Monckton gets evicted from Doha COP18 conference

UPDATE: Monckton is being deported from Qatar. Such a show of tolerance from the “tolerant left” who do these sorts of stunts all the time (sometimes illegally). Monckton has been ‘de-badged’, meaning he no longer has a visa to stay in Qatar and had 24 hours to leave the country.

UPDATE2: Monckton says “I was very bad” see below. We now have video. There doesn’t seem to be any “booing” after his statement as asserted by the press reports, and his statement was more than a sentence as reported.

UPDATE3: Monckton gives his account here

An excerpt from an E &E Newswire story

After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president’s assessment of how close countries are to agreement, Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.

“In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world’s top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.

As Monckton was escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his U.N. credentials, several people noted that just a few hours earlier a group of young activists had been thrown out of the convention center and deported. Their crime: unfurling an unauthorized banner calling for the Qatari hosts to lead the negotiations to a strong conclusion.

By late today, several activists attending the conference had posted calls to “deport Monckton” on their Twitter feeds

Full story:

Inhofe, Monckton crash U.N. talks with gusto

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, December 6, 2012

http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/print/2012/12/06/2

h/t Marc Morano

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

Lord Monckton claims victory over climate change scare stories – Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthvideo/9728622/Lord-Monckton-claims-victory-over-climate-change-scare-stories.html

Excerpt:

Earlier in the week he appeared in a video promoted by US lobby group the Committee on a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) riding a camel to promote a “different perspective” of the talks.

The two-week meeting, due to end on Friday is deadlocked on modest goals such as aid and an extension of an existing UN-led plan to combat climate change into 2013.

The European Union, Australia, Ukraine, Norway, Switzerland are the main backers of Kyoto who are willing to extend legally binding cuts in emissions beyond 2012 until 2020.

But they account for less than 15 per cent of world emissions.

Russia, Japan and Canada have pulled out, saying it makes no sense to continue when big emerging nations led by China and India have no binding goals.

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

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9728866/British-peer-ejected-from-UN-climate-talks-for-denouncing-protocol.html

[Monckton] has been banned for life from UN climate talks.

Speaking afterwards, he said he was acting on the “spur of the moment”.

“I don’t think it was my turn to talk, but the opportunity presented itself and I took it,” he said.

“I was very bad – I pressed the button and made a short statement.”

“I know it was bad of me, but I got some brief points across which the delegates probably didn’t expect.

“They have now taken my badge, but it’s not the end of the world.”

VIDEO:

About these ads

373 thoughts on “Monckton gets evicted from Doha COP18 conference

  1. You just have to love him don’t you.

    Christopher Monckton, adaptable and action oriented. Using the opposition tactics with good effect. Just the kind of guy you need in your corner.

    You go Lord M.

  2. Jolly well done your Lordship. I would have loved to see the look on their faces when confronted by someone actually telling the truth

  3. This could actualy backfire a bit. Until now, no one in the entire world even knew that there was a climat summit in Doha. But this story is hitting the MSM, and people may take notice. Also, doesn’t really help his credibility.

  4. Way to go, Lord Monckton! Good on you. Let’s hope that at least some in that crowd actually dare to wonder and maybe even – shock – question. I know, I know, too much to hope for, but that ripple of confusion is a start. Head scratching comes next. Some might dare to peek at real data (not that they would ever tell anyone, of course). Monckton is a fantastic human being. I love his strength of spirit.

  5. “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

    The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world’s top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.

    Ah yes, the steady rise that stopped 16 years ago. No wonder those murmurs were confused.

  6. Censorship of opposing scientific views is essential to keep the idiocracy up and running.

    Lord Monckton’s small rebellion caused me to click on Climate Depot, something I haven’t done in a long time. Anyone else who did the same thing as a result of this story would see plenty of news and information contradicting the UN climate alarmist crowd.

    So kudos to Lord Monckton. Publicity is good. This was almost as entertaining as his parachute landing. ☺

  7. …and thus the entire climate debate can be summarized:

    UN: The world is coming to an end!
    Monckton: Good news! Turns out it isn’t!
    UN: Boo!

  8. Anthony: Now that the “Sea Ice Substantially Disappears” clock has run out, can we get a clock counting up “Time without warming?” Would love to see that 16 years as it grows…

  9. Fantastic news that he was thrown out and booed. It was a forum for the grown ups. Not for right wing lobbyists protecting funding for conservatives. No doubt the anti vaccers also get outraged at their chosen one getting booted out of science forums, or intelligent design nutters getting booted out of biology or geology discussions. There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas, just not in science.

  10. Mike says:

    December 6, 2012 at 11:29 am
    What an unbelievable ass.

    Only unbelievable if you’re willing to deny the truth, Mike, which is obviously what you’re doing.

    Monckton’s statement is very believable–there has been no significant warming in 16 years. The fact that COP18 would kick him out speaks volumes on their regard of the truth!

    And I’ll spell it out to you, Mike, you ignorant, classless, misguided and facinorous dude: Anthropogenic Global Warming is FALSE. Earth has just proved it to you. Gaia has just spat in your face and caught you and yours in the biggest, boldest, most expensive and destructive LIE ever perpetrated on mankind.

    So respond, Mike: Show everybody how destitute is your logic, how overblown is your conceit, and how evil is your intent.

    I can’t wait.

  11. Mike:

    At December 6, 2012 at 11:29 am your post says in total

    What an unbelievable ass.

    I agree that you are, but I have a question. Why do you want to proclaim it?

    Richard

  12. MIke,

    Personally I never noticed the shape of His Lordship’s behind, but if you find it attractive, you certainly are free to express that there, I suppose.

  13. This is what happens when you tell people the inconvenient truth. What’s to boo? Did he lie? They say the truth hurts and here it was illustrated.

  14. The Doha conference and all the previous conferences are like a conflab of a church. Roman Catholics would not be happy if someone suddenly told the gathering that there is nothing to support a belief in the virgin birth or transsubstantiation, and they would react in exactly the same way as did the delegates to the Doha conference, with booing, eviction, etc. It just goes to show that those at both types of conference are “true believers” who are not to be dissuaded from their beliefs.

    IanM

  15. Had to happen sooner or later. I suppose the illustrious delegates to his right & left were beside themsves with anger, for hearing his lordship utter such blasphemy!
    He should now concentrate on doing something REALLY mischievous and get himself put in prison. Then he could hold a hunger strike to draw attention to global temperature stagnation!

    Kurt in Switzerland

  16. Worth every character of a tweet:

    #cop18 “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming” hooray for #Monckton Hero #climatechange

  17. Hats off to Lord Monckton. Reality is reality. Observations do not support the extreme warming paradigm.

    It is amazing that the AGW media circus continues unabated when there is no scientific support for extreme AGW.

    Western countries do not have billions of tax dollars to spend on green scams. It will be interesting to watch for the tipping point in the media.

  18. brians356 says:

    “MIke,

    Personally I never noticed the shape of His Lordship’s behind, but if you find it attractive, you certainly are free to express that there, I suppose.”

    I think Christopher Monkton might start to get worried!

    Well Mike whatever rocks your boat.

  19. So if we adopt their methods of ‘science with no dispute’ I guess we should give up the airplane, space flight and evolution; after all, they were all regarded as ‘impossible’ by consensus.

  20. Mind you, Kurt, Monckton would NOT want himself to end up in a Qatari prison. Another cause to ponder the UNFCCC choice of Qatar as a venue….their human rights record is likely not squeaky clean.

  21. What are you guys going on about? You’ve already won. There will be no decisive action on climate change for at least another generation. The politicians have been paralyzed. Mission accomplished.

  22. climatetruthinitiative says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:49 am
    The Doha conference and all the previous conferences are like a conflab of a church. Roman Catholics would not be happy……..

    I’m not aware that Roman Catholics are interested in a Global Taxation of CO2 emmissions or any other inducement or imposition on non-members. Bad analogy based on bigotry.

  23. It is up on Drudge, which means that if it has not gone viral, it soon will. Anthony may have the most viewed climate website, but it still pales in comparison to what Drudge delivers. I think that Lord Monkton has done exactly the right thing at the right time to shine a light on what is going on at Doha. It is the sort of publicity that is needed in the absence of competent media coverage.

  24. Phil M says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Fantastic news that he was thrown out and booed. It was a forum for the grown ups. Not for right wing lobbyists protecting funding for conservatives. No doubt the anti vaccers also get outraged at their chosen one getting booted out of science forums, or intelligent design nutters getting booted out of biology or geology discussions. There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas, just not in science.

    Only “fantastic news” if you reject science, Phil, which is obviously what you’re doing.

    Monckton was the only grownup in the assembly, Phil—a forum attended only by children who, like you, would rather ignore the fact that the earth hasn’t warmed significantly in 16 years.

    And I’ll spell it out to you, Phil (just like I did for Mike), you ignorant, classless, misguided and facinorous dude: Anthropogenic Global Warming is FALSE. Earth has just proved it to you. Gaia has just spat in your face and caught you and yours in the biggest, boldest, most expensive and destructive LIE ever perpetrated on mankind.

    So respond, Phil: Show everybody how destitute is your logic, how overblown is your conceit, and how evil is your intent.

    I can’t wait.

  25. Mods,
    For a second I thought I was reading HuffPo. It is really disappointing to read comments like brians356 above. On a quality blog like this, I expect this kind of juvenile talk to be filtered out. You diminish the quality of your site by allowing it.

    Ock

    [Reply: WUWT moderates with a light touch, and we don’t censor like most of the alarmist blogs do. Readers can make up their own minds about the value of comments, and critically respond if they like. — mod.]

    [Reply: Had to look up the comment. Not seeing an issue. Play on words instead of an attack. Humor instead of anger. I’d let it through. ( A couple of the others were more rude and I’d have left them for a more experienced hand to decide…) -ModE ]

  26. Heartland conducts conferences and invites ‘alarmists’, and unfortunately, most don’t accept, but i believe 1 or 2 have come, and they were treated with respect for their view.
    Go to the UN and speak against it and you are tossed out….
    Yes indeed, the UN stands for what?

  27. Well he is [too] old to scale a building and hang a sign a la greenpeacers, so this a very age appropriate protest that must make more than a few Eco protesters think he played the game very well.

  28. What a jerk. There are standards of civil behavior.

    Since the science is clear – there is no reason to stoop to the “activist” level.

    Since the above link is paywalled, might I suggest a well written piece by Monckton of Arabia. Writing articles like this is the way to deal with the climate deniers (ie, those who accept the UN IPCC reports and deny the science), not getting thrown out of the proceedings.

  29. Phil M says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Fantastic news that he was thrown out and booed. It was a forum for the grown ups. Not for right wing lobbyists protecting funding for conservatives. No doubt the anti vaccers also get outraged at their chosen one getting booted out of science forums, or intelligent design nutters getting booted out of biology or geology discussions. There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas, just not in science.

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

    Monckton says temperature hasn’t risen in 16 years. You counter that he’s a “right wing lobbyists protecting funding for conservatives.” Nice! Ad hominem and non sequitur together!

  30. Thanks for saying exactly what I would have said Lord Monkton! It takes a real man to stand up in the midst of liars and fools and thieves stealing from nations for their own personal idiocy. Truth speaks in their midst and not one of them had the courage to demand he be allowed to speak. That is what courage is all about. Thank you, sir! You have my respect!

    Mike, truth isn’t very welcome in your world, is it buddy? I pity you.

  31. IanM, I think it’d be more appropriate to associate AGW or CAGW with other man-made religions like the cargo cult. I think there’s far more in common using this comparison.

    (MikeP … NOT Mike)

  32. climatetruthinitiative says:

    December 6, 2012 at 11:49 am
    The Doha conference and all the previous conferences are like a conflab of a church. Roman Catholics would not be happy if someone suddenly told the gathering that there is nothing to support a belief in the virgin birth or transsubstantiation, and they would react in exactly the same way as did the delegates to the Doha conference, with booing, eviction, etc. It just goes to show that those at both types of conference are “true believers” who are not to be dissuaded from their beliefs.

    Tell me when the Catholic Church plans on imposing a global tax and I’ll get worried about that religion.

  33. The good thing about this is that the skeptic voice has been heard, the alarmists would like to pretend we don’t exist, how wrong they are.

  34. Fantastic news that he was thrown out and booed. Indeed. The kind of publicity you can’t buy.

    It was a forum for the grown ups. Not for right wing lobbyists protecting funding for conservatives. It’s become a forum for left-wing lobbyists protecting funding for watermelons…

    There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas, just not in science. Indeed. That forum is full of left-wing nutters pushing private agendas. I would go further than you, though and suggest that they should not be given any support at all…

  35. [My] guess is that Lord Monckton had accomplished pretty much all he intended to at Doha and decided to go out in a blaze of glory. At least this was pure civil disobedience with damage only to bureaucratic egos, not painting powerplant smokestacks.

  36. Whatever he said and did was probably the only watchable and rational thing said or done at Doha. The whole thing and the awful little eco creeps who seem to thrive at these things are just the most almighty yawn as far as I am concerned.

  37. Phil M says:

    December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am

    “Fantastic news that he was thrown out and booed. It was a forum for the grown up … There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas, just not in science.”

    *

    Which science is that, Phil?

  38. Gamecock @ December 6, 2012 at 12:15 pm.

    Look, I love cherries too. I used to love going down the up escalator when I was a kid too. Sensible people don’t buy into Monkton argument. It hasnt warmed in 16 years? OMG, you mean its got that high and stayed there? Yikes!

  39. Robert Clemenzi says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    What a jerk. There are standards of civil behavior.

    Since the science is clear – there is no reason to stoop to the “activist” level.

    Since the above link is paywalled, might I suggest a well written piece by Monckton of Arabia. Writing articles like this is the way to deal with the climate deniers (ie, those who accept the UN IPCC reports and deny the science), not getting thrown out of the proceedings.

    Standards of civil behavior?

    Do you accept the UN’s attempt at perpetrating their taxation and control over the earth’s population (which has already caused the deaths of untold millions) as “civil behavior”?

    Do you think activism has no impact (now that a great many “Warmistas” have heard about the 16-year pause in temperature rise for the first time because of Monckton’s uninvited announcement)?

    And do you really believe anybody attending COP18 would read ANYTHING written by Monckton?

    Those people don’t care about the science; they only care about tax and control and having big parties at their government’s expense.

    Time the clowns attending COP18 got a dose of reality–otherwise it simply continues to be one big repetitive circus–at our expense and to our demise.

  40. Pussy Riot upsets one overbearing establishment by protesting in the heart of their Church, Monckton upsets another by protesting in the heart of theirs. Good for him!

    (Er, I’m not sure he would approve of this analogy.)

  41. Robert Clemenzi said:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    What a jerk. There are standards of civil behavior.
    ————————————————————-
    Civil disobedience IS a standard of civil behavior.

    Maybe we should adopt the tactics of the left and occupy COP18. Well maybe not; the UN and their attack squads would not be as gentle as the US police were with our “occupiers”.

  42. Phil M,

    The temperature is “high” only because you are cherry-picking by measuring the recovery from the Little Ice Age — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,000 year Holocene. But the planet has been quite a bit warmer over the past 10,000 years, when CO2 levels were very low. How does that fit into your “carbon” belief system?

    Lord Monckton is right. Global warming stopped in the 1990’s. That pretty much destroys your alarmist narrative, doesn’t it? The truth is your enemy, and it is the enemy of the Doha cult.

  43. Were WUWT to need a more in-your-face icon, one of Colonel Nathan Jessup (A Few Good Men), red faced with spittle flying, while shouting “You can’t handle the truth!” would be spot on, not least for suggesting the skeptics posting here are of the Few Good Men.

  44. I fear we have lost sight of the fact that this is “CoP”, which means ‘Conference of Parties’.

    They gather each year to party, on someone else’s dime.

    We just CAN’T have anyone messing up the party with triffles, like actual “facts”, now, can we?

    Mark H.

  45. Well done to Christopher Monckton! I salute you, sir!

    Of course the good Viscount was fully-aware he’d get thrown out of the meeting – and I rather suspect that that was indeed the entire point. What better way to illustrate, with absolute clarity, how closed-minded and intolerant the ‘Conference of the Parties’ (CoP) actually is? Do they want to hear some awkward climate truth? No thanks! Just eject him from the building, preferably under armed guard. You honestly couldn’t make it up.

  46. @ climatetruthinitiative

    You bring up an interesting analogy with transubstantiation which like CAGW is not falsifiable. The blood and wine is supposedly changed but the change is not detectable through the senses. CAGW has the similar issue of not being observable.

  47. Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar

    Why wasn’t the delegation from Myanmar in its seat to hear the president’s assessment?

    I think we should be told.

  48. Once again, I think the entire sceptic universe must feel like reverse Cassandra’s when talking to warmists….we can say that the world is not going to end and repeat it over and over again complete with proof, and yet we are not believed. It does not matter how many times we point out how the warming slowed down and stopped recently and how that is impossible in the warmist land where CO2 drives everything…But in any event, for daring to speak the truth expect Monckton to be ostracized and insulted.

    Ironically, I did meet a warmist who thought of himself as like Cassandra….

  49. Phil M:

    In your post at December 6, 2012 at 12:33 pm you say

    It hasnt warmed in 16 years? OMG, you mean its got that high and stayed there? Yikes!

    Yes, it “stayed there” while atmospheric CO2 concentration continued its exponential rise.

    And the “committed warming” the IPCC predicted (n.b. predicted, not projected) as a result of greenhouse gases already in the system has not happened. That “committed warming” was predicted to 0.2deg.C per decade (+/-20%) averaged over the two decades from year 2000.

    If you were to remove your head from out of your nether regions then even you would be able to see what that says about the AGW-hypothesis.

    Richard

  50. Phil M: “…not in science”

    What on earth do YOU think science is? Science I learned about was an opportunity to listen to alternative explanations and opinions as to what is going on. To propose ideas, theories, and to make progress in knowledge. I was taught that progress via the scientific method depends upon the proposal of falsifiable theories. That is to say the only way of ensuring you are not going to be stuck down a dead-end blind alley is to hold to theories lightly, to embrace the idea that every theory may be found to be false, with new data, or updated analysis.

    Given that it only takes one contrary observation to place a theory in doubt, and a second independent observation to start nailing the lid on the coffin, every scientist worth the name must retain extreme humility to all who have differing opinions or experience.

    Imagine if you work in science and you miss that all important paper or article presenting evidence that disproves your theory, or you accidentally kick out the “nutter” who disagrees with you out from your back slapping conference. The cost of missing it will be devoting your life to a lost cause.

    This mistake has been made so many times it is not funny, even the greats are not immune to shooting themselves in the foot. Lord Kelvin used his prominent position in the Royal Society to slam down the notion that the Sun had any connection to the Earth, and in doing so hindered progress by 40 years. This began to be resolved when Maunder had to fight expected boos from his audience to present 20 years worth of carefully collated data. Sound familiar?

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2008/4/mistakes-were-made

    In conclusion, Phil M, I have had my views challenged and radically overturned at least 3 times in my life, when confronted with evidence, why should you expect immunity from challenge by blindly following the consensus view. History shows that the consensus is overturned every hundred years or so, what are the chances of you actually being right?

    From my own experience I can tell you that more than 95% of what you believe to be scientifically true is actually bunkum, there are more blind alleys out there than you can imagine. It is only a matter of time before the actual truth will prevai. What Monckton said was true and nothing you can say will change that. Perhaps learn to handle challenges to your entrenched position with little bit more grace.

  51. Bloody awesome – THANKYOU Lord Monckton! I distinctly remember a little interchange between L.M and radio broadcaster Alan Jones over here in Sydney some years ago:
    A.J: You have to keep a sense of humour in all of this don’t you.
    L.M: Yes, well, I’m having a blast Alan because the other side hasn’t got one.

    Indeed!

  52. He should have announced that the usual oil for food vouchers (or whatever we call the personal UN bribes these days, carbon credits perhaps) would not be slipped under their doors, owing to the lack of warming. That would have induced mass hysteria.

  53. This was expected. But in the final analysis it won’t matter. I have long been a contrarian, stating without equivocation that the Sun is responsible for global warming since 1980. The global warming regime will come to an end, according to my astrometeorological calculations, in 2017 and usher in a new, and very threatening climate change – Global Cooling.

    Doha 2012 is all about one thing and one thing only – MONEY.

    Even the United Nations former climate leader, Yvo de Boer, said that it was “completely unrealistic” for developing nations to ask and receive $60 billion in funding for ‘global warming climate adaptation.’ which is bogus from start to finish.

    De Boer, who was the leader the UN’s climate negotiations (2006-2010) recently told the Guardian newspaper about the $60 billion, – “It’s not going to happen, with developed countries in the financial state they’re in. We need to be realistic.”

    Money is the essential matter issue at Doha, scheduled to end on Friday, Dec. 7, 2012. The main problem is that the developing nations disagree over how to cut greenhouse gas emissions to meet the bogus “scientific warnings” of the threat of global warming. The poorer nations want major industrialized countries to agree to give them $60 billion at Doha, saying that it’s “interim” financing.

    They claim that they need the $60 billion because the poor nations have already pledged about $30 billion of what’s called “fast-start money” by year’s end. They add that they have also agreed to guarantee flows of $100 billion a year by 2020 despite the fact that there is zilch agreement (or logic for that matter) on just how to reach that $100 billion.

    Here’s what I say: It’s all a LIE. You see, despite all the high and mighty talk of throwing around tens of billions to poorer nations to cap their carbon emissions; asking these billions from industrialized nations – in a major global economic crisis – is NOT going to happen.

    Doha will turn out to be a bust – promises made – but none kept.

    Sure, there will be promises, promises, but it’s all a load of crap anyhow. Just like ‘man-made global warming.’ A total lie that has been and remains a global ponzi scheme from start to finish.

    Here’s the truth for those who are interested:

    Climate science has been restricted to just a few schools of thought: – 1) climate statistical trends 2) atmospheric circulation (short-range/near-term meteorology) and 3) global thermal energy distribution.

    Most people don’t know that the study of climate change impact on world populations began only relatively recently between historians, social scientists and climatologists.

    For instance, classical climatology was mainly concerned with the mere achieving of climate evidence. It really was not until 1968 when questions were seriously taken into account to define climate casual relationships.

    Yet, nearly 45 years later, climatologists are no nearer to provide even seasonal forecasting; so the debate on what causes ‘global warming’ has been relegated to a ideological economic/political cadre that has poisoned climate science with their madness.

    As a astrometeorologist I know that astronomic forces are the causes of all climate activity, change and weather on Earth. I forecasted numerous storms by astronomic climate and weather methodology, among them, the 2009-2011 ENSO with both El Nino and La Nina; the Fukushima earthquake; the 2012 Drought and the full moon superstorm Sandy to name just a few.

    I have also forecasted the coming arrival of a new climate regime – global cooling – which is much WORSE than global warming could ever be.

    One of the baffling things to me is how those who attempt to forecast and explain the mechanisms that force our world’s climate can blatantly discount the Sun and planets – all which live in space – including our Earth.

    Anyhow, what really has happened is that a only finite number of people are truly involved in honest climate research.

    The great remaining majority – including those attending Doha – are ideological careerists and ‘activists’ who do not and cannot forecast the weather, much less the longer-range climate.

    The U.S., the major leading scientific nation on our planet, still has but limited capability to accurately predict climate change conditions in advance – this, despite huge amounts of money that has been given to careerists and consumed over the last 20-30 years by outlandish ideologues who are unable to forecast even seasonal climate, much less the climate of the next 30 years.

    Anthony Watts and many members here have been sounding the alarm over the AGW bullshit.

    We know that those AGW careerists and the political hacks in governments are in it only for ego – and most of all – the free money. They have bought into the lie of man-made climate change: which simply CANNOT occur on Earth because of the laws of physics say so.

    That means anthropogenic global warming is an impossibility.

    But don’t let the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics stop the liars, cheats and AGW whores who have wasted resources and very valuable years spent on multi-million dollar super-computers and that model climate fantasies but cannot accurate forecast next month’s weather while the AGW careerist ideologues fly around the world to exotic and expensive locations getting fat off the general public’s hard-earned money spouting the lie of anthropogenic global warming.

    Those scientists who bought, hook, line and sinker in denying the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics while being complicit in propagating to the general public, governments, students and schoolchildren the outright lie of anthropogenic global warming are criminals. These are crimes worth punishing with outright dismissal and investigations into stealing money and falsifying scientific data for personal and professional gain.

    The AGW propaganda within your precious scientific community has caused a serious loss of credibility to climate science.

    Now, much of the public, thanks to those here on WUWT seriously have begin to question ‘man-made global warming.’ Of course Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 didn’t hurt opening up those dark dank AGW basement doors to more sunshine either.

    Scientists who have been engaged in personal/professional warfare in order to discredit those who do not fall into their AGW ideological-propaganda line are not to be trusted. What they are practicing is not Science.

    Any no amount of ‘credentials’ or journal ‘peer-reviewed’ ideological papers posing as ‘science’ will alter the laws of physics that govern our world.

    I will now tell you what will happen next and it is the truth according to my astrometeorological analysis of the climate years and decades to come. Please bear with me:

    As we approach the end of the 36-year (1980-2016) solar-caused phase of global warming (which was a good thing) we are nearing the beginning of a new climate regime – Global Cooling (a bad thing.)

    All the attention trying to make global warming a bad thing was nothing but a lie.

    Global warming has always been good for the Earth but global cooling never has been. The demise of many former empires have come about, not from invading armies but from climate change to global cooling. That is the truth.

    Under global cooling, which I have forecasted to begin at the end of this decade, last through the 2020s and peak in the 2030s; we will see the arrival of a new kind of neo-boreal age, that’s a ‘ice age.”

    The worst of this era is a span of 36-years in length more or less (2017-2053) and means cooler temperatures, less retained sunlight because of reflection of radiated sunlight to Earth’s ice/snow covered surface back out into space; cold, wet blasting storms, also, extending drought with major crop losses, flooding, famine and ill public health leading to rising mortality rates.

    It is not a pretty picture, global cooling.

    The social, political and geopolitical impacts of solar-forced climate change is real, but the lies of ‘man-made climate change’ has wasted many years and resources to ideological bullshit rather than toward significant infrastructure buildup and preparation for global cooling.

    This preparation is cost-effective. Even if I were wrong (and I am 110% certain that I am right) but even if global cooling did not arrive, the adjustments would be cost-effective because it is a far easier thing to deal with the shift to global cooling infrastructure than it is to believe in ‘global warming forever’ by gambling on the lie of AGW and then have a global cooling regime strike.

    It will be the precious AGW conventional scientific community and their ideological AGW cadres and activists who are to blame, but something tells me that they will not say they are sorry but will stick their heads into the sand and pretend (just as they continue to do with the laws of physics now) that global cooling doesn’t exist.

    But here’s the thing, the cold and wetter climate of global cooling will bite their AGW asses so hard, so blue and blue, that they will have no problem whatsoever in the years and decades to come in burning as much carbon sources as they possibly can to stay warm. Those poorer nations now trying to get their $60 billion at Doha will be screwed too. And you can’t eat money.

    They will come to see, experience and know – that in the final analysis – when the very dangerous climate change to global cooling makes our global atmosphere wetter and colder and when they are hungry, getting sick and shivering from the biting cold – that the very last thing on their minds will be saving the world from anthropogenic global warming.

    Here’s what they will do:

    They will light up those precious carbon-emitting coals of their as quickly as they can, so that they are able to cook up their small meals, heat up their water and coffee to keep their behinds warm. They will not have any trouble whatsoever in burning as much carbon sources as possible, because they will know – and certainly feel – that it is essential to their very survival.

    And they will pray – and pray very hard – for the return of global warming.

    -Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci

  54. Why did he pick Myanmar? As far as I know, they are not threatened by any imminent AGW-induced climate disaster. Was there no empty seat in the Maldives delegation section? Before they threw him out he also could have said:

    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no acceleration in sea-level rise and nobody is at risk of becoming submerged anytime in the foreseeable future”.

    See here.

    So of course before I posted this and made a fool of myself I decided to Google “Myanmar global warming threat” and got tons of hits — “About 5,810,000 results (0.21 seconds) “. See here .

    Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint to run all those Google data centers storing petabytes of Web information on “global warming threat” from human CO2 emissions? Is this like a positive feedback loop?

  55. It’s never a good idea to interrupt a gang of nattering nabobs of climate negativism while they are trying to figure out all the various ways of fleecing you. They don’t like it.

  56. “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”

    And on December 4, Marc Morano made the same point on CNN.

    To confirm the above, the November anomaly for RSS just came out and it dropped 0.1 from October to 0.195. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The negative slope for RSS is since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). The last month will not be updated until 6 hours from now on WFT, but it will be a bit more negative than -0.00029 per year. And with the ENSO Meter at 0.30, the December value will certainly raise the time to an even 16 years with no warming.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

  57. Phil M

    0.4C Plus or minus 0.2C and stayed there for 16 years is not warming! You are an absolute creXXXtino or have no science background whatsoever

  58. Heavens Lord M gets the comments, 60+ in about than 2 hours.

    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,” Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.”

    Kinda confirms that these people really are the ones in denial.

  59. I have always been and will be a Monckton fan. Great job! I forget where i heard it but it made so much sense. Religion is absent with so many people that global warming fills that void. They feel they are saving the world and with out their cause the planet will end. It makes them feel so good. They cant handle any different view.

  60. Charles Gerard Nelson says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:59 am
    Watch the MSM and how they handle this.
    When GreenPriest or Cardinal Hansen carry out their stunts they get mountains of free publicity.
    ===============================================================================
    I suspect that if they cover it at all, they’ll say he was evicted for slipping into a Myanmar’s chair. They’ll avoid quoting him at all cost.
    I’m sure he wasn’t the only one to slip into an empty chair. Others may have spoken from someone else’s chair. (If so, I hope he has a few of the names.) But I’m sure he was the only one speak “heresy”.

  61. vasper85 says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    What are you guys going on about? You’ve already won. There will be no decisive action on climate change for at least another generation. The politicians have been paralyzed. Mission accomplished.
    __________________________________
    Don’t Bet On It. A carbon tax is a really big juicy plum that has the World Bank and the UN salivating. It is also a plum national governments hurting from the economic crises are also eying. It took decades, starting in 1972, to set-up the scam. They are not going to give up without a really nasty fight.

    It is the behind closed doors deals that is the problem to watch out for.

  62. “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”
    No warming in 16 years, of course that is good news, the catatstrophists of course treat it as bad news, what an odd bunch.

  63. Max Hugoson:

    According to Australian so-called ‘climate scientists’, your post at December 6, 2012 at 1:07 pm is a death threat. I suggest that you ask the Moderators for its withdrawal.

    Richard

  64. You’d think everyone would be cheering at that news, wouldn’t you? Cheers of delight, tears of relief – “thank the lord (thank the gaia), we’re all going to live!”

    What’s not to like? These guys are seriously weird. Anyone would think they actually enjoy the idea of thermageddon.

  65. He is lucky to not be charged with a crime of intentionally disrupting a religeous service or worse.

  66. I have to admit at first glance I wasn’t sure this was a good move by Monckton, but after some thought I have to say: Bravo Lord Monckton! I think this might give a broader audience the sense of religious fervor among climate alarmists as opposed to being objective scientists. Imagine if someone stood up at a geology conference and proclaimed the world is only 6000 years old. He might get laughed at a bit but doubtful he would be booed and evicted. The difference being that geologist are secure in their conclusions based on the evidence, all the evidence not just a snippet of the evidence.

  67. “The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists…”

    Left wing activists become angry over a stunt?

    Irony.

  68. The Myanmar delegation had probably overindulged in caviar canapes and Dom Perignon Rose. Difficult enough to get at home.

    Now what was that about the UN preaching poverty to the rest of the world…..

  69. What is telling, that because they boo’d, they knew exactly what CM was talking about. Their duplicity therefore knows no bounds, and any semblance that the CAGW movement is based on ‘science’ has just been thrown out. By their own mouths they have said it.

  70. Lord Monckton had time for one sentence, and used EXACTLY the right sentence !

    Well done , m’Lord !!!

  71. Phil says:
    ‘Fantastic news that he was thrown out and booed. It was a forum for the grown ups. Not for right wing lobbyists protecting funding for conservatives. No doubt the anti vaccers also get outraged at their chosen one getting booted out of science forums…’

    I must respectfully request that you, Phil, provide your definition of ‘grown up’ to me. I’ve not yet acquired your wisdom. From your own writing, however, even someone as uninformed as myself must assume that a ‘grown up’ is certainly not a ‘right wing lobbyist protecting funding for conservatives.’ Is a ‘grown up’ then a left wing lobbyist protecting funding for liberals? Please inform me. Clearly you have learned that a political belief is the standard by which we must judge maturity. And, obviously, that political belief must be one that mirrors your own. Because you must be a grown up.

    Am I getting close? Just a teensy weensy little bit? It’s hard work for me to be grown up like you. But I’m trying. Honest. Really I am.

  72. Since “global warming” activists use extortion (e.g. lawsuits) and coercion (i.e. authority) to effect redistributive change (i.e. consolidation of wealth in the hands of a minority, who then selectively redistribute and grant favor), then disrupting their “official” gatherings is both justified and necessary.

  73. Lance says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:06 pm
    Heartland conducts conferences and invites ‘alarmists’, and unfortunately, most don’t accept, but i believe 1 or 2 have come, and they were treated with respect for their view.
    Go to the UN and speak against it and you are tossed out….
    Yes indeed, the UN stands for what?
    >Utter Nuts?

  74. Vince Causey says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    You’d think everyone would be cheering at that news, wouldn’t you? Cheers of delight, tears of relief – “thank the lord (thank the gaia), we’re all going to live!”

    What’s not to like? These guys are seriously weird. Anyone would think they actually enjoy the idea of thermageddon.

    =========================================
    The Inquisitor: What do you mean this woman cannot be a witch? Burn her anyway.

  75. “Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.” Havel

  76. Lolz.

    Phil M says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am
    There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas, just not in science.

    So being a sciency sort of guy, you’ll have no problem explaining what was factually incorrect about Lord M’s statement:

    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”

  77. “It was a forum for the grown ups”

    Gees, good thing that one turned up then.

    Even if he did only get to say one sentence.

  78. The Christopher Monckton’s absolutely legitimate act of information/protest would have been even more efficient, if he had been naked. He was not naked, was he? OK, maybe next time.

  79. Phil M:

    You might care to peruse this graph and data set, which is from HADCRUT itself: that is to say it represents the data amassed by the believers in AGW for the official record. It demonstrates clearly that any warming in the last 16 years is neglibible and what little there was, flattened out early.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1

    The science is on record, and the good Lord Monckton is quite correct

  80. Phil M says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Gamecock @ December 6, 2012 at 12:15 pm.

    Look, I love cherries too. I used to love going down the up escalator when I was a kid too. Sensible people don’t buy into Monkton argument. It hasnt warmed in 16 years? OMG, you mean its got that high and stayed there? Yikes!

    I can not understand how someone who purports to accept a hypothesis, fails to also accept the falsification benchmarks set by the very same people who advanced the hypothesis. Are you really that ignorant of the actually theory of AGW and the expressed expectations of the theorists? Various AGW theorists including, I believe, Kevin Trenberth, have explicitly set spans of 10 to 15 years without evidence of warming as evidence of serious problems with the hypothesized mechanics of the idea. There has been no warming in 16 years and cooling for about 12 years.

    Trends are fairly meaningless lines to begin with, since they are particularly sensitive to the beginning and end points of the time series specified by who ever draws the trend line. Geologically the longest term trends are all cooling trends: Phanerozoic to present, Mesozoic to present, Miocene to present, early Pleistocene to present, early Holocene to present. Are these hundred-million year, million year and 10,000 year scale trends less important than a single 60 year span during which warming occurred for about 20 years merely because that period occurred within our lifetimes? What is it that makes a trend important?

  81. ” Mike says:December 6, 2012 at 11:29 am
    What an unbelievable ass. ”

    I know. Can you believe the gall of the organizer called security to kick him out? What an ass is correct. I mean it is a valid question and the organizer doesn’t like it so he wets his pants like a school boy in a dark alley.

    Way To Go Lord M. This is even better than parachuting in!

  82. Gail Combs says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    vasper85 says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    What are you guys going on about? You’ve already won. There will be no decisive action on climate change for at least another generation. The politicians have been paralyzed. Mission accomplished.
    __________________________________
    Don’t Bet On It. A carbon tax is a really big juicy plum that has the World Bank and the UN salivating. It is also a plum national governments hurting from the economic crises are also eying. It took decades, starting in 1972, to set-up the scam. They are not going to give up without a really nasty fight.

    The politicians aren’t paralyzed, there’s no such thing. Anyway the EU will go it alone. Which is more or less like milking out the little that’s still left.

  83. I scrolled back up to read Theo White’s long contribution (which unfortunately double posted) but both have mysteriously vanished!

    [Reply: Double posted, they were both removed. One is re-posted now. — mod.]

  84. From Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 on December 6, 2012 at 1:00 pm:
    Why did he pick Myanmar?

    Theirs was the easiest delegation to get out of the room. Outside they set up a table with chairs and a placard identifying it as for the Burmese delegation. So the reps of the Myanmar government took it over.

  85. Lars Bern says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    “Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.” Havel

    Great quote Lars. We have much to learn from the velvet revolution.

    Ridicule is a potent weapon which sheds no blood.

  86. It will be interesting to compare how many sentences AR5 will end up being compared to Lord Monckton’s one.

    NOT Phil M

  87. CAGW stated out a a legitimate scientific theory, just like Phlogiston or Lysenko genetics. It has been proven wrong, just as those scintific propositions were, but it now is a religious dogma by the left so it cannot be discarded, while they are in search of religious meaning to their empty lives.

  88. MLCross says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:30 pm
    Revolution! Truth to Power!
    Does anybody make a Che Monckton tshirt?
    =================================================’
    Do not disrespect Monckton by either connecting to or associating him with a murderous thug.

  89. Jolly well done Lord Monckton! Three cheers for his Lordship! Long Live Lord Monckton!
    Fortunately he only got thrown out. With a roomful of Neanderthal-Level Nincompoops around him, he was surely risking even greater personal danger, I am sure.

  90. Moncton had more of an audience at Doha than Pachuri.

    it must have been the ‘voodoo’ techniques he used to grab the mike

  91. Greg House says: December 6, 2012 at 2:00 pm
    The Christopher Monckton’s absolutely legitimate act of information/protest would have been even more efficient, if he had been naked. He was not naked, was he? ….

    Might have been.
    That’s what the alleged “Mike” meant when he said “What an unbelievable ass.

  92. “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”

    “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.”

    “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

    Geroge Orwell

  93. Jeff in Calgary says:

    December 6, 2012 at 11:34 am
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    We do here in the UK. Our government who cannot get agrips with bringing down the structural deficit have just pledged to give £2 billion to tackle climate change in Africa!

  94. Mike says: December 6, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Phil M says: December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am
    vasper85 says: December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    Others I may have missed or are just lurking,

    Lord Monckton speaks for me. I don’t know him from Adam’s off ox but I thank God that there are men like him willing to take on the big CAGW monster and act. It isn’t about science anymore, if it ever was, it’s about a global mob bastardizing science to achieve a political and social end.

    For some reason your reactions to this news brought to mind the following essay that I’m inclind to share in part because to me it defines you:

    The psychologist Carl Jung in his examination of the rise of violent fascism in Germany as well as the collectivist surveillance state in communist Russia theorized that there is in fact a certain percentage of people in any given epoch that carry within them a latent ability to abandon conscience. That is to say, there is always hidden within a portion of the multitude an inborn potential for sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. These tendencies remain dormant for many under most circumstances, but every once in a while a society falters to the point where such diseases of the soul are encouraged, and the monsters in millions are allowed to come out and play.
    Is it possible that some men are more apt towards truth and freedom while others take more naturally to dominance and deceit? Perhaps. I find that under certain circumstances even the best human beings can make catastrophic errors in judgment. However, there is a difference between those who misstep in life, and those who savor destruction. For these people I reserve the label of the “statist thug”; a ghoul in common man’s drag just waiting for the opportunity to scrape out a spoonful of petty authority and assert his will over others. These folks are the day’s damned. And what’s worse; though they may have been born with a predisposition towards despotism, they still had a choice, and they chose villainy. They deserve no special treatment and no quarter from us.
    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1171-statist-thugs-and-the-rocks-they-crawl-out-from-under

  95. Yes. In this politically correct and progressively socialist world, a declaration of verifiable fact is cause for mob furor and forceful ejection from any forum they control. As the brown shirts drag the offender of settled dogma from the scene, the block watchers like Mike and Phil M cheer their overt censorship of the reality.

  96. “You wascally Wiscount, you! Heh, heh, heh.” (Best Elmer Fudd voice.)

    Read this when it was first posted. [Big Grin]
    Came back to catch up on comments. [Still Grinning]
    Will check back in again later. [See ,no reason to stop Grinning]

  97. DavidLHagen tweeted: #cop18 16 yrs NO warming; ALL 10 yr projects too high; 0.2C/decade IPCC mean higher than 97% of 32 year trends = systematically biased high!

    Evidence: Lucia Liljegren shows ALL the climate models predicted warming trends higher than the actual 16 year flat global warming temperature. See: Trends Relative to Models: (Ending September 2012) at The Blackboard. See Graph

    The IPCC mean of 0.2C/decade is ~ 97% higher (2 sigma above mean) the actual 32 year global temperature trend. See: How are Models Tracking: GISTemp

    This evidence indicates a systematic bias hot – i.e., indicating missing physics and models tuned to sensitive to CO2.

  98. Well done m’lord!
    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
    George Orwell:

  99. Glaxx Zontar says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    He is lucky to not be charged with a crime of intentionally disrupting a religeous service or worse.
    ———–
    Haha, true, fortunately the AGW pussies didn’t actually riot.

  100. All right Chris, we’re not going to let you hang around with that Jim Hansen boy any more if your going to keep acting like him; getting thrown out is bad enough, but don’t you dare get arrested. If you don’t straighten up people are going to think you work for NASA.

  101. Let’s not forget that those boos cost each and everyone of us a lot of money. Freebie alarmists venting their wrath at anyone who states the facts is to be expected, but why do we have to pay for it?

  102. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    December 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    ——————————————–
    That shouldn’t be allowed. Why am I still laughing?

  103. @Chris B December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    My choice of the Roman Catholic church was based on the fact that they have the biggest (or best covered by news media) conferences and I chose trans-substantiation because it is a debatable bit of dogma that is well known even by non-Catholics. If other religions had such well-known beliefs I might well have chosen one of them instead. The fact remains, nevertheless, that AGW has so many earmarks of being a religion, and they do have the practice of large and regular gatherings.

    IanM

  104. Phil M says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am
    “There is a place for nutters pushing private agendas”

    Let me see… Copenhagen, Cacun….This year it was Doha, wonder where it will be next year.

  105. At last, its becoming respectable to be British again, and to stand up for what you believe in.
    well done “M”

  106. Didn’t an activist stand up within the past week at an interview of an Obama administration official and demand that more be done regarding climate change–and get her to make some concession? This isn’t worse than that.

    (I think there was a story about it on Bloomberg–or maybe it was here.)
    ——————-

    Monckton should maybe have worn a chicken Little suit under his arab robe, unzipped his robe, put on a chicken head, and squawked, “The seas are rising, the seas are rising, puck, puck. (Don’t mind me, I’m crazy.)” The photo of him being escorted out in his chicken suit would have been printed worldwide.

  107. @ vasper85

    What are you guys going on about? You’ve already won. There will be no decisive action on climate change for at least another generation. The politicians have been paralyzed. Mission accomplished.

    The objective is not to “kill action”. The main objective is to rescue the truth. The false paradigm must be destroyed. Also if you think we’ve only “killed action” for a generation you misunderstand the situation. Hopefully we’ve “killed action” forever. The more time passes the more obvious an dramatic the failure of the predictions of the models is going to become. After a whole generation has passed no amount of adjustment of data is going to be enough to start the scam up again.

  108. Ian H says ”
    After a whole generation has passed no amount of adjustment of data is going to be enough to start the scam up again.”

    Part of the reason for the leveling off of the temperature is because they ran of thing to adjust.
    They keep trying though, but now, too many people are watching. :-)

  109. Those guys should not have picked a fight with Christopher, I am telling you! I look forward to the next conference, and then I would like to have a video, too.

  110. Greg House says:
    December 6, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    I have an idea for Christopher: he should boy a hockey stick and burn it.

    That reminds me of a suggestion I’ve made here before:
    ————

    I have an idea for a powerful and aggressive visual image: a pair of upraised hands decisively snapping a hockey stick (with its blade upturned at the right). It is based on the well-known (to warmists) logo of the War Resisters League, in which the hands are snapping a rifle.

    It’s a clear, clever “grabber.” It’s a way for people on our side to identify themselves and give a Bronx cheer to the climate consensus. It would be a great conversation-starter.

    I donate this idea free to WUWT and Josh, who could split the revenue. I think WUWT could sell a million of ‘em, metaphorically speaking. (It would work for lapel pins, coffee cups, book covers, web-site medallions, and T-shirts too.)

    A preliminary but unsatisfactory-to-me version of this image, drawn at my request by S. Weasel, can be seen on my page on Photobucket at http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/Misc/87a659ba.png (I hope the MODS will post it here as an image—I don’t have posting privileges.)

    It needs the following changes, which I hope Josh will make:

    1. The legend around the perimeter should be larger and changed to “Gore Resisters’ League.” (This quip ought to irritate any warmists who see it.)
    2. The hands should be redrawn so they don’t exactly copy the hands in the WRL’s logo.
    3. The wrists should be shackled to each other, indicating our defiance despite our suppressed and marginalized status.

    An alternative legend might be, “Get the puck outta here!”

  111. Here’s another idea for Josh:

    A cartoon of a quack doctor’s office. Mr. Globe is standing by while a wacky, weird-beard Far Side doc squints at an oral thermometer under a magnifying glass that is (unbeknownst to him) focusing the rays from his head-mounted lamp onto the thermometer’s bulb, saying, “You have a fever.” On the shelf (or Mr. Globe’s head) is an ice pack with a price tag of $1 trillion.

  112. Jolly farmer says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    “Am I alone in my surprise at the level of obtuseness reached by Mike and Phil M?”

    Not really. It is “de rigueur” for a troll or to to show up in any post by or about Christopher Monkton. They hate him intensely simply because of his intelligence, his orator skills and his devotion the service of CAGW skepticism. Is Monkton always right? No. But he is mostly right and he makes the equivalent force on the warmist side, namely Al Gore, look like he just fell off the turnip truck.
    Bravo, Christopher Monkton.

  113. Why does the climate skeptic community hold up Monckton as a hero ?

    They should have let him chunter on at the conference because he is a reliable source of hyperbole, with the occasional barking nugget thrown in.

    If he had said there had been a temperature standstill for about the last 10 years he would have sounded more credible, but he cannot help himself.

    The Clerk of the Parliaments had to write to Monckton in July 2011 (again) to tell him to stop claiming he was a member of the House of Lords.

    This is man who claimed in 2009 that

    “They (all those concerned about climate change) are about to impose a communist world government on the world”

  114. tallbloke says, December 6, 2012 at 3:44 pm: “We have a winner in the Monckton of Arabia caption competition”
    ===========================================================

    Another one: “Why did nobody tell me that Halloween is over???” (I know, it is too late)

  115. This could actualy backfire a bit. Until now, no one in the entire world even knew that there was a climat summit in Doha. But this story is hitting the MSM, and people may take notice. Also, doesn’t really help his credibility.

    Agreed. He didn’t accomplish anything except look rather immature. If you’re a skeptic, you add to the knowledge base of greenhouse gas and it’s effect on the global climate by presenting facts in an appropriate fashion. This does little to further the skeptics side of the argument.

  116. James Abbott says:
    December 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    This is man who claimed in 2009 that

    “They (all those concerned about climate change) are about to impose a communist world government on the world”

    Well, Monckton was right, and it’s happening here in the U.S.

    What other form of government (other than communism) seeks to impose bans, taxes, and onerous regulations on the people, all because of a harmless trace gas?

    In any case, tonight I’m brewing a cup of tea in honor of Lord Monckton…

  117. Max Hugoson:

    According to Australian so-called ‘climate scientists’, your post at December 6, 2012 at 1:07 pm is a death threat. I suggest that you ask the Moderators for its withdrawal.

    Richard

    Richard, what a wonderful observation. Particularily in that I choose that video, as it clearly illustrated a STUNT MAN, being immolated, who walks away “unscathed”. I thought that would be rather equivalent to what would happen to Lord M. when they try to burn him at the stake!

  118. It was a wasted opportunity. He should sought a pledge from delegates not to use any fuel burning transport to get to the next DOHA. The next DOHA would have no delegates in attendance.

  119. Frank K says (in response to Monckton’s comment that

    “They (all those concerned about climate change) are about to impose a communist world government on the world”


    Well, Monckton was right, and it’s happening here in the U.S.
    _

    Seriously ? The US Government is Communist ? Do you (or Monckton) actually know what a Communist Government looks like ?

    Also, whats the harmless trace gas you are referring to ? Is it the same one (CO2) that keeps the planet from being in a permanent ice age ?

  120. James Abbott,

    You will begin to accumulate some credibility when you start to criticize James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen for his shameless climate alarmism. Until then, you’re just a shill.

  121. IMHO too much is being made of this 16 year period.

    This approach relies heavily on the assumption there is not another spate of warming in the near future.

    The real issue is how much mankind might be contributing to recent warming, and what may be the ongoing and future effects of mankind’s future contributions. (IMHO again, respectively, I think very minor, and the system seems to be remarkably self regulating….)

  122. Chris B says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    climatetruthinitiative says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:49 am
    The Doha conference and all the previous conferences are like a conflab of a church. Roman Catholics would not be happy……..

    I’m not aware that Roman Catholics are interested in a Global Taxation of CO2 emissions or any other inducement or imposition on non-members. Bad analogy based on bigotry.

    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Not quite Chris B, Cardinal Pell the Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

    has indicated that a tax on CO2 and carbon trading is tantamount to the “selling” of indulgences of the Catholic church in the past. Couldn’t call that bigotry!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

  123. Hello D Böehm

    No, I’m happy to criticise anyone who makes rediculous claims on both sides of the argument. Monckton happens to be one of the most extreme examples.

    I commented on this site back in the summer that some of the date specific arctic ice retreat predictions made a few years ago were poor.

    By the way, whats a shill ?

    If I am one I better know what it is.

  124. Furthermore (to my comment here): markx says: December 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Monckton was wasting his time informing theme of such a fact.

    We know, he knows, and they know they are primarily there for the money they can wring out of this …. facts, science and discovery are not very high on the agenda.

  125. James,

    The Clerk of the Parliaments also wrote a report that listed all the House of Lords members with Monckton’s name clearly on that list, downloadable from the same parliamentary website that first sported the original complaint. It only took me 5 minutes to locate it after the complaint was first brought to my attention over 2 years ago.

    Furthermore, the treaty draft was changed within a day of Monckton reporting its contents here at WUWT.

    So in essence, Monckton did us all a great service and continues to do so, despite attempts by the likes of you to smear is reputation with the words of a proven liar.

    Next time you post, try not to mindlessly parrot the claptrap that spews forth from the warmist brigade BEFORE spouting the same tired propaganda that was debunked over 2 years beforehand, and instead, research the science and economics of the warmist agenda independently and with an open mind.

    You may be surprised at what you will find.

  126. Michael J Alexander wrote, on December 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm:

    He didn’t accomplish anything except look rather immature. If you’re a skeptic, you add to the knowledge base of greenhouse gas and it’s effect on the global climate by presenting facts in an appropriate fashion. This does little to further the skeptics side of the argument.

    ======

    …which is EXACTLY what he has been doing for the last 4 goddamn years, Michael.

    Honestly, where do you warmist people come from?

  127. First, yes, sixteen years is ridiculous. Let’s wait for Ben “Beat the Crap” Santer’s seventeen years, and see if the trend is statistically significant or not.

    Second, theatrics are completely out of place when it comes to hard science. So, no dressing up, not even in superhero costumes, and most definitely not wearing underwear on the outside. OK, Scott?

    Third, booing should only be allowed in pantomimes. Oh, wait…

    A final point – a question, actually: how would any speech delivered at this bunfight be grounds for “stripping” someone of their UN credentials? Is there some clause that states that if you’re naughty or contrary, you should be told off. Somehow.

    Lord Monckton does have a tendency toward the dramatic, but the response was pure Hollywood luvvy. Maybe Leonardo will pay him a visit, and stage a reprise of his role in “Titanic” as punishment? Ew.

  128. Hello Coke

    [snip. Off topic. — mod.]

    Don’t be so condescending as to say

    “Next time you post, try not to mindlessly parrot the claptrap that spews forth from the warmist brigade BEFORE spouting the same tired propaganda that was debunked over 2 years beforehand, and instead, research the science and economics of the warmist agenda independently and with an open mind.

    You may be surprised at what you will find.”

    I have been researching the subject for over 30 years.

  129. James Abbott says:

    “…what’s a shill?”

    Since you apparently can’t use a dictionary, allow me to define shill, per my easy on-line dictionary:

    an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

    From your constant ad hominem comments, ‘shill’ defines you. You don’t criticize “both sides of the argument”, you shill for the alarmist narrative. Without posting any testable science, I might add.

    And your green-eyed envy of Lord Monckton comes across loud and clear. Your pathetic ad hominem sniping from the sidelines is the best you can do. If you read this thread you will see that you are in a distinct minority. The clear ‘consensus’ shows that Lord Monckton produced a real public relations coup. The more we discuss it, the better I like it. ☺

    Finally, if you have been “researching” this subject for over 30 years as you claim, how do you feel about the undeniable fact that the planet itself is debunking your catastrophic AGW nonsense? Too bad for you that the real world disagrees with your belief system.

  130. LOL! Now THAT was an inconvenient truth.
    I wish I had been there to witness it.

    Lord Monckton, you are a superhero! A lone warrior behind enemy lines in the climate war.
    You deserve a Noble Prize for Free Speech, Persistence and Ingenuity.
    Thank you for yet another cunning and daring performance.

  131. Alan Watt,

    My gosh! You’ve found th hidden heat! And all you had to do was Goggle it – Quick someone tell Mike Mann!

    Mike Bentley

  132. @Gail Combs:
    Indeed carbon taxes are what powerful invested lobbies who do not have their politician in power are pushing while in opposition. Canada is an example with the Thomson Reuters controlled media Liberal bias and CBC, Canadian Press leftists promoting NDP and Liberal platforms of various carbon tax or carbon markets. Watch out indeed as tere are no example in the world of Carbon Taxes voted by the majority of voters: it is always imposed and like in Australia through lying politicians.

  133. markx says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    IMHO too much is being made of this 16 year period.

    This approach relies heavily on the assumption there is not another spate of warming in the near future.

    The real issue is how much mankind might be contributing to recent warming, and what may be the ongoing and future effects of mankind’s future contributions. (IMHO again, respectively, I think very minor, and the system seems to be remarkably self regulating….)

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

    After 16 years of no warming, it’s still too early to mention it ?!?!

    “The system seems to be remarkably self regulating.” This dirt ball had 4.5 billion years to evolve it. It would be remarkable if it were not self regulating.

  134. markx says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    “IMHO too much is being made of this 16 year period.”

    Flat temperatures for 16 years are quite relevant as data falsifying the skills of computer models in their predictions / projections.

    In its “State of the Climate in 2008″ report, the NOAA said about climate computer models “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.Since then, the goal posts have been moved back to 17 years by Ben Santer but 17 years is now rapidly running out without the warming eagerly anticipated by the warmist crowd.

    At one time the “consensus” view was that CO2 would dominate natural climate change cycles but with flat temperatures the “consensus” fall back position is that natural climate cycles are hiding the inexorable warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Well, anticipate that the models will be tuned or parametrized to add what modellers think are the natural processes in order to “predict” the flat lining recent temperatures. In their hubris, they will maintain once again their creations have predictive ability.

  135. You have to admire the warmists… sticking to their cause in spite of 16 years of hard observational data blowing their theory out of the water.

    But, really, I think these poor souls just need a new cause to grasp hold of.

    Perhaps the WUWT readers have some suggestions?

  136. Checking out some AGWarmist sites. Monkton has made some of them very angry. I think not because he said an inconvenient truth. Rather, because he injected an element of farce into the COP proceedings, farce that will make the news, and these people are desperate to be taken seriously.

  137. All those reported murmurs at the conference, and heard from the likes of phil M and the other “flat earther” trolls posting here, that deny their own eyes (for the sake of their own vested ideological beliefs) — sound exactly the same, and these same murmurs were heard hundreds of years ago:

    “Burn the witch, burn the witch!”

    Somebody should make sure to take away the dogmatic, close minded lunatics matches. (Yes, that mean you too, Phil, you dogmatic, closed minded witch burning lunatic).

  138. James Abbott asks:
    “Why does the climate skeptic community hold up Monckton as a hero ?”

    What do you call someone who stands up for truth against a tide of lies likely to result in an awful lot of suffering when he could at much less personal risk just went along and made Gore $ to boot?

    I call that sort of person a hero.

  139. markx says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    IMHO too much is being made of this 16 year period.
    I realize NOAA talks about 15 years and not 16, but they seem to attribute much relevance to 15 years without warming.
    Here is what was said:

    PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Also, Santer said that if the slope is flat for 17 years, that is very significant, whatever that means. We are rapidly closing in on that.
    So by combining NOAA’s statement with Santer’s statement, and the fact that we had no warming for 16 years (at least on RSS), I conclude that we can be 97.5% certain that CAGW is false.

  140. James,

    Like I said, I read that 2 years ago when it was posted, and only a few minutes later I found the report that listed Monckton as a lord on the same site, written by the same guy. Repeating the original text here doesn’t change that but thanks for the refresher.

    And I’m not old enough to say that I have been researching the subject for 30 years, but I found the contradictory statements quicker than you did, bud.

  141. James Abbott says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    I have been researching the subject for over 30 years.

    ###
    And you still spout idiocy? Must be your Marxist world-view that is interfering with your thinking. If I spend 30 years studying something, I would be an authority on that subject.

  142. Being deported from Qatar is not a great loss. It is in fact a shame a UN conference is held in such an ugly dictatorship at all. Kinda unbelievable.

    Just imagine the US constitution were bent the same way, to have a single unelected ruler and a legislative body, whose members are appointed by said ruler, but in spite of that no matter what this advisory council says, the ruler is free to do whatever he wants. Checks & balances, anyone?

    Why, Mohammed al-Ajami, a Qatari poet was sentenced to life imprisonment just a week ago for insulting the emir and his son in a poem. That much about unalienable rights like freedom of speech.

  143. A follow up on my previous post. Here is the reference in case there are disbelievers.

    Cardinal George Pell on indulgences:

    “The rewards for proper environmental behaviour are uncertain, unlike the grim scenarios for the future as a result of human irresponsibility which have a dash of the apocalyptic about them, even of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. The immense financial costs true-believers would impose on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences. Some of those campaigning to save the planet are not merely zealous but zealots. To the religionless and spiritually rootless, mythology – whether comforting or discomforting – can be magnetically, even pathologically, attractive.”

    http://www.sydneycatholic.org/people/archbishop/addresses/2011/20111026_1463.shtml

  144. Brilliant! Perfect timing! Perfect thing to say. This stunt of Monckton just might work.

    Just look what rushing at Ann Coulter and throwing shoes at George W Bush did.

  145. tolo4zero says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”
    No warming in 16 years, of course that is good news, the catatstrophists of course treat it as bad news, what an odd bunch.
    ===================
    confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

    Of course there were boo’s. No warming in 16 years is not good news if you are livelihood is tied to global warming.

  146. James Abbott says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    “I have been researching the subject for over 30 years.”

    Translation; “I am not a good researcher”

  147. Wonderful!

    It’s always those spur of the moment opportunities, when captured at exactly the right moment, that allow the truth to ring those clarion bells of knowledge so loud. Well snagged Lord Monckton!

    Now, how will the BBC manage to infer Lord Monckton suffered Doha eviction for sitting down and speaking without quoting him?

    I do wonder if Lord Monckton was glad that his moment of truth at Doha got him out of that place early. That event must be a seriously depressing place for mature adults or honest scientists. Phil M must just be depressed that he couldn’t go and be there with the other silly eco-absurd money wasting fops.

  148. ““IMHO too much is being made of this 16 year period.””

    And way, way too much is made of the coincidence of rising CO2 with mannipulated urban land temperatures over the period from 1980-1998. Many, many $billions too much.

    So your point is ???

  149. Berényi Péter says:
    December 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    Being deported from Qatar is not a great loss. It is in fact a shame a UN conference is held in such an ugly dictatorship at all. Kinda unbelievable.

    ——————

    Ah, but it in fact its a very fitting location for a UN event and very believable. If Hitler or Stalin were alive today, the UN would elect one of them the head of their human rights committee and the other the head of the UN.

  150. Christopher Monckton,

    Please forgive me if I do not refer to your rightful title of “Lord”; however, I am but a Yank, and us Yanks are a bit peevish on such titles.

    Please accept my congratulations on your communication of a message many in Daha needed to hear. Your ability to drive a point home, succinctly, and without any threat to health, welfare or human life, is to be admired.

    While many stunt protests are elaborate, and can jeopardize the possessions people have worked hard for, or can endanger lives of both strangers and the protester alike, you devised an ingenious way to use but a few seconds of time, without jeopardy to life or limb, to drive home a point. We Yanks refer to that as First Amendment Rights. However, your hosts at Doha apparently take a different view – as do the delegates at the conference.

    I don’t always agree with your methods, but here I would like to say that I hold your current actions in the highest regards. You, sir (a title I am willing to give), have my respect.

    Email (required) (Address never made public)

  151. Gamecock says: December 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    “…..After 16 years of no warming, it’s still too early to mention it ?!?!…..”

    Nope. It is simply far from the main point of the argument.

    The earth has always warmed and cooled over various time spans and has been fairly steadily warming since the end of the LIA.

    It would be nice and convenient if that warming had reached its peak, but it may not have, and another couple of years of a fraction of a degree of warming will leave you fairly speechless if this is the main thrust of your argument.

  152. Amazing stuff!

    We live in unprecedented times. Finding the truth is inevitable.

    We should thank Lord Monckton for helping it happen >

    Reminds me of a story from long ago :-)

  153. Lordy Lordy.

    We are seeing a ramp-up to AR5 Circus ding-a-ling-a-ding-ding for sure.

    :D

    Va Va Vooooom Baby.

  154. Freedom of Speech, leftie-style: You have complete freedom to say anything you like. But if we disagree with you then we will shoot you.

  155. AndyG55 says: December 6, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    “…..way, way too much is made of the coincidence of rising CO2 with manipulated urban land temperatures over the period from 1980-1998. Many, many $billions too much….”

    I agree entirely with you there, Andy. Another indication that hanging your hat on one particular point in a debate about this chaotic climate of ours is not usually a wise approach.

    Well, I’ve said my bit. I’ll leave you to it.

  156. Phil M says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Sorry I’m so late to your party.

    Phil, you’re in for a come-uppins over the next two solar cycles. They will not be in your style of most active sun, and it will be colder. So strut your “high” (laughable) flat line stuff today, because the flat line demonstrates a transition to 30 years of colder weather. That’s Nature Phil. Wear your fleece, you’ll need it.

    Cheer up, for a change you are getting some good advice by stopping by this blog. Think for a moment, when the LIA happened (forget Mann’s manipulated stick) and glaciers advanced over European villages, they didn’t have fleeces and it was very bad. See how lucky you are?

  157. Hats off to the Lord!

    Wonderful work – as by that one act nobody there can claim they were not told that nothing is happenning. Their ‘innocence’ in terms of operating in a bubble has been completely destroyed. Be interesting to see who works out the significance of that one act.

    The good thing is this is now spread across the Internet far and wide as the AGW crowd foam at the mouth over the his actions and spout the usual out the other end – or it is the other way around? hard to tell these days…

  158. Tom J says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    I must respectfully request that you, Phil, provide your definition of ‘grown up’ to me.
    =========================================================================
    Someone who sues people just passing by? He considers Michael Mann to be his elder.

  159. Max Hugoson says:
    December 6, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Again I’m late and others may have commented, but you appear to be a sadistic sort. The clip resolves well for all participants as a well thought out and performed dramatic fire event skit. But that’s not the way you portrayed it in your comment. Your comment implied that this result was the next step. I don’t know anyone other than you that believes in self immolation.

    If I have this wrong and this was a sarc comment, please set the record straight. But I personally read your comment as offensive and I’m surprised it survived moderation .

    [Reply: As it is a stunt man, and nobody is hurt, and it looks like a sarc at the wishes of the Doha “luminaries” it ought to fall under a “political comment about a public person” exemption IMHO. -ModE]

  160. Wow. we got an entire tribe of warmist fanatics applauding kicking out Monckton for stating what is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

    You guys know who you are. You can’t let go of ripping off the taxpayer for your fantasy. Your livelihood depends on ongoing robbery.

  161. john byatt says:
    December 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm
    “If they put this one up do we just say that Hansen fiddled with the data?”

    So you post a link to a temperature graph with no attribution, did you draw that yourself?
    You could just as well have linked to

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

    where everyone can compare temperature indexes.

    But that wouldn’t fir your agenda, I know.

  162. Coke says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Michael J Alexander wrote, on December 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm:

    He didn’t accomplish anything except look rather immature. If you’re a skeptic, you add to the knowledge base of greenhouse gas and it’s effect on the global climate by presenting facts in an appropriate fashion. This does little to further the skeptics side of the argument.

    ======

    …which is EXACTLY what he has been doing for the last 4 goddamn years, Michael.

    Honestly, where do you warmist people come from?

    I’m a warmist????? Really???? I love it when people make assumptions based on no real evidence what-so-ever.

  163. john byatt says:
    December 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    “I cannot be doing it correctly, where do I start from to show that Monckton is correct and that there has been no warming for sixteen years.”

    How about trying UAH or RSS, which suffer less from violation of the Shannon theorem than HadCRUT? But you know what you’re doing and what you want to make people believe.

  164. Lord Monckton.

    Expertly done with great suave and without exceptional fanfare. You said what needed to be said to the whole conference at a time they could all hear you, in a very precise statement of value for scientific measurements across various systems. Great cheer is deserved and sent by me and many others.

    Incidentally we met last in Sacramento, last year. You have it nailed. Please keep it up!

    I look forward to talking again.

  165. Berényi Péter says:
    December 6, 2012 at 6:19 pm
    ” Being deported from Qatar is not a great loss. It is in fact a shame a UN conference is held in such an ugly dictatorship at all. Kinda unbelievable.”

    In what kind of fantasy world do you live? Please look at the UN. Iran is heading the Human Rights commission. What do you think the UN is? Nice uncles?

  166. He’s kicked out? For uttering one sentence? Seventeen unwanted words at a conference and he’s KICKED OUT? Who decided that? Which authority had the right?

    Actually, if I were Lord Christopher Monckton, I’d be grinning from ear to ear – those dang fools have given him a most powerful weapon. They’ve shown the world a fine display! Of complete intolerance. Oh yes, wouldn’t be a joy if the Greens ruled the world! I can’t see anyone wanting that now if they are promised such treatment for just speaking out. I would say these hotheads have lost a few more from the middle ground (if they ever had any to begin with). No matter which way you look at it, this whole shebang is backfiring on them.

    Raise your glasses high, folks. A toast to Lord Monckton! Cheers from Australia!

  167. @ john byatt

    Let’s just say that if you put that curve against the GISS “adjustments”, they match incredibly well !!

  168. James Abbott says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm
    By the way, whats a shill ?
    ==========================================
    One pence short of a shilling.

  169. john byatt says:
    December 6, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    I cannot be doing it correctly, where do I start from to show that Monckton is correct and that there has been no warming for sixteen years.
    You raise an excellent point!
    To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets.

    Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
    1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
    2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
    3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)

    See the graph below to show it all.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1

    However we can go back 18 years to show no statistical warming, even on data sets not mentioned above, and no cherry picking of dates is needed either as another blogger has shown on a different blog, parts of which I will copy below. Thanks!
    spvincent says:
    December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.
    1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
    1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
    1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
    1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
    1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162
    Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)
    1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
    1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
    1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
    1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
    1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262
    However I would like to elaborate on RSS. If you hate nit picky stuff, just ignore this part. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years.

  170. Michael,

    I assumed that you were a warmist after interpreting your post as being an attack on Monckton’s character. As I’m sure you are aware, this is something that is highly characteristic of the warmists that frequent WUWT from time to time, so I hope that you can appreciate why I came to the conclusion that I did, and I sincerely apologise.

  171. James Abbott says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    By the way, whats a shill ?

    I’d say “Look it up on the Internet,” but that didn’t help in your 30-yr investigation of Global Warming. Stick with Gunga Din’s explanation.

  172. I’m not sure Monckton bothers read comments, or whether he could get through as many good and not-so-good comments as his stunt generated on WUWT, but if he does get down this far through the comments, I’d like to add another vote of thanks.

    I would also like to inform you other dopes that old geezers like Monckton (and myself) do not really need extra hardship in our lives. Getting old is no game for weaklings. Old-timers really ought sit back in some warm situation, being attended to by respectful youths who are eager to hear what we old-timers have learned, over the years.

    However respectful youths are hard to find these days.

    I think it is a pretty sad state affairs, when Monckton has to to pull stunts like leaping out of airplanes, to be heard. However it likely is a consequence of the disrespect of elders which first appeared with the mantra, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.”

    (Check out “Jerry Rubin,” if interested in where that quote came from.)

    However Jerry Rubin checked out in 1994, at age fifty-six. Cause of death? Jaywalking.

    So Rubin’s not around to face the consiquences of telling people not to listen to the old and wise.

    But he is likely a reason that we old-timers have to be so loud, and have to jump out of airplanes and pull crazy stunts in absurd costumes.

    If you young whippersnappers would just listen to logic and reason, life would be a heck of a lot easier for us old folk.

  173. FrankK says:
    December 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    Chris B says:
    December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    climatetruthinitiative says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:49 am
    The Doha conference and all the previous conferences are like a conflab of a church. Roman Catholics would not be happy……..

    I’m not aware that Roman Catholics are interested in a Global Taxation of CO2 emissions or any other inducement or imposition on non-members. Bad analogy based on bigotry.

    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Not quite Chris B, Cardinal Pell the Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church

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

    It appears Cardinal Pell does not endorse the AGW agenda of Global Carbon Taxation.

    From Wiki:

    Responding to the Anglican bishop and environmentalist George Browning, who told the Anglican Church of Australia’s general synod that Pell was out of touch with the Catholic Church as well as with the general community,[29] Pell stated:[30]

    “Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralising their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear. They don’t need church leaders to help them with this, although it is a very effective way of further muting Christian witness. Church leaders in particular should be allergic to nonsense….. I am certainly sceptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Uncertainties on climate change abound … my task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people’s minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes.”

  174. John,

    OOPS! Please ignore my last comment, I had both the graphs that you and Werner Brozek posted in two different tabs in my browser, and confused his with yours when I wrote that comment! (note to mods: would you be so kind as to remove the comment?) [Reply: OK, hope I got the right one. -ModE]

    I actually do agree with you that it is hard to believe there is a lack of warming from looking at the graph you posted. I am currently fiddling with the parameters to generate my own graphs on that site, and you are indeed correct that it is hard to discern a halt in the warming trend.

    However, I would also like to state that, given the continuous rise of carbon dioxide concentrations over the period in question, one might expect that temperatures would have continued to rise at a rate that is complimentary to the rate of carbon dioxide emissions…. and not level off over the last decade like they have!

  175. climatetruthinitiative says:
    December 6, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    @Chris B December 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    My choice of the Roman Catholic church was based on the fact that they have the biggest (or best covered by news media) conferences and I chose trans-substantiation because it is a debatable bit of dogma that is well known even by non-Catholics.

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

    Yabut, non-believers in Catholic dogma will not be forced by the power of the state to pay taxes, or indulgences, based on that dogmatic belief, hence your analogy is a non sequitur.

    I get the religion analogy but CAGWism is a state supported religion, Catholicism is not, unless you consider the Vatican as a “state”..

  176. @ James Abbott who says:

    Frank K says (in response to Monckton’s comment that

    “They (all those concerned about climate change) are about to impose a communist world government on the world”


    Well, Monckton was right, and it’s happening here in the U.S.
    _

    Seriously ? The US Government is Communist ? Do you (or Monckton) actually know what a Communist Government looks like ?

    *********************************************
    I do know what a Communist government looks like. I didn’t have to research it, I lived in Moscow during the transition from communism to a quasi democracy. What collectivism does to the human spirit and mind is more than criminal. The nationalizing of banks, the nationalizing of the auto industry, the cultivation of dependence on government, privileges to the leaders but not the people, broke governments not paying pensioners, everyone going to university and becoming “engineers” becasue they were not skilled enough to be called anything else, “research” where the government agenda dictats the results, government health care not having medicines, equipment, facilities because of lack of funds—people in a perpetual state of not believing what their government says and knowing that the “Pravda” (state newspaper) which means truth was anything but…

    Oh wait, was I talking about Russia or us?

    James, you know not of what you speak. Collectivism has a beginning and the beginning is us.

  177. “I’m a warmist????? Really???? I love it when people make assumptions based on no real evidence what-so-ever.”

    Ah, so you ARE a warmist, then :)

  178. Its a very good life for the green taliban/regime stooge delegates, travel round the world expenses paid and able to feel important saving the planet. It must be a boost to the ego of these people, of course they are not going to welcome anyone or anything that pollutes the purity of their cause or threatens their carefully fabricated self importance and nurtured standing as champions of the planet. Say the right words and believe/repeat the correct slogans, and even if they sometimes have doubts the mechanism to suppress individual doubt is self interest and you can always rely on that.

    The Soviet bloc pretend nations had tens of thousands of these self trained self censoring unthinking stooges hanging around fake parliaments and fake trade unions and fake peace conferences. It was a major industry back in the USSR, learn the right tricks and you got extra everything when that little extra meant a great deal, one step up from the average nobody and all you had to do was learn the script. If there is one defining characteristic that the participants in these travelling circuses share it is a willingness to say and believe whatever is required to keep their circus funded and on the road. Just a hop skip and jump to a new USSR.

  179. alan says:
    December 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm
    “The man himself, speaking truth to power!”

    Alan, could you explain what you mean with the words “Climate denial”?

  180. Just amazing the preliminary reports that are emerging from another 2 weeks of UN negotiations in Doha. They really are making fantastic progress/sarc – just requires a couple of years of further meetings. For example: Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention

    http://www3.unog.ch/dohaclimatechange/sites/default/files/FCCC_AWGLCA_2012_L.0004_ENG.pdf

    Recalling the principles, provisions and commitments set forth in the Convention, in particular its Articles 2, 3 and 4,
    Also recalling decisions 1/CP.13, 1/CP.16, 1/CP.17 and 2/CP.17,
    1. Decides that Parties will urgently work towards the deep reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions required to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to attain a global peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, consistent with science and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reaffirming that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries;
    2. Also decides that Parties’ efforts should be undertaken on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and the provision of finance, technology transfer and capacity-building to developing countries in order to support their mitigation and adaptation actions under the Convention, and take into account the imperatives of equitable access to sustainable development, the survival of countries and protecting the integrity of Mother Earth;
    Draft decision text on key finance issues.
    Acknowledging the efforts in the delivery of fast-start finance by developed country Parties to fulfill their collective commitment of USD 30 billion and calling for its full disbursement in an expedite manner,
    Reaffirming that developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, and that funds provided to developing country Parties may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources;
    1. Decides to continue the work programme on long-term finance during 2013 to contribute to the ongoing efforts to scale up mobilization of climate finance to USD 100 billion per year by 2020. The work programme will also consider how to enhance enabling environments and policy frameworks to facilitate the mobilization and effective deployment of climate finance in developing countries. The work programme will report to the Conference of the Parties at its nineteenth session;
    2. Stresses the need for continued cooperation and dialogue on long-term finance, and in this regard looks forward to the implementation of the work programme of the Standing Committee, including the creation of a climate finance forum that will enable all Parties and stakeholders to continue the practical interchange of ideas initiated in the work programme on long-term finance, with a view to promoting the scaling-up of climate finance through 2020;
    3. Acknowledges the pledges and announcements made by several developed country Parties on the continuation of climate finance post 2012, urging all developed country Parties to make firm commitments to provide scaled up climate finance beyond 2012, noting that Parties will continue to make efforts to enhance enabling environments;
    4. Invites developed country Parties to submit, by the nineteenth session of the Conference of the Parties, their viable pathways for mobilizing and scaling up the provision of climate finance from 2012 levels to at least USD 100 billion per year by 2020;
    Further draft decisions

    http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/submissions_from_parties/adp/application/pdf/draftadp36dec1830.pdf

    Recalling decision 1/CP.17, which recognized that climate change presents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed by all Parties, and acknowledged that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions, noted with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions reductions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and recognized that fulfilling the ultimate objective of the Convention will require strengthening of the multilateral, rules-based regime under the Convention,
    Determined to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties (hereinafter referred to as “the 2015 agreement”) at its twenty-first session, due to be held from Wednesday 2 December to Sunday, 13 December 2015, and for it to come into effect and be implemented from 2020;

    So we are all very very busy, and with only two more years of meetings/junkets and $100 billion or so we will save the planet.

    And as for Kyoto:
    Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/awg17/eng/l03r01.pdf

    It seems there is only Australia and New Zealand and the EU left:
    In a communication dated 10 December 2010, Japan indicated that it does not have any intention to be under obligation of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.
    15 In a communication dated 8 December 2010 that was received by the secretariat on 9 December 2010, the Russian Federation indicated that it does not intend to assume a quantitative emission limitation or reduction commitment for the second commitment period.
    Publisher’s notes:
    a On 15 December 2011, the Depositary received written notification of Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. This action will become effective for Canada on 15 December 2012.

  181. There is political spin being pushed around the IPCC at the moment. There seems to be an initiative to reposition the IPCC as “the voice of reason” Hence some alarmist/warmist individuals are starting to claim the IPCC have underestimated the effects of AGW, & generally criticizing the IPCC as being too soft. This is the narrative we will be hearing over the next few months. It’s to try & influence public opinion that the IPCC is a more conservative body than it actually is. All politics. Certainly does not mean the IPCC has changed in the slightest. O/T I know, but I just wanted people to be aware of this change in the warmists narrative.

  182. Having had the pleasure of a short private meeting with Lord Monckton (and I do not hesitate to use the title of Lord) I can assure you that this is a brilliant mind. Criticise this wonderful man at your peril. Leadership by example is scarce and must be treasured.

  183. “In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,”

    Fantastic!

  184. James Abbott says:
    December 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Why does the climate skeptic community hold up Monckton as a hero ?

    Because he’s smart and funny and delightfully eccentric even when he is wrong, and he roasts you guys chestnuts on a regular basis

    They should have let him chunter on at the conference because he is a reliable source of hyperbole, with the occasional barking nugget thrown in.

    If he had said there had been a temperature standstill for about the last 10 years he would have sounded more credible, but he cannot help himself.

    Well, since there has been no statistically significant change in the temperature in 16 years, he told the truth … can’t get more credible than that.

    The Clerk of the Parliaments had to write to Monckton in July 2011 (again) to tell him to stop claiming he was a member of the House of Lords.

    Monckton, or more accurately Monckton’s lawyers, and the Clerk have a difference of opinion. Life is like that. See here for a detailed discussion of the issues.

    This is man who claimed in 2009 that

    “They (all those concerned about climate change) are about to impose a communist world government on the world”

    Gosh, and then this week Christiana Figueres, the UN Climate Queen was quoted as follows:

    Christiana Figueres, who leads the United Nations negotiations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, described the climate change she seeks as a world-encompassing “revolution” engineered by “centralized” governments.

    “We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken,”

    In Doha, she said

    “What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

    Thanks, James, but I’ll pass on the total transformation, the “revolution” that Christiana is looking towards. It may not be a “communist world government” she is talking about, but as the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary”, I can assure you she’s not pushing for more democracy and capitalism.

    w.

  185. James Abbott why don’t you debate Lord Monckton, in fact why don’t all you “warmists” take him on at once. Wait, I will be right back, ran out of popcorn.

  186. Well done Mr. Monckton for making a mockery of a sham. But be careful. Speaking truth to power has been known to get a Lord crucified.

  187. Alan,
    That clip is obviously intended to be mocking Lord Monckton for dressing like an arab…..
    (its all they have)…….

    but notice..

    1. He was NOT dressed as one when he delivered his short speech.

    2. It is considered GOOD FORM to dress in the local clothing.
    Many LEADERS do it at heads of giovernment meetings.

  188. Were it not for Lord Monckton, I would not have known about the UN conference in Doha. So, the UN is still doing these? I thought it all went haywire after Climategate and the Copenhagen fiasco.

    Oh Well. Three cheers for Monckton, he is a riot!!!!

  189. James says.
    “They should have let him chunter on at the conference”

    They would NOT DARE !!!

    They DID NOT DARE !!!

    Too much reality for them !

  190. Please-please don’t tell me you cannot perfectly see why that happened. What was he doing there? You get evicted like that from any townhall meeting for that, EVEN without mentioning that there has been no global warming for 16 years.

  191. At 12:57 PM on 6 December, astrometeorologist Theodore White published in this thread a long essay (about 1700 words) speaking to the high likelihood of “a new kind of neo-boreal” regime he predicts will “begin at the end of this decade, last through the 2020s and peak in the 2030s.”

    He goes on to write:

    The worst of this era is a span of 36-years in length more or less (2017-2053) and means cooler temperatures, less retained sunlight because of reflection of radiated sunlight from Earth’s ice/snow covered surface back out into space; cold, wet, blasting storms, also extending drought with major crop losses, flooding, famine and ill public health leading to rising mortality rates.

    It is not a pretty picture, global cooling.

    The social, political and geopolitical impacts of solar-forced climate change is real, but the lies of ‘man-made climate change’ have wasted many years and resources in ideological bullshit rather than toward significant infrastructure buildup and preparation for global cooling.

    This preparation is cost-effective. Even if I were wrong (and I am 110% certain that I am right) and if global cooling does not develop, the adjustments would be cost-effective because it is a far easier thing to deal with the shift to global cooling infrastructure development than it is to believe in ‘global warming forever’ by gambling on the lie of AGW and then have a global cooling regime strike.

    It will be the precious AGW conventional scientific community and their ideological AGW cadres and activists who are to blame, but something tells me that they will not say they are sorry but will stick their heads into the sand and pretend (just as they continue to do with the laws of physics now) that global cooling doesn’t exist.

    But here’s the thing: the colder and wetter climate of global cooling will bite their AGW asses so hard, so blue and blue, that they will have no problem whatsoever in the years and decades to come in burning as much carbon-source fuel as they possibly can to stay warm. Those poorer nations now trying to get their $60 billion at Doha will be screwed, too. And you can’t eat money.

    They will come to see, experience and know that in the final analysis – when the very dangerous climate change to global cooling makes our global atmosphere wetter and colder and when they are hungry, getting sick and shivering from the biting cold – that the very last thing on their minds will be saving the world from anthropogenic global warming.

    Minor line editing applied. Mr. White obviously composed this opinion piece “on the fly.”

    God damn, but this is good prose. I regret that I am unfamiliar with Theodore White, but I’d very much like to submit this comment of his as an article to the editor of The Libertarian Enterprise, which will bring it to attention outside the admittedly broader scope of WUWT readers while according it a URL that will make it directly accessible to Web search engines. For similar reasons, it might be submitted to Lew Rockwell for promulgation on his Web log, LewRockwell.com.

    If anyone reading here can contact Mr. White, I would ask that he please consider shaking this op-ed piece of his down just a mite and getting it to the editors of these two venues (at the very least) ASA-goddam-P.

    It should not be left to shuffle off into obscurity. Polemic of this character and quality is valuable.

    [Reply: I’m letting this through, but could you refrain from ‘swear words’ please? -ModE ]

  192. To Coke

    perhaps a better understanding might then come from comparing the radiative forcings over the past 16 years, of course additional CO2 increases the forcing but we also have other negative forcing at work eg aerosols.

    I am ignoring the GISTEMP data for the time being which has both 2005 and 2010 above (wittle bit) 1998 ,

    I noticed that one commentator wanted only to count the SST and ignore the data to 2000m which also shows warming,

    If temperatures where actually to remain flat over the last sixteen years then that would surely mean that the system is in equilibrium, i do not think that is is, do you?

    your no nonsense reply most welcome

    JB

  193. @AndyG55 & Alan:

    I grew up in a hot place. “110 (F) in the shade, and there ain’t no shade…” I can tell you that having a white covering that fits loose is a BIG feature. That “dress” isn’t just for show.

    Were I visiting, I’d be ‘dressed like the locals’ any time I was outside of air conditioning. It’s the smartest thing you can do.

    (It reflects the sun & from far away enough from your skin to not warm you in the process, holds in enough moisture to be highly efficient with your evapotranspiration, but not so much as to leave you wet / damp, ventilates as desired – unlike western coats and pants- and shades the head & face that are also exposed in western dress. All in all, very well adapted to the climate.)

    Looks fairly comfortable too:

    Beats the heck out of a dark blue suit and tie…

    That “some folks” want to try turning that into a “joke” just shows how stupid they are about life in hot places and being polite with the locals by blending in and adopting local customs.

  194. Well done Lord Monckton. Once again stating nothing but the facts. Good on you ….. and apparently Mike at 11.29 am, thinks you have an unbelievable ass! …..;-)

  195. At 11:33 PM on 6 December, john byatt had written:

    I am ignoring the GISTEMP data for the time being which has both 2005 and 2010 above (wittle bit) 1998 ,

    I noticed that one commentator wanted only to count the SST and ignore the data to 2000m which also shows warming,

    It’s reliable to ignore the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) Global Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) utterly and completely except as a source of purposeful duplicity to be discounted as such until it passes completely from the command of AGW alarmist politicians and bureaucrats and into the administrative control of scientists adherent to sound methodology and the willingness to conform their work to objective reality instead of putting a Cargo Cult Science gloss on “legal plunder.”

  196. I suggest watching the presentation in context (not the youtube video above).

    Plenary 2 – 2012-12-06 18:00 AST
    President´s informal stocktaking plenary

    41:00 Gambia
    42:37 Chile

    43:30 the floor was given to Myanmar (Burma) on behalf of the Asian Coastal Cooperation Initiative

    43:50 Monckton

    44:36 end of Monckton’s statement

    44:46 dead air – no booing, no audio (too bad, I really wanted to hear that)

    There was general confusion on the dais as to who the who speaker was.

    Monckton was apparently the last speaker of the session. Very professional. Very well done. But still a cheap trick.

    I did several searches for “Asian Coastal Cooperative Initiative” and found nothing. I had hoped that he had actually been invited to make a statement. Maybe he made it up?

  197. alan says:
    December 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    The man himself, speaking truth to power!

    That was great, alan, many thanks! His message, as shown in that video, was much, much more effective and to the point than the headlines suggest.

    Why anyone would bother trying to denigrate the messenger with Benny Hill music (good though it is) while completely and utterly ignoring the message itself, is quite beyond me, however!

    Thank you once again.

  198. @Galane:

    Yes, fast hardware. And, assuming one “hash” is needed per password test (it really takes more computes than that… but we’re feeling generous… you’ll see why below) and that each password test can be instantly done in sync with the hashing and dataflow is instant… you can test all possible 256 bit AES keys in only…

    10550985813450600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    years…. but you would likely only need half that time plus a bit (unless unlucky) to have a hit… so knock of one ‘0’ if you like…

    (It is helpful when dealing with very large numbers to at least look at the relative sizes of the exponents… The mind is very poor at seeing the relative sizes of things when out in the 10 ^77 vs 10 ^11 ranges…)

    There’s a bunch of quasi irrational assumptions in that estimate, but lets just say that a modest box of CPUs isn’t going to brute force AES any time soon. (Now a few $Million worth of CPUs and a LOT of TB disks…)

  199. john byatt:

    Your post at December 6, 2012 at 11:33 pm was addressed to Coke but – on the assumption that your request was sincere – I write to provide you with two answers to your question. You post says in total

    To Coke
    perhaps a better understanding might then come from comparing the radiative forcings over the past 16 years, of course additional CO2 increases the forcing but we also have other negative forcing at work eg aerosols.
    I am ignoring the GISTEMP data for the time being which has both 2005 and 2010 above (wittle bit) 1998 ,
    I noticed that one commentator wanted only to count the SST and ignore the data to 2000m which also shows warming,
    If temperatures where actually to remain flat over the last sixteen years then that would surely mean that the system is in equilibrium, i do not think that is is, do you?
    your no nonsense reply most welcome

    You raise a ‘red herring’ when you ask,
    “If temperatures where actually to remain flat over the last sixteen years then that would surely mean that the system is in equilibrium, i do not think that is is, do you?”
    The reality is that there has been no linear warming trend discernible at 95% confidence over the last 16 years. This lack of statistically discernible warming is important for two reasons.

    The 16 years of no global warming discernible at 95% confidence
    (a) is a direct refutation of the AGW-hypothesis as formulated in climate models
    and
    (b) is a direct refutation of the mechanism of warming asserted by the IPCC.

    THE MODELS

    The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration stated in its State of the Climate Report for 2008 (page 23)

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    There is such a “discrepancy.

    Werner Brozek has repeatedly posted the following assessment of the “discrepancy” on WUWT during the present week.

    Data sets with a 0 slope for at least 15 years:
    1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
    2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
    3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)

    See the graph below to show it all.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1

    THE MECHANISM OF WARMING AS ASSERTED BY THE IPCC

    The IPCC AR4 predicted (n.b. predicted and not projected) in its so-called “scientific” report “committed warming” of 0.2deg.C per decade (+/-20%) averaged over the first two decades after year 2000. This “committed warming” was certain to occur because of greenhouse gases already in the system.

    It is now nearly 2013 and there hasn’t been discernible warming since 2000. The climate models predicted the “committed warming” was certain to occur if there were no significant changes to volcanism or solar behaviour which have not happened. This “committed warming” should now have provided at least 0.2deg.C of global warming. And for the trend of 0.2deg.C per decade (+/-20%) averaged over the first two decades after year 2000 to be achieved requires a probably impossible rise over the next 7 years of ~0.8deg.C (this would be a greater rise than happened over the entire twentieth century).

    Perhaps you will now admit that your question concerning imaginary “equilibrium” is a distraction?

    Richard

  200. Depending on your point of view, CAGW is either a quasi-religious cult, a naive superstition, or a gravy train for B2 bureaucrats and pseudo-scientists.

    Qatar does not have any religious police like its Saudi neighbour, so Moncton’s eviction suggests one of the latter two is the more accurate description..

  201. Mr. Abbott,

    I actually know what a Communist Government looks like, spent 27 years of my life trying to escape from its deadly embrace. It’s no more than a bunch of thieves and their sidekicks, robbing everybody else and using some utter ideological BS as their excuse. Not very far from the correct description of the today’s US government, I would say. And an exact description of the UN.

    Christopher Monckton is doing a great, most useful thing: he is stripping Green totalitarians of respect. Respect is what ruling thieves and murderers of this world are after, first of all and above all. You lose respect, you lose legitimacy, you lose… pretty much everything.

    Bravo, Christopher Monckton! The land of the brave salutes you.

  202. something very subtle happened in this incident. The delegates “Boo”d him !!! WHY would they do tha?. Surely if he is a lunatic loose on a Mic and he is so wrong and they are so right, why did they just not laugh and chuckle as they saw him removed ? The “boo” gives away a lot , it tells me they are more affraid than annoyed.

  203. Lord Monckton got off lightly. Doesn’t he know that heretics are liable to be stoned in some Middle Eastern countries?

  204. Ooops! My post submitted at December 7, 2012 at 1:07 am says
    It is now nearly 2013 and there has been discernible warming since 2000.
    Of course, I intended
    It is now nearly 2013 and there hasn’t been discernible warming since 2000.

    Sorry.

    Richard

    [Reply: Fixed. -ModE]

  205. Robert Clemenzi:

    At December 7, 2012 at 12:10 am you suggest of Lord Monckton’ statement at the CoP

    I did several searches for “Asian Coastal Cooperative Initiative” and found nothing. I had hoped that he had actually been invited to make a statement. Maybe he made it up?

    And perhaps you are a delusional warmunist (I know which suggestion is more likely).

    Lord Monckton was ejected from the CoP and is being deported from the country. Perhaps you think this was because he was munching muffins?

    Richard

    [Reply: Please, keep it civil. Less insults ‘to the person’ please. It’s possible he made it up as it doesn’t show up in searches. It’s also possible the original language is not English. Neither one deserves insults. -ModE]

  206. richardscourtney says:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:07 am

    not sure what you are saying about imaginary equilibrium nor why you did not address my question re radiative forcing

    If you have to start at 1997.25 and use the unadjusted HADCRUT3 data then it would be a bit hard to convince many people, who might then use a later start date and HADCRUT4 or GISTEMP and say hey look the temperature stopped for a few years then started warming again in 2000, or in 2002
    It becomes even harder to convince others when you say that, not you, GISTEMP is fudged

    people will look at me like I need help or something

  207. Moderator:

    Firstly, and importantly, I thank you for correcting my serious typing error in my post at December 7, 2012 at 1:07 am. Your kindness is genuinely appreciated.

    Secondly, I do not accept that I made an “insult to the person” in my post addressed to Robert Clemenzi at December 7, 2012 at 1:49 am.

    Robert Clemenzi had inferred that Lord Monckton lied. He made this inference on the basis that his “searches” failed to find an account of Monckton’s statement. That absence of evidence is not evidence which justifies suggesting an honourable man is a liar.

    I replied that his inference suggested he may be a “delusional warmunist”. I think that response was warranted when – as I said – “Lord Monckton was ejected from the CoP and is being deported from the country.”

    Richard

    [Reply: I didn’t snip, I ‘chided’. But “warmunist” is name calling. And there’s been just a bit more overall rudeness in some comments in general (not just you). So this looked like a reasonable place to ask folks to ‘play nice’ and remind that the tone ought to be, um, civil. -ModE ]

  208. Richard

    If the IPCC was emphatic that the decadal trend would be 0.2DegC then surely the 20C3M model would reflect that.

    that does not seem to be the case here for the 95% confidence range ??

  209. john byatt:

    Your post addressed to me at December 7, 2012 at 2:03 am says

    richardscourtney says in total:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:07 am
    not sure what you are saying about imaginary equilibrium nor why you did not address my question re radiative forcing
    If you have to start at 1997.25 and use the unadjusted HADCRUT3 data then it would be a bit hard to convince many people, who might then use a later start date and HADCRUT4 or GISTEMP and say hey look the temperature stopped for a few years then started warming again in 2000, or in 2002
    It becomes even harder to convince others when you say that, not you, GISTEMP is fudged
    people will look at me like I need help or something

    My answer to you explained how and why

    The 16 years of no global warming discernible at 95% confidence
    (a) is a direct refutation of the AGW-hypothesis as formulated in climate models
    and
    (b) is a direct refutation of the mechanism of warming asserted by the IPCC.

    I did not address your irrelevant question about “radiative forcing” because it is a ‘red herring’ (i.e. an irrelevant side-track intentended to deflect from the issues). Indeed, my point about your silly assertion concerning “equilibrium” was that it is also a ‘red herring’.

    Global temperature did not start “warming again in 2000, or in 2002”. There has been no statistically significant (at 95% confidence) since 2000.

    I said nothing about GISTEMP although it is completely distorted by “adjustments”. Clearly, you have raised that as yet another ‘red herring’.

    In order to give you the help that you need concerning global temperature reconstructions, I refer you to Appendix B of

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Richard

  210. [Reply: I’m letting this through, but could you refrain from ‘swear words’ please? -ModE ]

    No. For a grown human being to come a-crippled upon “swear words” in common use among grown men in informal public discourse is puerility, affected prissiness, or crippling neurosis, and is every case worthy of nothing but contempt.

    “When I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split.”

    — Raymond Chandler

    [Reply: Well, when ‘among grown men’ feel free. As there are women and children about, I say again “please refrain from swear words.”. No, not a mandate (as those come from Anthony). Just a request to be a bit more aware of the wider audience. Realize, too, that it’s an international one and folks in some countries are not so fond of things like swearing. -ModE ]

  211. Richard you said that the question of equilibrium and radiative forcing are both red herrings,
    I would think that investigation into both would help you get the understanding that you may seek
    the HADCRUT$ trend from 2000 is 0,12DegC/D. If you want to be more correct then looking at the Model as linked you might say the the HADCRUT data shows cooling from 2005, but then you might be ignoring La ninas while not ignoring the 1998 El nino.

    I am here to help richard but you are making it hard,

    might wait for Coke

  212. Richard, another problem I have with your answer is that it was only in june last year when Phil Jones declared that the warming since 1995 was now statistically significant,

    WE cannot confuse people to going from significant to not significant in just twelve months, it is not something that i would find convincing and again it would make it hard to convince others

  213. Reply to richardscourtney

    From your comments I assume you did not watch the video. It is most interesting and puts things in the correct perspective. (The youtube video does not.) Even though I have played it several times, I am still not sure that I was searching for the correct phrase, but the phrases I tried should have been good enough to locate an organization with a similar name.

    It is the name used to introduce Lord Monckton, not something he said himself. Since all the other speakers I watched (by no means all of them) were introduced by just their country name, I *assumed* that Lord Monckton had written that on a piece of paper that got passed to the person that allowed him to speak.

    At any rate, you would do us all a favor if your search could find the organization that the speaker said Lord Monckton was representing.

    BTW, Monckton’s statement starts at 43:50, not 44:50 which I had in the previous post. (typo)
    [Reply: Fixed. -ModE]

  214. Richard,

    I came back from the shop a short while ago and carried on writing my response to John’s original post, only to find that you had answered him, and with a much greater insight than a layperson such as myself could possibly muster. I’m looking at my own writings now, and feel my response is somewhat inadequate when compared to yours!

    I did notice that the climate forcings issue was somewhat of a red herring, but for different reasons than you did (i.e., John mentioned “comparing radiative forcings” but the post did not state what I was supposed to be comparing them TO – each other, perhaps? I can see a can of worms right there) but I guess your interpretation of the situation was just as valid, if not more so.

    It’s times like this that I wish I had a greater grasp on the science, but as your post so eloquently shows, much of the discussion is now moot anyway, given the recent lack of warming :s

  215. @Tucci78:

    You might want to take a look at the ‘site policy’ page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/


    No vulgarities of any kind
    , nor links to sites that promote such. Particularly porn or gaming sites.
    No links to commercial websites that are not relevant to the discussion.

    Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

    Some off topic comments may get deleted, don’t take it personally, it happens. Commenters that routinely lead threads astray in areas that are not relevant or are of personal interest only to them may find these posts deleted.

    A spam filter is employed; some posts may disappear into it based on words, phrases, and/or links. If you feel you have been accidentally blocked, try posting a single one or two sentence comment to alert me and I’ll see if I can recover it for you.

    Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;
    also posts repeatedly linking to a particular blog, or attempting to dominate a thread by excessive postings may get deleted. Take that personally if you wish, but all deletions/snips are final. Grousing about it won’t help since deleted posts can’t be recovered.

    There’s more on the link. Basic idea is to be on good behaviour…

  216. Hi, Phil M!
    What science are you talking about?The CAGW-junk-science pushed by presstitutes worldwide?
    Are you an [SNIP! Cute, but an insult ‘to the person’. -ModE]

    [Reply: I can see that requests to tone down the insults are not working… -ModE ]

  217. I note that you see Moncktons deportation from Doha as being somehow a left wing issue. Doha is located in Qatar which has been ruled as an absolute and hereditary emirate for hundreds of years. It is not even remotely associated with any form of left wing activism. I may be that you see someone being thrown out of a country for hijacking a countries delegated seat to announce their own views on climate change as being a symptom of intolerant left wing politics. I think that is really straining at gnats to get the usual conservative comment inserted into climate science debate. Ask yourself, if there was a skeptic international conference being held and Julian Assange hijacked a delegates seat to announce to the audience his opinions on on US policy resulting in boos from the audience, would this be seen as right wing intolerance, or a fairly normal reaction to such behaviour? Bringing politics into the debate is the curse of climate science, but it appears to be as popular as ever.

  218. john byatts:

    At December 7, 2012 at 2:51 am you write to me with disingenuous bunkum starting with this

    Richard you said that the question of equilibrium and radiative forcing are both red herrings,
    I would think that investigation into both would help you get the understanding that you may seek

    We are discussing what Lord Monckton said, where he said it, how he said it, and responses to his having said it.

    He said

    In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming,

    He did not mention “equilibrium” or “radiative forcing”. You raised them as ‘red herrings’.

    I do not “seek” any further “understanding” of these issues because I have sufficient understanding to explain them, and I have (in my post at December 7, 2012 at 1:07 am). You are raising your ‘red herrings’ because the truth hurts.

    I have stated all the information on the issues pertaining to what Lord Monckton says. And you have clearly demonstrated that you want to side-track the thread to discussion of anything else.

    Richard

  219. Garethman:

    I completely support – indeed, I applaud – Lord Monckton in what he did and what he said at the Doha CoP, and I also completely agree with your post at at December 7, 2012 at 3:48 am.

    I copy your post here so others do not need to find it.

    I note that you see Moncktons deportation from Doha as being somehow a left wing issue. Doha is located in Qatar which has been ruled as an absolute and hereditary emirate for hundreds of years. It is not even remotely associated with any form of left wing activism. I may be that you see someone being thrown out of a country for hijacking a countries delegated seat to announce their own views on climate change as being a symptom of intolerant left wing politics. I think that is really straining at gnats to get the usual conservative comment inserted into climate science debate. Ask yourself, if there was a skeptic international conference being held and Julian Assange hijacked a delegates seat to announce to the audience his opinions on on US policy resulting in boos from the audience, would this be seen as right wing intolerance, or a fairly normal reaction to such behaviour? Bringing politics into the debate is the curse of climate science, but it appears to be as popular as ever.

    Richard

  220. Garethman says: December 7, 2012 at 3:48 am Bringing politics into the debate is the curse of climate science
    Politics is the basis for so-called climate science. Thie idea of specialization for a field of science is nonsense. Mathematics + Semantics = a science field. My father had a degree in botany. He spent half his career making ICs, the other half as a top-secret clearance engineer in ICBM manufacture. The only specialization in climate science is the politics.

  221. Richard said….
    “And you have clearly demonstrated that you want to side-track the thread to discussion of anything else.”
    ====
    …And I fell for it hook, line and sinker, didn’t I?

    I feel foolish and I offer my sincere apologies to everyone.

    Note to mods: You are the best mods I ever came across and it is humbling to be in your presence :)

  222. The British with the exception of Lord Monckton are just a bunch of complete dorks. They are easily bullied by the totalitarian green left into accepting IPCC bogus science without any discussion or question; each political party vying with the next to prove its green ‘planet saving’ credentials and in the process wasting billions of pounds on completely unnecessary CO2 reduction projects. Our climate change ministers travel to Doha and pledge/commit/give millions of pounds which we haven’t got and have to borrow to build wind farms in Africa and manage cattle ranching in Colombia. Lord Monckton usually campaigns in countries that are still discussing the science so it was great to so him in the bigoted ‘lions den’ of Doha bringing or injecting some reality into the prceedings. I would very much like to see him campaigning in Britain for the UK Independence Party at the next European and national elections on the science issues which would be as big a challenge as attempting to convert the delegates in Doha!

  223. markx says:
    December 6, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Another indication that hanging your hat on one particular point in a debate about this chaotic climate of ours is not usually a wise approach.

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

    A change in global temperature next year will not change the fact that it didn’t change in 16 years. Not mentioning static temperature while others propose draconian government intrusion based on alleged temperature increase is a symptom of Republican Disease.

    As delegates at Doha contemplated how to divvy up the world, because the world has a fever, Lord Monckton’s pointing out that there is no fever is the absolute correct thing to say.

    Telling him to leave town because he commandeered a microphone is not an unreasonable reaction. Reports saying he is being deported seem an exaggeration. He was not bum-rushed to the airport or border. His UN credential was taken, and he was given 24 hours to leave town, NOT in custody of the police. That is not deportation in my dictionary.

  224. Michael J Alexander says:
    December 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm
    If you’re a skeptic, you add to the knowledge base of greenhouse gas and it’s effect on the global climate by presenting facts in an appropriate fashion. This does little to further the skeptics side of the argument.
    Lord Monckton would have been only too happy to add to the woefully-inadequate and misinformed knowledge base of the attendees of the climate circus at Doha, if an opportunity to do so were offered. Sadly, it was not. What you, and other concern trolls with your tiresome “stick to the science” objections completely miss is the fact that this is as much about the political side as it is about the science. As a matter of fact, on the political front, the CAGW behemoth still has the upper hand, making it extremely difficult for the Skeptics’ side to even be heard. What Monckton accomplished there was to make a mockery of the proceedings there, by interjecting one single truth amongst a flood of propaganda and lies. It was an act of bravery, and it was a slap in the face of all Warmist Believers/climate bedwetters, and all those riding the Great Warmist Gravy Train.

  225. Once long time ago the Arabs were great scientists, numbers, algebra, mathematics, astronomy etc. ……
    Obviously presiding doesn’t know difference between
    AlGorithm and AlGore.

  226. They must be so dumb to deport him.
    Lord Monckton is not one to miss out on an opportunity to take the media spotlight out of Doha and use it as evidence that these people are not even prepared to discuss anything, will not acknowledge empirical evidence and actually resort to bullying tactics to suppress any form if dissent.

  227. P.s.
    Brief clarification for any of the AGWs who might be a bit confused by my post above:
    AlGorithms is a collection of pronouncements by AlGore.

  228. Way to go, your Lordship..!
    As regards the standard of attendees at the Doha conference, the video of the lady ‘selling’ CO2 masks (and getting a fair number of takers) says it all…

  229. I understand that the conference venue is UN territory, “temporarily excised” from Qatar for the term of the conference. (If that weren’t the case, the conference is quite likely to be very “difficult” for women.) Having UN credentials yanked means that one cannot enter the venue and is therefore subject to Qatar’s immigration laws which perhaps allow very limited stays for “transit”, unless Lord Monckton has applied for e.g. a tourist visa.

  230. I decided to watch the Jesse Ventura’s show on global warming from 2009 last night. It was very entertaining and followed the money to some of the power brokers behind carbon trading . Lord Monckton was interviewed to explain what is going on. I like him. He is good at grabbing people’s attention.

  231. The boos from the delegates were SO loud, weren’t they? I could hardly hear a word that Monckton said!

  232. From the video, it doesn’t look like Monckton was ‘booed’ like the warmist biased websites have asserted.

  233. If would have just worn one of those idiotic Guy Fawkes masks he probably would have been cheered, cause you know, they are so cool and hip.

  234. Monkton was extremely respectful in tone and content, yet pointed in his comment. The removal and exclusion shows how the ecototalitarian yearly grand mass has no room for dissent, or democratic speech.

  235. This > “[Monckton] has been banned for life from UN climate talks” is the most telling of their agenda.

  236. john byatt says:
    December 7, 2012 at 2:56 am
    Richard, another problem I have with your answer is that it was only in june last year when Phil Jones declared that the warming since 1995 was now statistically significant,
    WE cannot confuse people to going from significant to not significant in just twelve months, it is not something that i would find convincing and again it would make it hard to convince others.

    You are correct that as of December 31, 2009 there was NO significant warming for 15 years and as of December 31, 2010, there WAS significant warming for 16 years. That is because 2010 was a very hot year. But here is what happened on Hadcrut3 and 4 this year:
    With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
    With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for October at 0.518, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.288 + 0.209 + 0.339 + 0.526 + 0.531 + 0.501 + 0.469 + 0.529 + 0.516 + 0.518)/10 = 0.443. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The 2011 anomaly at 0.399 puts 2011 in 12th place and the 2008 anomaly of 0.383 puts 2008 in 14th place.
    Furthermore, for 2011, Hadcrut3 will come in 13th and 2011 will come in 12th on Hadcrut4. So at the present time, the warming is NOT significant on either set for the last 18 years since January, 1995. For the proof, see below.

    Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
    Then punch in 1995 for a start and 2013 for end date.
    Then Hadcrut4 gives 0.097 +/- 0.113.
    Hadcrut3 gives 0.073 +/- 0.123.
    In both cases, the error bar is larger than the initial slope meaning Phil Jones would say there was NO statistical warming for 18 years if he were asked today.

  237. Phil M on December 6, 2012 at 11:43 am
    “It was a forum for the grown ups.”

    It was certainly not a forum for children, for it took one to exclaim, ” … and the Emperor has no clothes”!

  238. vukcevic says:
    December 7, 2012 at 6:15 am…
    I think you are mistaken, as I said once before AlGorithms are what warmists feed raw data into to produce an “inconvenient truth”.

  239. I have to disagree, Anthony. I DO hear booing starting at 0:48. The Audio is cut off from 0:49 until 0:57, but I think the booing can, briefly, be heard.

  240. “Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.” V Havel

  241. Monkton has commited the ultimate sin – he’s humiliated the UN simply by speaking the truth. The shame is all theirs.

    As an aside, who wants to bet this 16 year non-warming trend will be disappeared as soon as is possible? This non-warming is horribly inconvenient for alarmists.

  242. It will not be long before the UK public starts to question why they should support any global initiatives that cost the UK taxpayer. The Met Office reports that global warming would improve UK agricultural yields, however recent years have not delivered. The reason is easy to see on the Met Office website for Central England temperatures. ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html ) . Lord Monckton just needs to show this on a slide a few times and get it into the Daily Mail and the Sun…. The problem the UK faces appears more drastic on the trend than just no warming. I have seen no official spin on this trend at all yet, so not sure what they will say.

  243. If you’re the one claiming science is overwhelmingly on your side while forcibly shutting someone up for pointing out tthat their has been no warming in the last 16 years, it’s not the guy you shut up that has the credibility problem.

    I am Lord Moncktacus!

  244. There were most certainly some groans when his statement was finished. I would be curious to hear a clip where the audio doesn’t mysteriously shut off.

  245. Thanks for the video link. Perhaps the booing happened after the video cut stopped but I doubt it. Everyone seemed most (PC) respectful so no reaction was really shown other than the presider’s confusion because Lord M. was is someone else’s chair.

    I saw this yesterday on Drudge. I did notice in related articles a slight acknowledgment of the ‘not warming’ trend by calling it a ‘pause’.

    So we’re all still gonna die, just delayed a bit (/s).

  246. “It’s a travesty that we can’t account for the lack of warming (for the last 16 years)” – Kevin-Trenberth

  247. Lars Bern says:
    December 7, 2012 at 9:06 am

    “Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.” V Havel
    ###

    Thanks for providing such a powerful quote.

  248. Werner Brozek:

    Thankyou for your informative posts on WUWT and especially your comment at December 7, 2012 at 8:18 am in this thread.

    You may have noticed that I have recently adopted the practice of citing your analyses when discussing linear temperature trends.

    In this thread I objected to the ‘red herrings’ of john byatt. This was necessary if his attempts to deflect the thread were to be prevented. However, it may have provided the false impression to onlookers that there are no answers to his irrelevant points. Your post at December 7, 2012 at 8:18 am demolishes one of his spurious points. Thankyou.

    In similar vein, I point out that his attempt to induce discussion of the “adjustments” to GISSTEMP was also a ‘red herring’. Effects of the “adjustents” can be seen with one mouse-click to this link

    Richard

  249. There was once a young fellow from “Burma,”
    Who told us the truth in a murmur;
    “In the sixteen year range,
    There’s been no climate change,
    So now, we must make the science firmer.”

  250. Matthew R Marler
    December 7, 2012 at 8:54 am

    So if the UN and other nations spend trillions of dollars of taxpayer money on a problem that is at best a minor one you think this is not stupid?

  251. What is now needed is a concerted effort to re-instate Lord Monckton’s UN credentials.

    The UN should be made aware that excluding all skeptics from speaking, will result in a non-consensus determination, and rightfully rejected by people who value unbiased and transparent findings. How can we possibly replace CM’s presence at these gaia lovefests. GK

  252. The one who
    Drives when
    He’s been drinking
    Depends on you
    To do his thinking
    Burma Shave

    Who’s driving in Doha?

  253. This is man who claimed in 2009 that

    “They (all those concerned about climate change) are about to impose a communist world government on the world”

    Still haven’t seen him shown wrong on that. They proposed the same “solutions” for the population bomb, the resource bomb, the coming ice age, global warming, and “climate change” — totalitarian regulation of the lives of the average person (while the ruling class lives in luxury).

  254. First, yes, sixteen years is ridiculous. Let’s wait for Ben “Beat the Crap” Santer’s seventeen years, and see if the trend is statistically significant or not.

    And then we’ll hear “let’s wait for eighteen, just to make sure the trend is significant”. Then nineteen, then twenty.

    The models failed, generally and particularly.

  255. jaypan,

    Thank you for posting the Monckton video.

    I note that there was no booing, as had been widely reported.

  256. richardscourtney says:
    December 7, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Thank you!
    I would like to update the information with regards to RSS with respect to the November anomaly that came out yesterday. The anomaly for RSS dropped 0.1 from October to 0.195. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The negative slope for RSS is since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November).
    However in view of the significance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years. Therefore RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

  257. Ilma:

    At December 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm you ask

    Why should it be Santer that decides the period? What gives him this unique right?

    Your question directly pertains to the purpose of Lord Monckton’s act of civil disobedience in Doha.

    The models ‘decide’ the period.
    The modellers constructed their models to represent their understanding of climate behaviour. So, if those understandings are correct then the models will emulate the behaviour of the real climate.

    In 2008 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in its State of the Climate Report for 2008 (page 23)

    The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    Please note the strength of that statement: it says the models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more, but that has happened. There is no record of any ‘climate scientist’ disputing that statement then or for some years after it.

    As the existing period of “zero trend” extended and started to near 15 years, interest in the matter was raised by climate realists. Ben Santer responded in 2011 by posting a press release which can be read at

    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    It says

    In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

    The Santer statement induces a problem. There are four possibilities; i.e.
    (a) the NOAA statement in 2008 was a mistake which nobody has refuted
    (if so, why did nobody point it out?)
    or
    (b) Santer’s statement is not true
    (if so, why has no modeller refuted it?)
    or
    (c) the models have been altered since 2008
    (if so, then what alterations to understanding of climate have altered to require this?)
    or
    (d) some or all of possibilities (a) to (c)
    (if so then climate modelling is a travesty of science).

    Each of these possibilities provides severe doubt to the understandings of climate which the models represent.

    Hence, the politicians who rely on ‘climate science’ when formulating policies need to be made aware that the ‘NOAA limit’ has been exceeded and that the ‘Santer Limit’ is fudge which is also likely to be exceeded. Also,future fudges which are longer than the ‘Santer Limit’ need to be prevented.

    That need to inform politicians – and to inform the public who elect the politicians – was assisted by Lord Monckton’s act of civil disobedience in Doha. And that need to inform also explains why warmunist trolls have attempted to deflect this thread from discussion of what Lord Monckton said in that act of civil disobedience.

    Richard

  258. “In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.”
    This is also known as the “Santer Clause”.

  259. Willis Eschenbach says:
    December 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    Thanks, James, but I’ll pass on the total transformation, the “revolution” that Christiana is looking towards. It may not be a “communist world government” she is talking about, but as the self-described “daughter of a revolutionary”, I can assure you she’s not pushing for more democracy and capitalism.
    ============================================================
    People get hung up on labels like “communist”, “socialist”, “fascist” etc. What they all are is totalitarian. The people are dependant upon and subject to Government, not Government to the people.

  260. Ilama, I believe that, statistically, the period required to identify a trend is dependent upon the magnitude of the natural variation that could hide or create a trend. Given a certain period of variation, the warmists have decided that 30 years is required to identify a trend. But the problem is that many natural variations can be hundreds and even thousands of years long. And their magnitude can be as great or greater than what we now observe.

    Also, in the shorter term, it is possible to filter out some of the identifiable elements of variation – like PDO. When this is done, the magnitude of variation, or noise, of the data set is reduced. People like Tamino have done such filtering and concluded that they could recognize a trend in 14 to 16 years instead of the usual 30. I believe that Tamino ran those numbers 3 or 4 years ago when we didn’t have 16 years of filtered flat temps. Now that we do, he doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge it. Most likely he now uses “adjusted” data sets where the adjustments alone have managed to provide some small level of warming.

  261. ” Monckton is being deported from Qatar. Such a show of tolerance from the “tolerant left” who do these sorts of stunts all the time (sometimes illegally). Monckton has been ‘de-badged’, meaning he no longer has a visa to stay in Qatar and had 24 hours to leave the country.”

    How in the world can you classify Qatar as being part of the left? It is an absolute monarchy. And you contradict yourself by pointing that Qatar is just enforcing its visa rules. Even if everything Monctkton (the Donald Trump of the climate debate IMO) said was sound, he broke the rules by using someone else’s microphone at an event he was not invited to speak at. Even if you view his stunt as a brave act of civil disobedience there is no basis for whining about him having to face the consequences.

  262. ntesdorf says:
    December 6, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Jolly well done Lord Monckton! Three cheers for his Lordship! Long Live Lord Monckton!
    Fortunately he only got thrown out. With a roomful of Neanderthal-Level Nincompoops around him, he was surely risking even greater personal danger, I am sure…..
    _________________________________
    Don’t insult the Neanderthals.

  263. James Abbott says: @ December 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    …The Clerk of the Parliaments had to write to Monckton in July 2011 (again) to tell him to stop claiming he was a member of the House of Lords….
    ________________________
    And the Clerk got his hands slapped for telling a lie.

    Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers, overlooking the River Thames just a mile downstream from the Houses of Parliament. His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”

    The conclusion of his 11-page opinion (see PDF …..) , reviewing 1000 years of Peerage law, is clear on the issue:

    “Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable. Likewise, Lord Monckton was correct when he wrote to the US Congress that ‘Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership [of the House of Lords], are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law.’ He legitimately drew attention to a parliamentary answer by no less a personage than the Leader of the House, making it plain that the Act was a general law and not a particular law that might have had the effect of revoking Letters Patent. We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”

    Source

    Lies seem to be the stock-in-trade for the parasites sucking the blood of the poor and middle class.

  264. James Abbott says: @ December 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Oh and James why do the Warmist hold a buffoon like Al Gore in such high esteem? A guy with a carbon footprint in the top one 1% of the world whose original wealth came from OIL?

  265. Gunga Din says:
    December 7, 2012 at 6:35 pm
    “People get hung up on labels like “communist”, “socialist”, “fascist” etc. What they all are is totalitarian. The people are dependant upon and subject to Government, not Government to the people.”

    See

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/

  266. vukcevic says:
    December 7, 2012 at 5:48 am
    “Once long time ago the Arabs were great scientists, numbers, algebra, mathematics, astronomy etc. ……
    Obviously presiding doesn’t know difference between
    AlGorithm and AlGore.”

    The usual decay of a totalitarian ideology. It’s amazing that it has been rotting for 1,400 years and is still somewhat alive.

  267. I’ve read through most of the 300+ comments on this article and a recurring them is the use of CAGW to impose a global carbon tax. Questions about the relevance of climate change aside (let’s pretend that it is fictitious), is it the general consensus that our economic model is complete and there is no such thing as externalizations? Is it, as Hazlitt says “the free goods of nature” which is the basis of neoclassical economics, a correct view? Even if carbon proves not to be a pollutant, should we not put value on the ocean and forests that serve as sinks for carbon.

  268. vasper85:

    At December 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm you ask

    “Even if carbon proves not to be a pollutant, should we not put value on the ocean and forests that serve as sinks for carbon.”

    We do, and that is one reason why we oppose the AGW-scare which justifies the forests being burned as biofuel and the oceans being ruined by offshore bird swaters.

    You claim to share our concern for the environment so I assume you will be proclaiming the message presented by Lord Monckton in Doha.

    Richard

  269. As someone has already said –

    It is incredible that people so concerned to prevent thermal armageddon would not welcome Monckton’s statement, based on their mates own peer reviewed data, as good news.

    The only people who are praying global warming is real and continues are those who should be praying that it goes away !

    Too many have staked their reputations to the “consensus science” to let it fade – even if we were buried in ice.

  270. Gail Combs says: December 8, 2012 at 7:23 am
    I overlaid the 1980 plot-line on the 2007 graph. It is interesting how 1987 seems like Hansen was going for continuous rise then realized that wouldn’t make the sales pitch for recently rising CO2 with 60 years of warming prior to the alleged great post-WWII influx of that gas.

  271. Neil says:
    December 7, 2012 at 9:47 am

    There was once a young fellow from “Burma,”
    Who told us the truth in a murmur;
    “In the sixteen year range,
    There’s been no climate change,
    So now, we must make the science firmer.”

    Here’s a version that is more rhythmic:

    There once was a fellow from “Burma,”
    Who spoke the truth in a murmur;
    “In the sixteen-year range,
    There’s been no climate change–
    The science needs to be firmer.”

  272. richardscourtney on December 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm said

    “We do, and that is one reason why we oppose the AGW-scare which justifies the forests being burned as biofuel and the oceans being ruined by offshore bird swaters.”

    I would agree that the replacing the biodiversity of forests with a biofuel monocrop is incredibly shortsighted and wind turbines definitely need to be rethought.  But as you said that you value forests and oceans, how would you propose putting an actual price on them short of implementing a tax of some sort?  Private industry is not going to recognize value (and therefore costs) when it doesn’t have to (and bites into their bottom line).  Carbon taxes are an attempt to internalize these externalities. I think this entire debate would be moot, if our economic model was designed to capture full costs. But I also think there is an interest in not having such a model as the purpose of the economy is not to account, but to allocate. 

  273. vasper85:

    At December 8, 2012 at 9:49 pm you say to me

    I would agree that the replacing the biodiversity of forests with a biofuel monocrop is incredibly shortsighted and wind turbines definitely need to be rethought. But as you said that you value forests and oceans, how would you propose putting an actual price on them short of implementing a tax of some sort? Private industry is not going to recognize value (and therefore costs) when it doesn’t have to (and bites into their bottom line). Carbon taxes are an attempt to internalize these externalities. I think this entire debate would be moot, if our economic model was designed to capture full costs. But I also think there is an interest in not having such a model as the purpose of the economy is not to account, but to allocate.

    I would NOT put a price on something which is too valuable for it to be lost. I would protect it.

    Similarly, the Crown Jewels have no price on them: they are locked in the Tower of London.

    Carbon taxes, biofuels and wind turbines are each an attempt to rip-off the public. They are NOT anything else. And the AGW-scare is an attempt to justify them. Indeed, if your suggestion of the reason for carbon taxes were true then biofuels and wind turbines would not be subsidised by those wanting the carbon taxes.

    When the facts of AGW are known then the public will not accept such a false justification for them being ripped off.

    The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley conducted his act of civil disobedience in Doha to present facts which those attempting the rip-off want to suppress.

    Richard

  274. richardscourtney on December 9, 2012 at 10:17 am

    You said to me:

    “I would NOT put a price on something which is too valuable for it to be lost. I would protect it.”

    I am glad and confused that you find forests and oceans so valuable as to not put a price on it. But I think we can agree that it would be difficult to lock up the oceans and forests to protect them (indeed I think Lord Monckton has accused the left of trying to do just that).  One might also note that although there is no actually price on the Crown Jewels, there is a dear price to be paid for anyone who would take them.  So the value, is imputed. 

    So following this line of reasoning, the cost of destroying out oceans and forests could certainly be imputed and a value derived. To leave our priceless oceans and forests without a value would only encourage corporations to exploit them in a sort of perverse capitalist “tragedy of the commons”.  

  275. vasper85,

    Your example of the crown jewels is a good one. But we already have that system securely in place. When the Deepwater Horizon accident happened, they agreed to pay $20 billion to the government. When the Exxon Valdez spill happened, Exxon was assessed $5 billion in punitive damages [later reduced on appeal].

    So we already have your system in place. No need for more government; the current system results in a high degree of safety. Accidents will always happen. But U.S. companies are the world’s safest. The alternative is to stop using fossil fuel products. But no one is willing to do that, not even the most rabid enviros.

  276. D Böehm on December 9, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    You said to me:

    “But we already have that system securely in place.”

    Which implies that our economic model is complete and fully values and costs every transaction. Of course this is not even remotely true. For example, unpaid house work by women the world over, not imputed into GDP.  It is a given in neoclassical economics that nature provides “free goods and services”, but in reality these things would have value if provided by people/companies i.e. water filtration, oxygen generation, CO2 sequestration, etc.  

    And it appears that judgements that lead to an imposition of cost on a previously uncovered transaction can be reduced on appeal.  Has BP exhausted its appeals to reduce the 20 billion dollar fine?  Indeed how was the 20 billion dollar figure arrived at?  Using traditional costing, ecological economic costing, or was it just plain punitive?  I would be surprised if BP pays the full amount.  Union Carbide got away with a pittance for Bhopal. 

  277. vasper85 says:

    “Has BP exhausted its appeals to reduce the 20 billion dollar fine? Indeed how was the 20 billion dollar figure arrived at? ”

    The $20 billion was assessed by the arbitrary decree of B. Hussein Obama. There was no judicial procedure involved. Welcome to the new totalitarianism.

  278. How did the President describe this Non-Party, To an UN-conference. Was it Indios he said ? What’s that ?

    Anyway, Monckton must have nerves of steel, pulling this off, so composed & calmly. is it his classical training ?

    Monckton proves the uncertainty principle. He cannt just be an Observer, without influencing the outcome. Heh, Heh.

Comments are closed.