    3.9% 0.5% United Arab Emirates
    11.6% 1.0% Other Middle East
    9.1% 5.4% Total Middle East

    7.3% 0.4% Algeria
    10.9% 0.7% Egypt
    3.7% 1.3% South Africa
    1.8% 1.2% Other Africa
    4.7% 3.6% Total Africa

    2008 to
    2010
    % Change___% of Total World
    -8.4% 1.1% Australia
    8.0% 0.1% Bangladesh
    17.2% 24.6% China
    0.4% 0.1% China Hong Kong SAR
    18.8% 6.2% India
    17.4% 1.4% Indonesia
    -5.8% 3.4% Japan
    -4.2% 0.6% Malaysia
    -11.8% 0.1% New Zealand
    2.5% 0.5% Pakistan
    8.1% 0.3% Philippines
    10.8% 0.1% Singapore
    10.6% 1.7% South Korea
    2.4% 0.8% Taiwan
    4.7% 0.9% Thailand
    25.9% 0.5% Vietnam
    -2.1% 0.4% Other Asia Pacific
    12.7% 42.8%Total Asia Pacific

    2008 to
    2010
    % Change___% of Total World
    4.4% 94.6% sum of above
    4.5% 100.0%TOTAL WORLD

  11. ”There were no Democratic members present during the presentation that I was aware of, as they made their intentions known early on.”

    So who are the deniers ? Are they are the ones too scared to face scientific facts ?

  12. Are any of the above name callers interested in a scientific debate? Calling all extreme AGW supporters. Are the above comments the best that you have?

    The extraordinarily high cost of a non-problem is the subject of debate. Do you understand the concept of a debate? It is necessary to provide facts and logic to support your side. So far all that I see is name calling which is not allowed in a debate. Name calling is a sign that it is not possible to defend the extreme AGW paradigm.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/monckton_ca_assembly_presentation.pdf

    Christopher Monckton’s presentation to the California State Assembly lays out the essence of the scientific and economic case for the so called “skeptics”.

    The programs proposed for California will not significantly reduce carbon emission, unless that state spends three to four times more than budgeted. Ignoring that fact and assuming the programs proposed will reduce California CO2 emissions by 20% and then using the same programs to reduce planetary temperature by 0.15C (using the IPCC models to determine the magnitude of the CO2 reduction required) would cost $179 trillion US dollars, $22,500 per capita, or 33% of global GDP. Obviously China, United States, UK, India, and so are not going to agree to spend 33% of the global GDP on scams which will not significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 which is not a problem anyway.

    Why is the atmospheric warming due to an increase in CO2 a non-problem?

    Observational data does not support the assertion that the planet amplifies (positive feedback) climate forcing changes positive or negative. Observational evidence indicates the planet resists climate forcing change by increase or decreasing clouds in the tropics (negative feedback). If there is negative feedback, the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, will result in less 1.2C warming. Based on actual measurements, the estimated warming due to a doubling of CO2 is 0.5C to 0.7C.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. ….
    ….we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise… … We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response

  13. California’s economic demise is becoming a monument to greenie/CAGW stupidity.

    When politicians try and solve a non-existent problem simply because it is a trendy cause at that point of time, it always proves to be a pointless and expensive exercise. In the extreme case of California it is akin to economic suicide.

    The status quo in California needs to be preserved in order to demonstrate to future generations the stupidity of imposing unrealistic carbon taxes and other green taxes or subsidies. California’s coming economic demise will doubtless become a lesson discussed in the economic textbooks of the future.

    The same argument applies to retaining the status quo in Cuba; future generations need to be able to see the economic stupidity and misery of socialism, so they can avoid making the same mistake.

    So, Californians should be proud of making the grand sacrifice in proving trendy carbon taxes create economic misery and decline, likewise North Korea for communism, Iran for theocracies, Syria for family dynasties, Venezuela for egotism, and as said earlier, Cuba for socialism.

    Moncton just points out an inconvenient truth, not surprisingly he was boycotted by those responsible for the state’s current demise.

  14. Richard111 says (12:51 am)
    > Umm… the pdf is 11.5 KILObytes.

    Eh? The one that came to me was certainly 11.3 MB.

  15. Richard111 says: March 23, 2012 at 12:51 am
    Umm… the pdf is 11.5 KILObytes.
    ———-
    Then I would advise you download it again, because I can confirm, since I just downloaded it, that it is 11.2 MB (11,839,618 bytes).

  16. Help! Help!

    I have need of showing such a slide show to younger children to point out several things at one time. The slide show is a good example of using a “power point” in a professional presentation. The slide show demonstrates that one can show a “linear trend” depending on the starting and stopping points picked in a data set. (question statistics) The slide show shows how to compactly present important data and points to a general audience. The slide show also demonstrates a lot of science that a middle school kid should be able to understand.

    I wonder if anyone has a transcript of what the Lord said when he showed each slide. I would hate to not use the slide show in exactly the same manner as he did — would not be fair to him. (or at least come very close) And does he use basically the same slide show for all of his stops on this US tour?

    Anyone?

  17. Anthony,
    The fact that democrats didn’t show up doesn’t bode well for the future of California. Time for you to sell your property while you can and move to a more sane state…

  18. Dont forget the AGW scam is largely a socialist driven scam so don’t expect any Democrats to show up,, they know it is a scam but see the great potential for gaining huge power leverage out of it, and I think that’s is what it is all about. Socialism has a near hundred year history of drowning opposition and allowing no debate so don’t be surprised here, lucky for us we have the internet (for now anyway)

  19. If you accept the “fact” that the IPCC CO2 forced warming predicition of 6 degrees F/100years is correct and is caused by CO2 only, then there must be a natural non-antropogenic forcing balancing the CO2 effects given the measured rate of change in temperature. The result of taking all fossil fuel derived CO2 out of the system would surely result in a 6 degrees cooling. Not an attractive option at all really. The snowline woudl be marching down the mountains in California if were not for the SUV.

  20. I like a lot in that presentation, mainly parts concerned about science. But there are also parts of it which I consider misleading or wrong.

    Page 3 – ratio of the two slopes is 5:1 rather than 3:1. I consider it unfair psychological trick

    Page 20 – highlighted warming intervals are as good as the IPCC’s ‘addition to science’ on page 18. Or is there a scientific source for it? None is mentioned on the page, unlike other pages which all contain references to sources.

    Page 41 – the sea ice topic is again presented in a misleading way. I believe there is no dispute there are climate changes going on near the north pole and there were changes near the south pole some years back so it’s not like there are ‘almost no changes’ but that we are not sure of their nature. We may not like if some say it’s because of global warming but it’s just wrong to say they’re not there.

    Page 55 – the historic/projected division line is obviously intentionally short and far away to hide the fact that most of the china’s explosive growth is forecast, not reality. Will it really go this way or is this forecast as good as IPCC’s?

    Page 63 – biofules do not make hungry countries even hungrier. It’s money, food and products sent to them from ‘developed countries’ that ruin their industry and economy and make them even poorer. I don’t say that it’s ok if a hungry country is producing biofuels instead of food, but if that’s the country’s main export article and what the country needs the most is money to be able to import machines to start up their own industry then even that may be a good start.

    Pages near the end are just psychological pressure.

  21. Jimbo says:
    March 23, 2012 at 1:27 am (Edit)
    Grove said she extended an invitation to debate with Lord Monckton to Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, because Skinner is a self-described “climate change expert.” But Grove reported back that Skinner refused the offer to debate. Skinner said Lord Monckton “is not worthy” of talking with her. Grove reported that Skinner said Monckton has no credibility, and isn’t even a member of the House of Lords.

    ————————————————————————————————————————–

    This woman is obviously a close friend of James “Avatar” Cameron. These palookas will always avoid a debate with folk who know what they are on about.

    Cowards.

    I also note the comments by the usual dissemblers trying to smear Monckton as if their innuendos will make the truth of what he says less true.

  22. If CO2 was as dangerous as these democrat morons believe then they need to consider how it is possible for a concentration of 100X higher of the ‘pollutant’ than ambient can save a life via mouth to mouth resuscitation? They should consider how a 3X to 4X concentration is intentionally applied in greenhouses for better crop yields?

    It’s amazing that they can ignore such simple proven facts as those and believe unproven climate nonsense as a means to impress their constituents that they are committed to some sort of imagined moral high ground, that they are determined to ‘Save the Planet’ and their opponents are not.

    What needs to be done is to flip the meme around in the minds of the voters that these nitwits are determined to “SACRIFICE California” on the basis of an thoroughly unproven and increasingly baseless theory.

  23. Web says: @ March 23, 2012 at 12:33 am

    A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.
    ____________________________________
    YES, that certainly sounds like Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner. If she wasn’t scared out of her stockings and really thought she could demolish Lord Monckton she would of debated him. The fact she did not and came up with idiotic excuses speaks for itself.

    I really really hope the rest of the businesses in California pack up and leave. Because it is about time politicians discovered the reality of these two statements.

    “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money” ~ Margaret Thatcher

    “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law” ~ Winston Churchill

  24. “WAAHHHHHH!!!! HE IS NOT A PROPER LORD!! WAAAHHH!!! HE ISN’T A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!! THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF 77 SCIENTISTS!! WAAHHHHHH!!!!!!”
    ==================
    This is not so funny as it should have been, because it basically sums up the rebuttal fairly accurately.

  25. Dave says:
    March 23, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Anthony,
    The fact that democrats didn’t show up doesn’t bode well for the future of California. Time for you to sell your property while you can and move to a more sane state…
    _________________________________
    I agree, You really need to get out NOW before your property becomes completely worthless.

    Even profitable firms fleeing California

    Cali to Business: Get Out! – WSJ

    Relo Expert: Top 10 Reasons Businesses Flee California

    10 – California’s high corporate tax rates….

    9 – Hostility from government agencies — local, county and state employees often view business owners as “the enemy,” according to Vranich’s clients.

    8 – Costly, business-killing regulatory measures…..

    7 – Extravagant state spending with no end in sight.

    6 – Unfriendly business environment — California is ranked 51st (even behind D.C.) in the country for being a “business friendly state.”

    5 – High cost of doing business within California’s cities, which are some of the highest in the nation.

    4 – High personal income tax rates …

    3 – California’s Alternative Minimum Tax…

    2 – Litigious environment in California …

    1 – General quality of life…

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/02/relo-expert-top-10-reasons-businesses.html

    Sounds like darn good reasons to relocate.

    REPLY:
    The idea of moving out of California is constantly on my mind. The Golden State has become The Altered State where hard work, playing by the rules, and entrepreneurship is vilified, rather than rewarded. – Anthony

  26. wasn’t this monckton guy the dude that Peter Hadfield destroyed in an online debate last month?

  27. It would be fantastic if Lord Monckton could make a spanish version of his thoughtful presentation, for the sake of spanish speaking countries, now being daily brainwashed by politicians and NGO´s.

  28. Robert says:
    March 23, 2012 at 6:22 am

    wasn’t this monckton guy the dude that Peter Hadfield destroyed in an online debate last month?
    ____________________________
    You have that backwards.
    See: 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

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

  29. REPLY: The idea of moving out of California is constantly on my mind. The Golden State has become The Altered State where hard work, playing by the rules, and entrepreneurship is vilified, rather than rewarded. Anthony

    Come to New Hampshire, Anthony! No sales tax, no state income tax, beautiful scenery – OK, so our winters are cold and snowy (can’t have everything :).

  30. Hold it!
    I spend my winters in Carp and I think Cali is worth fighing for. And you guys are doing a great job.

    Signed,
    Freezing my ass of in BC cause it’s been snowing for a week.

  31. Robert, Hadfield didn’t destroy Monckton. Both are less than objective and arguing more about semantics than substance (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/). Monckton challenged Hadfield’s assertions, and Hadfield’s responses often did not address the real issue but focused on some detail about which he perceived Monckton was wrong. Climate is always changing but the recent report that the Himalayan glaciers have lost only a very small amount of ice in recent years, the observation that overall sea ice has changed little, in spite of very dynamic fluctuations in the arctic, sea level increases are not accelerating and have even declined over the last few years, and global average temperature has not increased significantly in the last decade (perhaps longer). Any objective person who respects the methods of science would have to question the IPCC climate models’ sensitivity to CO2, which project alarming warming. Instead, the “consensus” group seems to be more and more desperate (e.g., Gleick), and I have never seen any of them admit to error or miscalculation. In contrast, scientists with proper objectivity and skepticism respond to valid criticism and make adjustments (e.g., Lindzen and Choi 2009 and 2011). This whole “debate” is drastically unscientific in that there are mostly advocates on both sides who have thrown out even the pretense of Baconian objectivity. I believe this will hurt all of science and society for many years to come.

    I became a skeptic after reading extensively following climategate and observing the mainstream climate science group defend the indefensible. One of the most striking findings from this reading was part of an interview with Phil Jones. He was asked why he was so sure CO2 was the main driver of climate. He said (paraphrasing here, I don’t remember the exact quote), because we can’t think of anything else it could be. That basic idea has also been expressed by others. You don’t have to be a scientist (although I am) to understand that this is a remarkably weak reason to ascribe causation in a system as complex as the earth climate system. I don’t suppose a huge ball of molten material at the core of the planet could have any impact, or cyclical changes in orbital patterns changing sun exposure, or cosmic rays altering cloud patterns, or changes in the amount of water vapor, or land use changes, or natural variations in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns, etc etc etc etc etc?

  32. Apple and Facebook are leaving California due to overregulation? Whoppers like that really don’t help the credibility of the piece.

    REPLY: Apple moved manufacturing to China, taking advantage of lower manufacturing costs than they could get in CA. Facebook made a big data center in Sweden http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/10/27/facebook-goes-global-with-data-center-in-sweden/

    “Facebook will build a huge new data center in northern Sweden to support the rapid global growth of its users, the company said today. The new data center in Lulea, Sweden will be Facebook’s first facility outside the United States.”

    Whopper’s like yours don’t really lend much credibility to you – Anthony

  33. Open letter from Peter Hadfield to Christopher Monckton

    Dear Mr. Monckton,

    A couple of months ago you entered into a debate with me on wattsupwiththat.com (See “Update on the Monckton-Hadfield debate” – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/) about alleged errors in your public lectures — allegations that I made in a series of videos on my YouTube channel. But as soon as I presented documentary evidence to back up my claims, you suddenly fell silent. Despite promising Anthony Watts that you would respond when you returned from Australia mid-February, you have not done so, and now you have written to tell me that you are, in effect, running away. Sorry, I don’t know how else to phrase your abrupt retreat from our debate as soon as I showed evidence that supports my allegations and starkly contradicts your claims.

    I am referring to your e-mail to me dated March 22nd:

    = I am on a very busy tour and will be still more busy when I return to the UK, so I do not know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities and, while I try to accommodate them, other priorities must sometimes come first.=

    Let me address the first excuse first. I understand you are currently on a busy tour, but you promised Anthony Watts you would respond when you returned from your last tour, and you did not. Meanwhile I note that you have had plenty of time to respond to a university newsletter that criticized you, and you spent two hours talking on skype to a small classroom of students. I fail to see why these are “priorities”, while my 57,000 subscribers and the hundreds of thousands of subscribers to wattsupwiththat are not deserving of an answer from you concerning clear evidence that you seriously misled your audiences over a period of several years. The people watching this debate have watched you vacate your chair, and are still expecting to see you to re-appear from backstage at any moment with some incisive rebuttal after checking my evidence. I am sure they will be as shocked as I am to hear the squealing of car tyres as you make good your escape.

    You have, after all, been given every advantage in this debate. It is taking place on wattsupwiththat, a regular forum for you and one that YOU chose, so there can be no suggestion that the umpire is biased against you. In fact, even though he and I disagree on the climate issue, Anthony Watts has been good enough to give us equal space for our responses. You were given not just one but two to rebut my videos, responding first to a summary of my videos that was made by someone in a WUWT comments forum, and then directly to something that was, as you put it: “not word what [Peter Hadfield] said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.”

    With respect, no, the points you wrote did not fairly convey my meaning — in fact they ignored the substance of the allegations altogether and a lot of your response focused on ad hominem attacks questioning my integrity, honesty and intelligence.

    So when I responded with the actual allegations, along with supporting documentary evidence –17 video clips of your speeches, 13 scientific papers and studies and one newspaper article that you yourself cited — and showed that you had clearly misquoted or misrepresented your own sources, you inexplicably fell silent, and then failed to deliver your promised response.

    Your other excuse: “Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities”

    If you think these issues are “inconsequentialities” then why did you bring them up time and again during your many public speeches? The sun is largely responsible for recent warming — there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500 million years — only one Himalayan glacier is retreating — the Earth has been cooling — Greenland isn’t melting — there is no long-term decline of Arctic ice…. etc. etc. It was you, not I, who decided these should be the bedrock of your case against anthropogenic climate change. I simply asked you for the sources of your assertions and when you gave them to me I checked them — and it turned out that you either misrepresented or misquoted these sources, or your source does not have the authority you claim it does.

    And if you think they are inconsequentialities, why have you decide to expend several thousand words on wattsupwiththat trying to rebut them? You were quite happy to do so when you thought the debate would be easy, and when you addressed your own rather crude summary of what you thought I was alleging. It was only when I came back with details and a wealth of supporting evidence that you apparently decided it was better to beat a hasty retreat than try to answer such prima facie evidence.

    I appreciate that you would much prefer this kind of debate to take place on stage, where oratory is paramount. It is much harder to engage in this kind of debate online, where everything is written down and can be quoted back, where sources are demanded for any facts you give, and where these sources can be checked and verified. But this is the nub of our debate — whether you have chosen reliable sources and quoted and represented them correctly.

    Nowhere in my videos or in the WUWT debate have I suggested that you are making these errors deliberately, or that you are being dishonest ( a courtesy you did not extend to me), and neither have I descended to ad hominem attacks or name calling (also a courtesy you did not extend to me.) Errors are simply errors in my book, and if you unintentionally misled your audiences over several years then I accept that it was unintentional.

    After all, the truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion… as you yourself said at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy last year.

    In the same speech you said: “Before we subjucate the truth to mere expediency, convenience or profit it is first desirable to discern the truth.”

    And again: “What matters here are the facts; what matters here is the truth.”

    For a man so dedicated to the truth I am surprised that you did not jump at the opportunity to either rebut my allegations by showing that it is I, not you, who misread these sources and quotes, or check your sources again and acknowledge that you made these errors. In that spirit, I urge you to rejoin the debate that Anthony Watts has so kindly agreed to host.

    This may be the triumph of hope over experience. My experience tells me that you won’t be too busy to issue a long response addressing the issue of the debate itself and why you shouldn’t have to continue it, or an attempt to deflect the debate onto some other subject or forum, combined with another ad hominem attack on me — instead of what everyone would LIKE to see, which is a clear rebuttal or acceptance of the evidence I provided.

    Video on Youtube.

  34. Dave says:
    March 23, 2012 at 3:20 am
    Anthony,
    The fact that democrats didn’t show up doesn’t bode well for the future of California. Time for you to sell your property while you can and move to a more sane state…
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    After his 7:00pm presentation later that day at Sacramento State, he was asked by a lady in the audience how he could ever get his points across to such people. His response – “Vote them out”.

  35. Kasuha:

    “Pages near the end are just psychological pressure.”

    I’ve never before heard a AGW alarmist express concern over this.

  36. In reply to Chris Edwards,

    Chris Edwards says:
    March 23, 2012 at 4:24 am
    Don’t forget the AGW scam is largely a socialist driven scam so don’t expect any Democrats to show up,, they know it is a scam but see the great potential for gaining huge power leverage out of it, and I think that’s is what it is all about. Socialism has a near hundred year history of drowning opposition and allowing no debate so don’t be surprised here, lucky for us we have the internet (for now anyway)

    Chris,
    The Democrats are not stupid. They are just ignorant. They have big hearts which is the hook for the scams. (Scams require a hook.)

    P.S.
    Calling all RealClimate supporters. William Connelly, are you out there? Can you defend the extreme AGW position? I notice Realclimate has had no discussion of the costs of the scams.

    Anyone want a debate? Why is it so quiet?

    99% of the Democrats have no idea the Californian “green” programs are scams that will waste billions of Californian tax dollars and will result in almost no reduction of CO2 emissions for the state of California. A scam is a scam. A fantasy is a fantasy. The only people who support scams is the fraction of percentage of the state that directly benefit in the scam.

    Democrats have a long list of issues that they want to spend money on such as education, health care, and so on. Democrats are just in a state of denial. They do not understand why Greece economic collapsed. 50% unemployment of the Greek youth. Year after year of decline of the Greece GDP. No realistic possibility of avoiding complete default. What are the consequences of complete economic collapse? Democrats will follow the AGW piped piper over the cliff.

    99% of the Democrats have do not understand that the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (negative feedback) the warming due to the increase in CO2. Planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight into space which resist the climate forcing change (negative feedback).

    99% of the Democrats do not understand that the IPCC analysis supports the assertion that if the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1.2C of global warming.

    99% of the Democrats do not understand the IPCC process and reports has been hijacked by the AGW jihad movement.

    The term skeptic is not appropriate. There is observational data and analysis in published papers that unequivocally supports the assertion the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative. If the planet’s response a change in forcing is negative the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1.2C of warming with majority of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in an expansion of the biosphere.

    CO2 is not a poison. Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in an increase in cereal crop yields of 30% to 40%.

  37. If those elected officials who now manage California’s state government honestly believe, in a truly serious way, that carbon emissions threaten the planet, they need to fish or cut bait on global warming. They need to demonstrate in a very positive and very proactive way that they honestly believe the theoretical dangers of carbon pollution to be a real and immediate threat to California’s citizens.

    If these officials actually want to demonstrate the courage of their convictions regarding the supposed danger of carbon emissions to the planet’s health and survival, and also to demonstrate that their own actions do indeed follow their own words — then they should declare a carbon pollution emergency in California, and they should immediately take those steps needed to effect a quick and significant reduction in California’s carbon emissions, using a program of enforced energy rationing if that’s what it would take to meet their emission reduction targets.

    For these politicians to do otherwise is to demonstrate that they are merely pandering to the environmentalist community for votes, as opposed to doing what the situation would seem to demand, and that is to press for immediate implementation of the kinds of difficult and unpopular actions which are necessary to effect a significant reduction in California’s carbon emissions — including a program of government-enforced energy rationing, if nothing else works.

    In the meantime, the rest of us can stand well back from the situation and observe the political and economic fallout from what would be the nation’s first truly serious attempt at achieving significant carbon emission reductions.

  38. markstoval says:
    March 23, 2012 at 3:10 am
    And does he use basically the same slide show for all of his stops on this US tour?

    It looks to me that he localizes the economic insanity example for his each audience. The Australian presentation used Australian examples/numbers, the California presentation used California numbers, etc.

  39. Rob Crawford says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:01 am

    I’ve never before heard a AGW alarmist express concern over this.
    _________________________

    My opinion is that skeptics should fight emotional abuse with reason, not with another emotional abuse.

  40. REPLY: The idea of moving out of California is constantly on my mind. The Golden State has become The Altered State where hard work, playing by the rules, and entrepreneurship is vilified, rather than rewarded. – Anthony

    Anthony,
    As a native of New Jersey, I can make the following recommendation without having “a dog in the fight”: Texas.

    I spent 18 months on assignment there, and it’s a great state. People are friendly, hard working and alway say “hello” with a smile. Lots of space, and I hear tell it’s very pro-business. If my wife ever convinces me to move, Texas will be at the top of the list of places to look at.

  41. William Astley says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:05 am

    In reply to Chris Edwards,….

    Let me preface this by stating that I’m a staunch Tea Party supporter and life-long conservative. But I think we should stay away from blindly characterizing the CAGW issue as a political left/right divide. I know, I know, in many ways it is. But living in Maryland and working in DC, I have many liberal friends (kinda unavoidable in this area unless you just don’t want to have any friends). Believe it or not, a pretty large proportion of these “liberal socialist morons” you’re mis-characterizing recognize the CAGW alarmism for what it really is.

    What will finally kill this scam, the only thing that will finally kill this scam – is when the throwing of the BS flag crosses party lines. At that point, it’s done. We should reach out, not push away.

  42. In reply to TomB,

    TomB says:
    March 23, 2012 at 10:34 am

    William Astley says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:05 am

    “What will finally kill this scam, the only thing that will finally kill this scam – is when the throwing of the BS flag crosses party lines. At that point, it’s done. We should reach out, not push away.”

    I fully and completely support your point. A scam is a scam regardless of a person’s political affiliation. The extreme AGW fiasco crosses party lines. It is a threat to the economic viability of all Western countries. Billions and billions of dollars have already been wasted. It is impossible that trillions and trillions will be wasted on the extreme AGW scams as there will be complete economic collapse early in the program.

    The tide may be changing. I have notice a number of the extreme AGW scientists starting to discuss the scams as scams. For example the food to biofuel scam.

    When a group of people standup in a theater and yell FIRE, FIRE, FIRE!!! It is natural that some people will panic, trusting the honesty of those making the statements. It is very, very, difficult for those scientists who yelled FIRE, FIRE, FIRE!!! to admit that they were absolutely incorrect.

    The warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes. The biosphere will and is expanding due to the increases in atmospheric CO2 and the warming majority of which is a high latitudes. CO2 is not a poison.

    Men and women go mad as a crowd. They regain their senses one by one.

  43. Kasuha says:
    March 23, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Rob Crawford says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:01 am

    I’ve never before heard a AGW alarmist express concern over this.
    _________________________

    My opinion is that skeptics should fight emotional abuse with reason, not with another emotional abuse.

    Concern troll. Get lost.

  44. William Astley says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:05 am

    In reply to Chris Edwards,

    [snip . . you might want to re-read this . . kbmod]
    :D

  45. D. J. Hawkins says:
    March 23, 2012 at 10:18 am

    As a native of New Jersey,

    You within easy drive of these guys?
    Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc.
    128 Lincoln Blvd.
    Middlesex, NJ 08846-1022
    Phone: (732) 356-5900

    If so, please drop around, get the tour. Report back to us. Could be hugely important to the climate issue, among many other things.

  46. Anthony,

    Yes, both Apple and Facebook have datacenters outside of California (its worth noting that Apple doesn’t actually own any factories in China, they just contract with suppliers there). I suppose you could argue that expensive electricity is one of the reasons why datacenters are not being (primarily) built in California. However, both Apple and Facebook are not only staying headquartered here in the Bay Area, but both are actively expanding their campuses as they move into new headquarters. Insinuating that the restrictive business environment is causing them to flee the state is misleading at best.

    In your reply, both examples you pointed out were foreign facilities. If California’s restrictive business environment were the reason why these facilities were located abroad (rather than, say, in a neighboring state with less restrictive business practices), than it would say something about the US regulatory environment in general rather than something specific to California. Chinese manufacturing is a whole ‘nother story entirely, and no state (California’s regulatory environment notwithstanding) could compete with the supply chains over there. Speaking as someone who has started a tech company and is based in San Francisco, there is really no other place in the country that I would rather be located. Having talked to friends who are executives at both Facebook and Apple, there is no place they would rather be headquartered either.

  47. @Lew Skannen:
    This is about buying Carbon /ton at :US$0.00054545454545 (US$3.- per hectare/year, actual amazon jungle price paid to “Apus”-pronounced Ahpoos- -tribe´s chiefs-) and selling it at US$23.19 = a “poor revenue” of 4´251,500 %
    If you are not being paid, at less a small fee for it, you are playing a fools game.

  48. William Astley says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:05 am

    In reply to Chris Edwards,

    99% of the Democrats have do not understand that the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (negative feedback) the warming due to the increase in CO2.

    Edit: one of them has to be positive. Pick one. Hint: it’s not the first.
    :D

    Brian H says:
    March 23, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    William Astley says:
    March 23, 2012 at 9:05 am

    In reply to Chris Edwards,

    [snip . . you might want to re-read this . . kbmod]
    :D

    kbmod, No, you need to re-read. He calls both “resists” and “amplifies” negative. Wrong-O.
    >:(

  49. Brian H says:
    March 23, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    We should ask Lord M. if he could hear the giant sucking sound while he was there …
    ;)
    [snip . . this is more than oblique . . it’s opaque . . kbmod]
    That’s an expression often used when something is going down the drain, as in the economy of California, and the businesses leaving. Sorry it exceeded your comprehension level!
    <;-(

  50. 10 – California’s high corporate tax rates….
    9 – Hostility from government agencies — local, county and state employees often view business owners as “the enemy,” according to Vranich’s clients.
    8 – Costly, business-killing regulatory measures…..
    ……………………………..
    3 – California’s Alternative Minimum Tax…
    2 – Litigious environment in California …
    1 – General quality of life…
    ————————————————————
    There are also many hidden costs to living in CA. For example, I drive a 24 year old Toyota MR2 that I keep in great shape. It recently flunked the biennial smog check (CA has smog checks, but no safety inspection) I had the mechanic replace the Cat Converter. The 49 state version was $250 but the CA version was $600. This for a car I drive 4000 miles/year. Endless examples………………….

  51. There is certainly no warming in this part of the State of California. Darn cold and windy.
    And that is well within the normal range of variance over the last 140 years.
    Last summer was late and short, with many gardens under-producing.
    I WISH we had the warming we had the last 30 years, but, like a mind which is a terrible thing to waste, it’s GONE.

  52. I’m afraid that few of us here actually get this.
    It’s all politics, there is NO science involved, there never was!
    Global temperature… Bovine excrement. Do you really believe that they don’t understand that without humidity, temperature is irrelevant?

    We win battles but they will win the war! They rely on the ignorance of the public and the public are so engrossed in the various reality TV programs, they have taken their eye off the ball.

    Add to that things like this…

    Who can wonder why, despite the battle victories, we are losing?

    DaveE.

  53. The important thing about Lord Monckton is that he gives the alarmists no where to hide. The alarmists can ignore real world physics by retreating into their own physical fantasy world and pretending that actual physics does not exist. However, Lord Monckton goes into their physical fantasy world and plays by their rules and uses clear logic to show them how wrong they are. They cannot ignore this and cannot go anywhere because Lord Monckton is already in their house and not yelling from the outside saying that the foundations of their house is flawed.

    The universe only works one way and it really does not care what anyone thinks.

  54. Time to leave California and come here to Tennessee. We need California’s richest people and the jobs they will bring to this state. Cost of living is lower and so are taxes. Beautiful country in all parts of the state. I live in Knoxville. It is similar to Sacramento. Take a look.

  55. Well, yesterday I found out that Monckton is a birther – that doesn’t bode too well. Anyway, I just couldn’t think of any good reason why he would comment on the subject in the first place, as I have never heard him speak outside of climate affairs.

  56. WE CAN’T WIN!
    If the Warmistas can get any plans to lower CO2 approved and temperatures drop as Coolistas believe the Warmistas will claim that they’ve saved the world and there’ll be nothing we can do to stop this B$. We need a goal line stand long enough to see a significant drop in temperatures before they take credit where none is due.

  57. David A. Evans,

    Thanks for the Travis and Chelsea yt link.

    The sad part is Chelsea is working on her PhD in Climate Science.

    or is it Physics?

  58. Monckton will hopefully find the time to come back to WUWT and be ready to debate his critics.
    Looking forward to it.

    REPLY: While I can’t hear what Hadfield is saying (he sounds like a British mumble to me) they seem totally infatuated with their manhunt, so much for Hadfield’s repeated claims of being “dispassionate and logical”. Thanks for posting this. When he starts colluding with that hateful “greenman”, all semblance of rational debate is destroyed.

    This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony

  59. Lightrain says:
    March 24, 2012 at 12:09 am

    WE CAN’T WIN!
    If the Warmistas can get any plans to lower CO2 approved and temperatures drop as Coolistas believe the Warmistas will claim that they’ve saved the world and there’ll be nothing we can do to stop this B$. We need a goal line stand long enough to see a significant drop in temperatures before they take credit where none is due.

    Nah, doesn’t wash. The CO2 climb is not responding in any way, up or down, to human emissions. Its steady rise is in flat contradiction to any linkage.

  60. Matt says:
    March 23, 2012 at 11:47 pm
    Well, yesterday I found out that Monckton is a birther – that doesn’t bode too well.

    Unless Obama resigns — then he’ll gain credibility on climate issues. Take a look at this:

    “For the past couple of years, Vice President Joe Biden has quietly assembled an A-team of advisers who would, without doubt, be considered the nucleus of a presidential campaign ….
    ………………..
    “Biden has gone on a recent staffing spree — culminating with the hire of Clinton-era operative Steve Ricchetti — that has many Democrats, and even some on Obama’s own team, wondering ….”

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1687757B-11DA-494C-ABB4-F500088F0F07

  61. In reply to Cedric Katesby,

    “Cedric Katesby says:
    March 24, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Monckton will hopefully find the time to come back to WUWT and be ready to debate his critics.
    Looking forward to it.”

    No need to wait for Monckton. Observational evidence and logic is unequivocally on the side of the so called “skeptics”.

    Do you have any logical arguments to defend the extreme AGW position which is that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be catastrophic?

    Why has there only been half of the IPCC warming due to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2? CO2 warming is logarithmic which means each subsequent increase in CO2 has less and less effect. The mechanism saturates.

    The key scientific issue “skeptic vs catastrophic warming” is the planet’s response to a change in forcing which is called feedback.

    Is the planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing positive (planet amplifies forcing changes) or negative (planet resists forcing changes)?

    Have you read Lindzen and Choi’s 2011 paper (fourth published paper that supports the same conclusion) that uses satellite measurement of top of the atmosphere radiation changes Vs changes in planetary temperature to confirm the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes)?

    Lindzen and Choi found that planetary cloud – primarily in the tropics – increases to reflect more sunlight off into space to resist forcing changes. That is negative feedback. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will therefore result in less than 1.2C of warming rather than the IPCC predicted 3C to 5C. Based on Lindzen’s results a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 0.5C to 0.8C of warming. Lindzen conservatively estimates 0.8C warming and then notes the likely number is less. There will therefore not be catastrophic warming.

    In fact 0.8C of warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 most of which will be at high latitudes will result in an expansion of the biosphere. (Crop yield at higher latitudes is limited by night temperatures and number of frost free days.)

    Catastrophic global warming requires positive feedback to amplify the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 3 to 5. If the feedback is negative as found by Lindzen and Choi the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 0.8C.

    Scientifically and logically if Lindzen and Choi finding is correct a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to another mechanism. I can if you are interested explain in detail with links to papers to explain what that other mechanism is. (Solar wind burst that create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions by Tinsley’s electroscavenging mechanism.)

    Are your aware that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlates with cosmogenic isotope changes? The cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by changes to the solar magnetic cycle which in turn changes the solar heliosphere. The solar heliosphere blocks and deflects galactic cosmic rays (mostly high velocity protons) that strike the earth’s atmosphere creating muons which then create massive numbers of cloud forming ions.

    Solanski’s comment that solar changes were likely not responsible for the 20th century warming even though solar activity was the highest in 10,000 years during the last 40 years of the 20th century and even thought there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes (smoking gun evidence that the sun is the cause of the cycles, the question then is what it the mechanism), is incorrect. Solanski’s comment is based on changes in TSI (total solar radiation) not electroscavenging.

    Solanski is correct changes in TSI did not a significant portion of the 20th century warming. Changes in planetary cloud cover which were caused by solar wind bursts did.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    “On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications

    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various
    criticisms are taken into account. ….

    ….we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise.

    … We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”

    This is a succinct explanation of why the extreme AGW science is based on a lie.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

    I see Realclimate has a comment with showing this graph. It should be noted the lack of warming logically supports Lindzen and Choi’s finding.

    “The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”

  62. Further explanation and support to my above comments.

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html

    Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000

    All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

    If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
    Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.

    William: This is good review paper if you are interested in the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary clouds. Note there is more than one mechanism. I see there was an incorrect comment at Realclimate that alleged that planetary clouds do not track GCR. Prior to 1997 planetary cloud cover tracked GCR with a 95% significance. Post 1998 solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions.

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate

    Observations of changes in cloud properties that correlate with the 11-year cycles in space particle fluxes are reviewed. The correlations can be understood in terms of one or both of two microphysical processes; ion mediated nucleation (IMN) and electroscavenging. IMN relies on the presence of ions to provide the condensation sites for sulfuric acid and water vapors to produce new aerosol particles, which, under certain conditions, might grow into sizes that can be activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Electroscavenging depends on the buildup of space charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds as the vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit encounters the increased electrical resistivity of the clouds. Space charge is electrostatic charge density due to a difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions. Calculations indicate that this electrostatic charge on aerosol particles can enhance the rate at which they are scavenged by cloud droplets. The aerosol particles for which scavenging is important are those that act as insitu ice forming nuclei (IFN) and CCN. Both IMN and electroscavenging depend on the presence of atmospheric ions that are generated, in regions of the atmosphere relevant for effects on clouds, by galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The space charge depends, in addition, on the magnitude of Jz. The magnitude of Jz depends not only on the GCR flux, but also on the fluxes of MeV electrons from the radiation belts, and the ionospheric potentials generated by the solar wind, that can vary independently of the GCR flux. The roles of GCR and Jz in cloud processes are the speculative links in a series connecting solar activity, the solar wind, GCR, clouds and climate. This article reviews the correlated cloud variations and the two mechanisms proposed as possible explanations for these links.

  63. William Astley says:
    March 24, 2012 at 10:01 am
    ……………
    When you are inputting wrong variable you are unlikely to get correct result. Sunspot number is subjective variable (10 for group + 1 for each spot, larger may get more) is in no way a correct measure, and anyway the Earth response is far more complex than just TSI, which for all practical purposes is constant.
    Far considering long term temperature changes, far more important is the solar magnetic output, fraction of which impacts the Earth, and is measured by number of geomagnetic indices; the maximum daily value of the Ap index is shown in here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm

    and it clearly shows degree of disparity with the SSN.
    Equatorial regions receive more or less constant amount of energy, regardless of the solar activity. If more of that energy is transferred pole-ward by the oceanic currents, less is radiated back to space from the equatorial and subequatorial regions; result = global warming. The opposite is true too, less energy moved pole-ward = global cooling.
    The intensity of oceanic circulation can be directly correlated to the sun-Earth magnetic link; as an example the next link shows what happens in the North Atlantic:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTCa.htm

    Once you consider correct variable you are more likely to get good result.

  64. This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony

    However, Monckton should be given a fair chance to debate his critics. Please don’t censor him. He is the best representative of science that genuine climate skeptics have. Let him show by example how to be genuinely dispassionate and logical. That way he can turn the tables on them.
    They’ve exposed themselves completely and now it will be easy for Monckton to swoop down on them and clean up. The man is utterly fearless and is always ready for a debate. Should be very interesting. Nobody understands the science like Monckton.

  65. [SNIP: Cedric, Anthony thanked you once for posting the Hadfield Video and stated his intention to not give any more space to Mr. Hadfield. Posting a different version of that video constitutes “giving space”. Please don’t do that. As a courtesy, I will e-mail your link to Anthony, but his hearing disability will likely render your second version no more intelligible than the first. -REP]

  66. Lightrain says:
    March 24, 2012 at 12:09 am
    WE CAN’T WIN!
    If the Warmistas can get any plans to lower CO2 approved and temperatures drop as Coolistas believe the Warmistas will claim that they’ve saved the world and there’ll be nothing we can do to stop this B$. We need a goal line stand long enough to see a significant drop in temperatures before they take credit where none is due.
    ————————————–
    If we cool off quickly, then the alarmism is diminished as well as the threat to ‘the children’ as it would show that the planet can cool off quickly and will not take hundreds to thousands of years as the warmists claim.

    Currently the mitigation strategies actually seem to have the effect of increasing emissions as for example backup generation is required when too many windmills begin to make up too much of the grid energy. It takes a lot of energy to create and replace all the infrastructure that the warmists claim must be destroyed and replaced, and that energy isn’t going to come from solar or wind, but from fossil fuels . Even the gigantic cement bases for the wind mills require emissions in their creation. So emissions are not going to be reduced much in the near future, so we get to continue to conduct the experiment to find the climate sensitivity to CO₂ forcing.

    If the level of CO₂ does reach a point where it is no longer rising, this means that one of the variables’ in trying to calculate the climate sensitivity becomes a constant, and it is much easier to do calculations than with varying, umm, variables. It might make it easier to calculate the equilibrium time of forcing to temperature as well.

    As you and I both know that the logarithmic nature of additional CO₂ means that we probably will not see the warming the warmists predict, and it is highly unlikely that the levels of CO₂ will not continue as they have been for decades, this will further help show that climate sensitivity is low if temperatures remain cool.

    Then there is the sea ice. I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see sea level extents get any lower than they did in the late summer of 2007 for the rest of this century, let alone have an ice free event.

    So there are so many ways that the warmists will not, and can not win. They just don’t know it yet.

  67. This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony
    ===========================================================================
    That’s a pity Anthony, Hadfield speaks rather highly of you in the video.

    [snip]

  68. Cedric and SPM,

    Hadfield was given several generous opportunities to disseminate his anti-Monckton propaganda here. His modus operandi amounts to a cowardly drive-by shooting, without ever manning up and facing the man he is accusing. That is because Peter Hadfield is a chicken. Is there any doubt? Even so, Anthony has allowed him to repeatedly post his one-sided, ad hominem attacks. Fine. He got the opportunity to do his multiple smears from the safety of his studio, where he hides out from any real debate with his tail between his legs.

    Peter Hadfield is clearly a coward who is afraid to face Lord Monckton in an honest, moderated debate. Hadfield is simply a chicken. And I am tired of concern trolls who carry Hadfield’s water for him, trying to get his propaganda posted here again and again. If the cowardly Peter Hadfield wants more publicity, he needs to face Lord Monckton in a real debate, where the whole world can watch it on YouTube and see Peter Hadfield’s nose being rubbed in the playground dirt.

    But the fact is that Hadfield is a chicken, and deathly afraid to debate Lord Monckton face to face. So you folks can go run along now to your thinly-trafficked echo chamber blogs, and complain that your chicken potholer isn’t being given even more free time on the internet’s Best Science & Technology site.

  69. Zeke Hausfather says:
    March 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Anthony,

    …. Speaking as someone who has started a tech company and is based in San Francisco, there is really no other place in the country that I would rather be located. Having talked to friends who are executives at both Facebook and Apple, there is no place they would rather be headquartered either.
    _____________________________________
    That is because none of you have bothered to look at The Research Triangle in NC with more Ph.D.s per capita then any other area in the USA. It is a lot less crowded with good highways and much lower land prices. It is also a very pretty state and very friendly. So give it a peek as well as looking at Texas Anthony. We moved here from the NH/MA border and are very happy we moved. I do NOT miss the traffic jams up north.

    2011 Accolades for Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill – Triangle Voted Best in the U.S. Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and neighboring Carrboro and Cary are frequent recipients of Best Places awards. The Triangle area has been placed first or within the top five for living, working, raising children, retiring, starting a company, having the most educated residents, being the foodiest small town in America and on and on… http://raleighdurham.about.com/od/citiesandneighborhoods/tp/2011-Accolades-For-Raleigh-Durham-And-Chapel-Hill.htm

    http://www.rtp.org/

    http://raleighdurham.about.com/od/VisitRaleighDurhamChapelHill/u/Things-To-Know-About-Living-In-Raleigh-Durham-And-Chapel-Hill.htm

  70. Matt says:
    March 23, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Well, yesterday I found out that Monckton is a birther…
    ________________________________
    Mud slinging and nothing to do with the topic.

  71. rogerkni says:
    March 24, 2012 at 9:09 am
    Unless Obama resigns — then he’ll gain credibility on climate issues. Take a look at this:

    “For the past couple of years, Vice President Joe Biden has quietly assembled an A-team of advisers who would, without doubt, be considered the nucleus of a presidential campaign ….
    _________________________________
    I think it is Hillary Clinton that is more likely to sucessfully challenge Obama than Biden. As Sec. of State she now has the political clout she was lacking in 2008. I think Obama has become way too toxic to be run as the Democratic candidate. Heck he seems more interested in taking vacations and going on fund raising trips than acting as president. Since he is the executive he acts thru his cabinet yet he only met with them 12 times in the first two years!

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/president_obama_year_in_numbers_gmxQqJMk9n4XBqb3OzBsnN

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/obamas-numbers-vacations-16-golf-90-fundraisers-100/326531

  72. chrisd3,

    What color is the sky on your planet? Here on earth it’s blue, and here the term “climate change” has taken over, particularly from the original scare term: “runaway global warming”.

    BTW, there is extremely strong evidence that the planet’s warming since the LIA is entirely natural. There has been no accelerated warming, as was widely predicted. That’s why it’s called “climate change” now. That nebulous term covers everything and explains nothing.

    • @smokey:

      I showed you the data. Go argue with Google. Point out that their computers are counting words incorrectly, or whatever your argument is.

  73. chrisd3,

    Your chart confirms exactly what I wrote, that the worthless term “climate change” has taken over from “global warming” — which at least is a natural explanation of a real event since the LIA, and thus not caused by CO2 to any measurable degree.

    Now, about my point that there has been no accelerated warming. I take it your silence is concurrence.

    • @smoky:

      Um, what the chart shows is that there has been very little difference in the usage of the two terms, going all the way back to 1970. In fact, “global warming” was only used more than “climate change” for the brief period from 1989 to 1996, and then only by a very slight margin.

      I have no idea how you can look at that chart and see anything different.

      As for the rest, no, the only inference you can make is that I ignored the parts of your comment that had nothing to do with what I said.

  74. Smokes,

    There’s no point taking it any further. Your blind devotion to Monckton clearly precludes you from making any rational comment.

    People like Monckton and yourself do your cause no good whatsoever.

    Cheers.

  75. Gail Combs says:
    [SNIP: Roger, I’m really very sorry, but this conversation is heading into areas Anthony really does not want discussed at WUWT and which violates site policy. Please stick with the topic of the thread. -REP]

  76. Smokey says:

    March 25, 2012 at 5:26 am

    Hi Smokey,

    Could you please quote some of the ad hominem attacks you are talking about please? I wasn’t aware of any, just the ones from Monckton.

    Also it seems that Monckton is the coward running away from the debate based on his email to Peter on the 22nd of March:

    “I am on a very busy tour and will be still more busy when I return to the UK, so I do not know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities and, while I try to accommodate them, other priorities must sometimes come first”

    Perhaps your post would read better as:

    “Monckton was given several generous opportunities to disseminate his anti-Hadfield propaganda here. His modus operandi amounts to a cowardly drive-by shooting, without ever manning up and facing the man he is accusing. That is because Monckton is a chicken. Is there any doubt? Even so, Anthony has allowed him to repeatedly post his one-sided, ad hominem attacks. Fine. He got the opportunity to do his multiple smears from the safety of his studio, where he hides out from any real debate with his tail between his legs.

    Monckton is clearly a coward who is afraid to face Hadfield in an honest, moderated debate. Monckton is simply a chicken. And I am tired of concern trolls who carry Monckton’s water for him, trying to get his propaganda posted here again and again. If the cowardly Monckton wants more publicity, he needs to face Lord Monckton in a real debate, where the whole world can watch it on YouTube and see Monckton’s nose being rubbed in the playground dirt ”

    Just a thought…

  77. SteveE,

    I am not going to go through all of potholer’s propaganda videos again to pick out his ad hominem attacks for you. Assign your homework to someone else. If you think potholer was being fair, that is your biased opinion. I think the rest of us know better.

    Lord Monckton is not always right. No one is. But it is a verifiable fact that none of the alarmist crowd, including your chicken Peter Hadfield, will man up and debate Monckton. Instead, they take cheap potshots from the safety of the internet rather than engaging in a formal debate. Thus they are cowards, no? If no, then let’s get that debate going.

    Hadfield was generously given the first opportunies to attack Lord Monckton, after he continuously sniveled to Anthony for exclusive time on WUWT to present his propaganda. As any normal person can see, it was an ad hominem attack on the person, not a discussion of the science.

    Hadfield was the challenger. As expected, he played dirty. But since Hadfield was given the opportunity for the first challenge, he now presumes that he has the right to set the terms of any and all future debates. Apparently, so do you. But fair play does not work that way.

    A formal debate is a verbal duel, with a specific scientific debate Question proposed, which is then debated in a moderated setting with fair and equal rules applying to both sides. Each side has an equal opportunity to speak. Hadfield cannot use his ad hominem video attacks in a real debate. Anthony gave him his chances. Now, it is Lord Monckton’s turn to set the debate agenda. If Hadfield refuses, it is only because he is a chicken – just like every alarmist from Mann down to the lowly Hugh Pepper. They are all terrified of debating Lord Monckton. Their pathetic reasons for hiding out from debates are really just lame excuses to hide their fear of losing the debate. That makes them cowards, no? They are afraid to debate. Potholer is afraid to debate, and you are carrying his water for him.

    Since potholer was the challenger and thus had the first opportunities to take his best shots, basic fairness requires that this time Lord Monckton has the right to choose the debate setting. The rules of the duel [#16] require that as the challenged party, Lord Monckton now has the choice of weapons. Formal debate has been his choice in the past, but Hadfield like ther rest of the alarmist crowd is a chicken, afraid to engage in a real, honest, moderated debate.

    Your failed attempt to paint the one being challenged as one who will not engage is due to the obvious fact that neither you, nor potholer, nor Mann, nor anyone else in the climate alarmism crowd has the stomach to go into a formal debate over the science with someone who kicks their sorry asses every time.

    Hadfield had multiple chances to mount his attacks. Monckton then responded. As the one challenged, Monckton now has the right to set the debate agenda as his weapon of choice. And you know what? The alarmist chickens are scurrying away as usual, squawking their impotent excuses over their shoulders as they run and hide from a real debate. If I’m wrong, let’s set up a real debate between Hadfield and Lord Monckton. The gauntlet is down. Now we will see who the real coward is. Does potholer have the stones for a real debate? Or is he exactly what I say he is: a chicken.

  78. Smokey,

    You are clearly deluding yourself.

    “Hadfield was generously given the first opportunies to attack Lord Monckton, after he continuously sniveled to Anthony for exclusive time on WUWT to present his propaganda. As any normal person can see, it was an ad hominem attack on the person, not a discussion of the science.”

    This was the article published here on WUWT where Monckton responses to Peter’s video. Can’t exactly see how even you can argue that Hadfied was given the first opportunity on here given that Monckton wrote an article called: Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″

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

    If you could please link to the personal attack that you claim was presented by Peter on WUWT that would really clear this matter up.

    However I somehow feel that you’ll be acting like the Lord in not wanting to provide sources to your claim because you know that you can’t.

  79. SteveE,

    You keep trying to assign me homework. Sorry, but you are too impotent to be able to do that. If you believe that potholer’s videos are not ad hominem attacks, then it is you who are deluded.

    Peter Hadfield sniveled continuously to Anthony to let him mount his attack on Monckton. Anthony finally agreed, and Hadfield attacked as expected; so he was the challenger.

    As the challenged party, Monckton now has the right to choose the next debate setting, because the last challenge was done by potholer. Since you are carrying water for your cowardly pothole, maybe you can explain exactly why he is so terrified of a science debate with Monckton, where he cannot resort to his usual ad-hom attacks. In a fair and equal debate setting, Hadfield is clearly a coward. If not, he needs to man up and face Monckton in a real debate. But we all know he won’t; he’s a chicken.

    All the excuses given for hiding out from a real debate are due to Hadfield’s cowardice. If I’m wrong, then let’s have that formal debate, for all the world to see. But it will never happen, will it? Because when it comes to the central issue – science – the alarmist crowd loses the debate. Thus they resort to personal attacks by chickens. If I’m wrong, let’s have that debate.

  80. Smokey

    The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, otherwise it’s meaningless.

    I have given you the sources that prove my point, you have so far failed to provide yours.

    I guess that means you lose.

  81. “This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony”
    The ‘skeptics’ always want a debate… until they start getting their but kicked.

    Watts and friends running from verifiable facts as always.

  82. SteveE,

    You are still avoiding the central fact: Hadfield is too chicken to debate Lord Monckton. Nothing will make him any less chicken, except agreeing to a real debate.

    Wake me when Hadfield adds his name to your list of losers here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/16/help-settle-the-renewable-energy-debate-at-the-economist

    http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070316_notcrisis.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under

    Unlike Hadfield, at least they were willing to give it their best shot. Gavin Schmidt preposterously blamed the loss of his debate against Michael Crichton on the fact that Crichton was taller. Your pathetic excuses for Hadfield avoiding a real debate are just as preposterous.

    We all know now that Hadfield is too chicken to go up against Monckton in a real debate. He is no different than Abraham, Sinclair, Schmidt, Gore, Mann, you, or any other deluded alarmists. Every one of you runs and hides out from a real, moderated debate with your tails tucked between your quivering hind legs. There’s no hiding the fact that you want to set the agenda for another drive-by ad-hom propaganda attack by pothole, because you know you would lose in a real, honest debate.

    The reason you would lose is the same reason the alarmist crowd loses the debate here: you make endless predictions that all fail under scrutiny, you have no testable evidence to support your CAGW conjecture, and the ultimate Authority — the planet itself — is falsifying your entire narrative. So you try to frame the issue into a completely phony non-debate. It’s not a debate, son. It’s a cherry-picked propaganda hit piece.

    This issue will always come back to the central fact: Peter Hadfield is a coward who can dish it out, but he can’t take it. He chickens out from a real debate. He hides out, like he’s hiding out right now. He cannot credibly defend his refusal to debate, after he has been given ample opportunity to practice his character assassination on his terms. But he won’t take part in a legitimate debate because he’s a chicken. Why are you carrying water for a chicken?

    . . .

    dolormin,

    Like SteveE you suffer from psychological projection. Look at the links above. Your side got their butts kicked in every debate. So now you cheer from the sidelines and pretend that pothole’s cherry-picked video propaganda is a real debate. It is not, it is just an ad-hom hit piece. That makes you just another impotent defender of the pothole chicken. Get this: Hadfield is the one who is running away from a real debate. What’s your lame excuse for that?? Keep in mind that anything but “Hadfield is afraid of a real debate” is just an excuse. It must suck to try and prop up a chicken like Hadfield who is afraid to debate.

    • @smokey:
      Science isn’t debated on a stage. It’s debated in the literature, where there is time to reflect, review the evidence, and prepare real responses. Oxford-style debates are sporting events. They’re a test of debating skills. They were never intended to ferret out the truth. That is not their purpose, and it never has been.

  83. chrisd3 says:

    “Science isn’t debated on a stage.”

    Wrong again. Science is debated everywhere, based on verifiable, testable facts and empirical measurements. Scientists such as Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel and Richard Somerville, to name only a few, have been participants in science debates like this one. As in most such debates, the audience was polled both before and after the debate. Before the debate the majority believed in the global warming crisis. Following the debate, the majority had switched to not agreeing that global warming is a crisis.

    That is happening on a global scale, thanks to WUWT and its lightly moderated, uncensored debate threads: readers can see both sides of the issues and make up their minds. As a result, the public is beginning to realize that CAGW is a complete scam. Even more importantly, people are beginning to understand that CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas at current and projected levels, and that more of it is beneficial to the biosphere, and that a warmer planet is a net benefit. Thus, debate is essential for getting the truth out. And that is why the alarmist side will no longer debate.

    Scientific debates are intended to ferret out the truth. That is the purpose of scientific debate. The truth is decided by the scientific facts presented. Albert Einstein engaged in running debates for years with some of his peers. Compare real science debates with the anti-science video propaganda emitted by Peter Hadfield. Those are just hit pieces manufactured by a coward who runs away from a real debate. Hadfield is a chicken, and that fact needs to be pointed out every time the potholer issue comes up.

    • The point, dear Smokey, is that no scientific theory has ever been, or will ever be, either refuted or confirmed on a stage. That simply does not, and will not, happen. The real debate is in the literature. Stage debates may be informative (or not) and entertaining (or not), but they are not part of the scientific process. No theory will ever be discarded because some guy lost a stage debate.

  84. chrisd3 says:

    “…no scientific theory has ever been, or will ever be, either refuted or confirmed on a stage.”

    How would you know that? Prior to WWII there was nothing like today’s peer review system, which is now big business and extremely political. There is not much debate in the litrutchur, either. Read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion [available on the right sidebar], and you will see how thoroughly corrupt and intimidated the climate journal pal-review system is. There is very little debate allowed in climate journals, as this factual account of a professor of physics trying to get a simple Comment published makes very clear.

    And to correct your statement: no scientific theory will ever be confirmed. Every conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law is subject to falsification. Further, CO2=AGW is a conjecture; a scientific opinion; debates are also scientific opinions. Be honest, the only reason you’re trying to hair-split regarding science debates is because the alarmist crowd loses the debates.

    Which brings us back to Mr Hadfield, who is too afraid to debate the man he attacked in his cherry-picked, unscientific videos. Hadfield had his opportunity. Now it’s Monckton’s choice of venue. But faced with a real debate, Hadfield chickens out. Despicable, no?

  85. Oh, Smokey, Smokey Smokey, their is an open invitation for Monkton to return to the debate and offer sources of what he claims, yet somehow you see an entirely different picture. You say you refuse to do homework and it shows by your lack of verifiable proof for any of your claims whilst Peter takes the time to show exactly where he sourced everything so you can easily go prove him wrong if you feel he has misrepresented his position, If you feel your position is unassailable what harm is there in actually checking the sources apart from a fear of finding out you are, in fact, delusional.

  86. Damn, there not their. One more point, it was Monkton who when asked to return to the debate said he would not be doing so. Who backed out ? Like to see your spin on that smokey.

  87. Smokey says:

    March 26, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Since you have failed once again to back up your claims with any sources or evidence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are false.

    If you would like to return to the debate and back up your claims that would be great, however if you are unable to do that them I’m afraid you have lost.

    Better luck next time.

  88. Smokey says:

    “Which brings us back to Mr Hadfield, who is too afraid to debate the man he attacked in his cherry-picked, unscientific videos. Hadfield had his opportunity. Now it’s Monckton’s choice of venue. But faced with a real debate, Hadfield chickens out. Despicable, no?”

    Again, care to back this up at all with sources or evidence?

    The only person I’ve seen chickening out is Monckton with his email to Peter:

    “I am on a very busy tour and will be still more busy when I return to the UK, so I do not know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities and, while I try to accommodate them, other priorities must sometimes come first”

    It’s Peter who is asking Monckton to return to the debate in his “Potholer’s Open Letter To Christopher Monckton”

  89. @smokey:

    How would you know that?

    Because I’ve studied science for half a century, and I understand how it works.

    And to correct your statement: no scientific theory will ever be confirmed. Every conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law is subject to falsification.

    Which is why I said “confirmed” and not “proved.” Normally I wouldn’t even use that lesser word, but sometimes when speaking to those who don’t seem to have a firm grasp on science it’s easier. I have spent more hours of my life than I care to think about trying to explain to so-called “skeptics” why their protests that “AGW is just an unproven theory!!!!” are meaningless.

    CO2=AGW is a conjecture; a scientific opinion

    No, it’s a theory. Just like gravity, evolution, relativity, and the germ theory of disease.

    Be honest, the only reason you’re trying to hair-split regarding science debates is because the alarmist crowd loses the debates.

    No, I already explained why stage debates on science are worthless. Perhaps you weren’t listening. I’ll say it again. Stage debates are a contest of debating skills, not a search for truth. The winner is the side that debates better, not the side with the correct facts.

  90. And of course the reason why Monkton is afraid of an ongoing online debate is because, unlike a live debate in which he can make any number of untrue claims which other contestents have no way of verifying at the time, his adversary can go away, check his ‘facts’ and come back with evidence if the ‘facts’ don’t check out (As they usually don’t, as already demonstrated by Hadfield)

    • @JonBo:

      unlike a live debate in which he can make any number of untrue claims which other contestents have no way of verifying at the time

      Precisely. This is one of the primary reasons why live debates on science are of no scientific value at all. They may (or may not) be entertaining, but they are certainly not dispositive. I’ve been attempting to explain this to “Smokey”, with little apparent success. Winning a live debate does not mean that the facts are on your side. It means you’re a better debater, and nothing more.

  91. JonBo says:
    March 27, 2012 at 5:08 am

    And of course the reason why Monkton is afraid of an ongoing online debate is because, unlike a live debate in which he can make any number of untrue claims which other contestents have no way of verifying at the time, his adversary can go away, check his ‘facts’ and come back with evidence if the ‘facts’ don’t check out (As they usually don’t, as already demonstrated by Hadfield)
    ______________________________________
    OH?

    Then I guess this Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ – plus Hadfield’s response and this Update on the Monckton – Hadfield debate must come from an alternate universe.

    EPIC FAIL!

    Must of us here at WUWT do check our facts and sometimes get into a rousing good debate. This one is an excellent example Unfortunately you are a fine example of those who spout off WITHOUT checking their facts first.

  92. [snip. You are posting as “hmm” and “geez” as screen names. Please follow site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  93. JoeyBB,

    Please don’t assign me your homework. The fact is that Hadfield pestered Anthony to be allowed to post his ad hominem attacks on Monckton, and Anthony agreed. Fair enough.

    But now by the rules of fair play, Monckton has the right to demand that Hadfield must debate him in a formal, moderated debate.

    Hadfield declined, confirming his status as a chicken. Defend the cowardly Hadfield all you want, but he is still a chicken who will not debate.

  94. I don’t believe this. Why are you removing all my comments? The anonymous moderator should send me an e-mail and explain what’s going on. I’m considering e-mailing Mr. Watts about this. Surely he does not condone such blanket censorship.

    [Reply: The moderator is not anonymous. I am dbstealey. Feel free to email Anthony your complaints. Until then I suggest that you read and abide by site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  95. Seriously Smokey you need to learn the meaning of ad hominem before using it, Peter has done what Monkton says you should do and check the source of his claims and found that he has grossly misrepresented the facts on just about every key point Monkton presents, note that, key points. Now since you refuse to do “homework” how can anything you say be held as valid apart from your “say it is so, repeatedly so thus it must be”, mantra.

  96. chrisd3,

    Scientific debates have value. Oxford Union has hosted their debates since the 1800’s. You just don’t like the fact that the alarmist side loses all the debates.

    Maybe this will help.

    • @Smokey:

      I’m thoroughly bored with telling you over and over again why scientific debates serve no scientific purpose. At this point I can only assume that you’re just not listening, so this conversation, if you can call it that, is at an end..

      Have a nice day.

  97. Ted,

    If Monckton “grossly misrepresented the facts on every key point” as you claim, then that would come out in a debate, no? But Hadfield is too chicken to debate, so the point is moot.

  98. Again saying Hadfeild refuses to debate over and over does not make it true, Hadfeild came here , into the lions den, and presented his side and Monkton said he was going to respond, we are still waiting, now who is refusing to debate who? If Monkton’s position is so unassailable why does he not return?

  99. Ted says:

    “Again saying Hadfeild [sic] refuses to debate over and over does not make it true…”

    Then get the cowardly chicken to debate. All pothole has done is attack. But he is too cowardly to get into a real, honest debate. He is a chicken, and Monckton is right to ignore him. I wouldn’t give the chicken the time of day after his one-sided, ad hominem attacks. And now he hides out. Where is he, and why are you carrying the chicken’s water for him? You can’t even spell his name and you’re acting like a big brother protecting a chicken little brother who’s afraid to fight.

    . . .

    chrisd3,

    Thank you for your opinion. Run along now.

    • OK this thread is just devolving into tit for tat attack language, and frankly I’m fed up with it all. Thread closed.

Comments are closed.