Monckton on his smashing the U.N. wall of silence on lack of warming, and censure

UPDATE: The Russian TV channel “RT” aka “TV-Novosti” blames Monckton for the failure of COP18 to fail to reach an agreement:

The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.

LOL! Source here

From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Doha, Qatar

I have been a bad boy. At the U.N. climate conference in Doha, I addressed a plenary session of national negotiating delegates though only accredited as an observer.

One just couldn’t resist. There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence.

No one was allowed to give the alternative – and scientifically correct – viewpoint. The U.N.’s wall of silence was rigidly in place.

The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.

On behalf of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative, an outfit I had thought up on the spur of the moment (it sounded just like one of the many dubious taxpayer-funded propaganda groups at the conference), I spoke for less than a minute.

Quietly, politely, authoritatively, I told the delegates three inconvenient truths they would not hear from anyone else:

• There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.

• It is at least ten times more cost-effective to see how much global warming happens and then adapt in a focused way to what little harm it may cause than to spend a single red cent futilely attempting to mitigate it today.

• An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

As I delivered the last of my three points, there were keening shrieks of rage from the delegates. They had not heard any of this before. They could not believe it. Outrage! Silence him! Free speech? No! This is the U.N.! Gettimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh!

One of the hundreds of beefy, truncheon-toting U.N. police at the conference approached me as I left the hall and I was soon surrounded by him and a colleague. They took my conference pass, peered at it and murmured into cellphones.

Trouble was, they were having great difficulty keeping a straight face.

Put yourself in their sensible shoes. They have to stand around listening to the tedious, flatulent mendacities of pompous, overpaid, under-educated diplomats day after week after year. Suddenly, at last, someone says “Boo!” and tells the truth.

Frankly, they loved it. They didn’t say so, of course, or they’d have burst out laughing and their stony-faced U.N. superiors would not have been pleased.

I was amiably accompanied out into the balmy night, where an impressive indaba of stony-faced U.N. officials were alternately murmuring into cellphones and murmuring into cellphones. Murmuring into cellphones is what they do best.

After a few minutes the head of security – upper lip trembling and chest pulsating as he did his best to keep his laughter to himself – briefly stopped murmuring into his cellphone and bade me a cheerful and courteous goodnight.

The national delegation from Burma, whose microphone I had borrowed while they were out partying somewhere in the souk, snorted an official protest into its cellphone.

An eco-freako journalist, quivering with unrighteous indignation, wrote that I had been “evicted”. Well, not really. All they did was to say a cheery toodle-pip at the end of that day’s session. They couldn’t have been nicer about it.

The journalist mentioned my statement to my fellow-delegates that there had been no global warming for 16 years. What she was careful not to mention was that she had interviewed me at some length earlier in the day. She had sneered that 97% of climate scientists thought I was wrong.

I had explained to her that 100% of climate scientists would agree with me that there had been no global warming for 16 years if they were to check the facts, which is how science (as opposed to U.N. politics) is done.

I had also told her how to check the facts (but she had not checked them):

Step 1. Get the monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies since January 1997 from the Hadley Centre/CRU. The data, freely available online, are the U.N.’s preferred way to measure how much global warming has happened. Or you could use the more reliable satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville or from Remote Sensing Systems Inc.

Step 2. Put the data into Microsoft Excel and use its routine that calculates the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line. Phew! If that is too much like doing real work (though Excel will do it for you at the touch of a button), find a friendly, honest statistician.

Step 3. Look up the measurement uncertainty in the dataset. Since measuring global temperature reliably is quite difficult, properly-collated temperature data are presented as central estimates flanked by upper and lower estimates known as the “error bars”.

Step 4. Check whether the warming (which is the difference between the first and last value on the trend-line) is greater or smaller than the measurement uncertainty. If it is smaller, falling within the error-bars, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero. There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

The main point that the shrieking delegates here in Doha don’t get is this. It doesn’t matter how many profiteering mad scientists say global warming is dangerously accelerating. It isn’t. Period. Get over it.

The fact that there has been no global warming for 16 years is just that – a fact. It does not mean there is no such thing as global warming, or there has not been any global warming in the past, or there will be none in future.

In the global instrumental temperature record, which began in 1860, there have been several periods of ten years or more without global warming. However, precisely because these periods occur frequently, they tend to constrain the overall rate of warming.

Ideally, one should study periods of warming that are either multiples of 60 years or centered on a transition year between the warming and cooling (or cooling and warming) phases of the great ocean oscillations. That way, the distortions caused by the naturally-occurring 30-year cooling and 30-year warming phases are minimized.

Let’s do it. I have had the pleasure of being on the planet for 60 years. I arrived when it first became theoretically possible for our CO2 emissions to have a detectable effect on global temperature. From 1952 to the present, the planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 1.2 Celsius degrees per century.

Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 3.0 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.

Late in 2001 there was a phase-transition from the warming to the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the most influential of the ocean oscillations. From 1990-2001 is 11 years; from 2001-2012 is 11 years. So 1990-2012 is a period centered on a phase-transition: with minimal natural distortion, it will indicate the recent temperature trend.

Since 1990 the world has warmed at 1.4 Cº, century, or a little under 0.3 Cº in all. Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 1.2 Cº/century observed since 1952. However, the period since 1990 is little more than a third of the period since 1952, and shorter periods are liable to exhibit somewhat steeper trends than longer periods.

So the slightly higher warming rate of the more recent period does not necessarily indicate that the warming rate is rising, and it is certainly not rising dangerously.

For the 21st century as a whole, IPeCaC is predicting not 1.2 or 1.4 Cº warming but close to 3 Cº, more than doubling the observed post-1990 warming rate. Or, if you believe the latest scare paper from our old fiends the University of East Anglia, up to 6 Cº, quadrupling it.

That is not at all likely. The maximum warming rate that persisted for at least ten years in the global instrumental record since 1850 has been 0.17 Cº. This rate occurred from 1860-1880; 1910-1940; and 1976-2001.

It is only in the last of these three periods that we could have had any warming influence: yet the rate of warming over that period is the same as in the two previous periods.

All three of these periods of rapidish warming coincided with warming phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The climate scare got underway about halfway through the 1976-2001 warming phase.

In 1976 there had been an unusually sharp phase-transition from the cooling to the warming phase. By 1988 James Hansen was making his lurid (and now disproven) temperature predictions before the U.S. Congress, after Al Gore and Sen. Tim Wirth had chosen a very hot June day for the hearing and had deliberately turned off the air-conditioning.

Here is a summary of the measured and predicted warming rates:

Measured warming rate, 1997-2012 0.0 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1952-2012 1.2 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1990-2012 1.4 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1860-1880 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1910-1940 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1976-2001 1.7 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (1990), 1990-2025 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (2007), 2000-2100 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate by UEA (2012), 2000-2100 4.0-6.0 Cº/century

But it is virtually impossible to tell the negotiating delegates any of what I have set out here. They would simply not understand it. Even if they did understand it, they would not care. Objective scientific truth no longer has anything to do with these negotiations. Emotion is all.

A particularly sad example of the mawkish emotionalism that may yet destroy the economies of the West was the impassioned statement by the negotiating delegate from the Philippines to the effect that, after the typhoon that has just killed hundreds of his countrymen, the climate negotiations have taken on a new, life-or-death urgency.

As he left the plenary session, the delegates stood either side of the central aisle and showed their sympathy by applauding him. Sympathy for his country was appropriate; sympathy for his argument was not.

After 16 years with no global warming – and, if he reads this posting, he will know how to check that for himself rather than believing the soi-disant “consensus” – global warming that has not happened cannot have caused Typhoon Bhopa, any more than it could have caused extra-tropical storm Sandy.

It is possible that illegal mining and logging played no small part in triggering the landslide that killed many of those who lost their lives.

Perhaps the Philippines should join the Asian Coastal Co-Operation Initiative. Our policy is that the international community should assist all nations to increase their resilience in the face of the natural disasters that have been and will probably always be part of life on Earth.

That is an objective worthier, more realistic, more affordable, and more achievable than attempting, Canute-like, to halt the allegedly rising seas with a vote to establish a second “commitment period” under the Kyoto Protocol.

Will someone please tell the delegates? Just press the button and talk. You may not be heard, though. Those who are not partying somewhere in the souk will be murmuring into their cellphones.

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

Footnote by Anthony: Here is the video on Monckton’s address to the Doha COP18 conference.

No video has yet surfaced of him being “evicted” as the Telegraph journalist claims, suggesting that Monckton’s account of leaving the hall might be more accurate. The chair on the dais says “thank you” at the end, and didn’t call for security to evict Monckton.

Note: See also this week’s Friday Funny for Josh’s take on this. – Anthony

About these ads

535 thoughts on “Monckton on his smashing the U.N. wall of silence on lack of warming, and censure

  1. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Bring me popcorn!
    Go get ‘em, your Lordship!

    Kurt in Switzerland

  2. If only those who need to read this would do so… Alas I’m pretty sure they won’t

    I constantly re-post material from here of this kind for the benefit of all my leftie friends on FB, and I know for a fact that none of them bothers to read the pieces. They ‘know’ the ‘concensus’ is right, you see, and don’t want any untidy facts disillusioning them. A couple have ‘unfriended’ me just for posting links demonstrating AGW is a fallacy.

  3. The BBC appears not to want to report on this. I checked the front page and science and environment sections of the website. There’s stuff on Doha but not on this colourful episode. Of course, if they reported it, they would have to report what he said, including the 16 year flatline. They clearly have a policy of avoiding this issue, even at the cost of a good story.

  4. Christopher Monckton, like you Anthony, is a modern-day hero. The BBC live in fear and trembling of him and will not let him anywhere near a news or current affairs programme; it is not just the facts and the arguments that he assembles in such an entertaining and authoritative manner – but that his intellect surpasses even those mighty presenters at the Beeb. They know they will not be able to control him.

    His activities are imbued with the impish sense of the ridiculous that often characterises your presentations, so we all get some entertainment along with the science.

    Both Christopher and WUWT have a large and growing audience in the UK and the BBC is losing influence and credibility. Keep up the good work guys – and thank you.

  5. The peerless peer!

    “quinquennial,” “mawkish emotionalism,” “our old fiends the University of East Anglia,” “On behalf of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative, an outfit I had thought up on the spur of the moment (it sounded just like one of the many dubious taxpayer-funded propaganda groups at the conference), . . .”

  6. Thank you, sir, for once again exposing to the light of day the true nature of consensus science.

    Thank you, sir, for expressing your confidence in the common sense and the good judgement of the working class. How American of you.

  7. I am so glad you stopped by, to receive your richly deserved kudo(s). Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou. I wish we could give you a ticker tape parade, but this will have to do.

    Two questions: How are we ever going to replace you at these UN lovefests?! And is there any chance of restoring your UN credentials… How can we help? GK

  8. Typo ‘0.12C/century’ should be 1.2C/century

    Since 1990 the world has warmed at 1.4 Cº, century, or a little under 0.3 Cº in all. Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 0.12 Cº/century observed since 1952. However, the period since 1990 is little more than a third of the period since 1952, and shorter periods are liable to exhibit somewhat steeper trends than longer periods.

    Excellent as always from Lord Monckton, a splendid jape but with a serious message.

  9. Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 0.3 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.

    As far as I know the rate of predicted temperature rise should be 0.4 deg.C per decade in order to achieve a full-degree warming within a 25 year period.

  10. Debate in the British House of Lords 01 June 1967
    Viscount Monckton of Brench-ley

    But one thing I am sure of is that we cannot have moral leadership from this country without some force behind it, and some committed force behind it.

    That was Viscount Monckton senior.
    The current Viscount Monckton is now giving moral leadership to the committed force of the skeptics behind him.

  11. How nice that the doormen were impressed by Monckton’s comments.

    REPLY: How nice that the sneering, boorish, and angry Eric Grimsrud can’t find anything else to do except complain – Anthony

  12. In this paragraph:

    “Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 0.3 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.”

    Isn’t that supposed to say 3.0, not 0.3? That had me confused for a minutes…..

  13. Someone recently called Christopher Monckton an ass, right here on this blog. Pretty savvy ass if you ask me. And the dullard at the dias who mistook him for a Burmese, well….anyhow, A right cheeky effort, and good on him.

  14. Several typos in there such as “…Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 0.12 Cº/century observed since 1952. ” I’m pretty sure that “0.12 Cº/century” is not remotely close to “1.4 Cº/century”. I think ithat “0.12 Cº/century” should be “0.12 Cº/decade” which would be 1.2 Cº/century. There’s at least one similar construction elsewhere. Otherwise, well said.

    • The decimal point typos were fixed within minutes after posting, thanks to the multiple posters who pointed them out, Please use the refresh button on your browser.

  15. Lord Monckton, what you are doing is so important. The truth will get through. Even those most vocal against the facts of no warming must, on some level, wonder about that when the cold is all around them. They KNOW you are telling the truth, they just can’t admit it yet, not even to themselves. But deep down, deep down they know. In my book, you are a hero.

  16. Good on you,Lord Monckton,and my deepest respect for your stance.I’d love to hear about this in the msm,but that’ll probably remain whishful thinking.

  17. Obama has been the worst possible president for the climateers. During his first term, his invisible efforts have slowed sea level rise to 1.6 mm per year; global temperatures are plummeting at 0.45 C/decade; the southern hemisphere ocean temperatures are dropping at 0.27 C/decade; global hurricane accumulated energy is near its lowest levels in 30 years; tornadoes in 2012 were near record lows; Antarctic sea ice reached record high extent; Antarctic glaciers are gaining 49 billion tons of ice per year; and Lake Powell water level is up 25 feet.

    This may sound like good news to the lay public, who have been scolded about reducing their carbon skidmarks with the goal of producing exactly the trends that are now being observed. But this is a travesty for (pardon the use of repetitive synonyms) bureaucrats, environmental reporters and NGO barflies attending the UN COP18 climate convention in Doha, Qatar. Because these smoking guns, these climate canaries, of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) are not trending worse, even as rising CO2 emissions continue to improve the standards of living in China and India, the lying and misrepresentation needed in Doha (the very heart of big fossil fuel) will inexorably destroy what little credibility is left among this wretched societal Ramora.
    Good riddance.

  18. Oh dear, we can’t have that sort of Moncky business at the UNFXXXX can we?

    Nice work Viscount Monckton.

  19. • An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

    E.g., perhaps a “science court” could be convened. (This was recently re-suggested by Henry Bauer, in his Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (The title should have been Top Dogmas) at

    .) Under the auspices of the IAC (InterAcademy Council), perhaps. Here are links to sites with material on the science court idea:

    1. Science Courts… and Mixed Science-Policy Decisions

    http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/taskfor.htm

    The Science Court Experiment: An Interim Report*:
    (* Reprinted with permission from 193 Science 654 (1976))
    Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology**

    2. The Science Court is Dead; Long Live the Science Court!

    http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/field.htm

    3, Symposium Index – The Science Court – Pierce Law Center IP Mall

    http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/RISK_Symposium_ScienceCourt.asp

    4. The Science Court: A Bibliography. Jon R. Cavicchi*.

    http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/bibliography.htm

    Those who decry the idea of a relatively objective and courageous science court as naïve (and thus implicitly consider establishment science as irredeemably corrupt and/or compromised) would likewise have dismissed the idea that the IAC could have delivered an unbiased evaluation of the IPCC. They were wrong there, so their assertions have been falsified.

  20. Assertion that “Carbon tax/credit scheme would destroy western economy” is hyperbole on skeptics side. Sure the economy is quite resilient to puny single percentage waste (assuming their hoax would cause no greater burden) . More convincing statement would be that wasting money on inefficient “solution” is cost prohibitive. Disbelieving that future technology would certainly solve the alleged problem (if any) is just denying human ingenuity. Warmists are severely lacking imagination.

  21. Moncton: Polite, accurate and to the point.

    The security guards seem to have been some of the smartest people there. At least they could see the humour in exposing the pointlessness and the blind pomposity of the ineptocracy that attended the Doha meeting.

    And now we need some troll comments/rants/abuse to get some balance.

  22. Rock on, Lord Monckton! (who hails from the land that gave us Punk Rock…) I will brew another cup of tea in your honor, sir!

  23. This sets the benchmark for the great philosophical battles of the 21st and early 22nd century: between those whose power arose from mind control (currently broadly in the ascendancy) and those who seek the truth to hold sway, utilising the scientific method to advance such a position wherever and whenever it is possible.

    I hope people understand the nature of the battle and are not dejected if all does not change immediately on this planet.

    The reality is that sometimes battles may take a century or so before a decisive endpoint is reached.

    I may be wrong in my judgement as to the length of time it will take to see science take hold where appropriate, but I am under no illusions as to the strength of the power bases who have acquired their power without seeing science as anything but a tool either to be manipulated or ignored.

    I do think that the ‘global warming’ issue will come to a head far sooner than that, as decisive data should emerge by 2035 one way or the other.

    As for politics, business and organised religion, dismantling the arbitrary power structures which underpin those may take somewhat longer…….

  24. Lord Monckton for Prime Minister of the UK I say.

    Perhaps someone over there (the USA) should propose that Lord Monckton stand for election as President of the USA. I think someone may have set some precedent or other for dealing with the place of birth issue.

  25. • There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.

    Kudos to “TimeLord” Monckton.

  26. An the 16 years of non-warming is important in light of the often posted paper.

    “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

    Then if the lack of warming continues for another year we add another nail in the coffin.

    “A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    Let’s hope they don’t come out with a new paper pushing out the date to 20 years or 25 or even 30 years; I wouldn’t put it beyond them as much is at stake and they know we have them by the gonads.

  27. ” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC)”

    Priceless!

    The precise description of the appropriate response to the IPCC

  28. these climate canaries, of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC)

    I call it Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism, or the CACA Cult.

    “Moncky Business”

    Wonderful–that should have been the article’s title. Maybe Josh could do a cartoon thus titled showing the Viscount swinging from the rafters and making faces at the dopes below–or laying a banana peel in the path of a pompous emperor.

  29. I’m sure sending a slate of delegates from Myanmar is a costly thing for a small country to do. Perhaps there should be an official enquiry looking into why the Myanmar delegation was not at their appointed station. Getting bored to death by predictable, repetitive whining is not an acceptable defense.

    But we should thank them anyway!

  30. bravo monckton, even tho most MSM refuses to mention the story, for fear of having to report the 16 yrs of no significant warming which goes against IPCC predictions.

    australia’s ABC has not covered the chris monckton/doha incident at all, but has this completely insane piece up today:

    7 Dec: ABC: Sara Phillips: The zeal of the newly converted climate sceptic
    THE WOMAN IN THE VIDEO below is a proud American. She’s 60 years old, she listens to Bill O’Reilly, the American version of Alan Jones. She’s heard O’Reilly’s words and she knows climate change is a hoax, hogwash, and bunkum.
    Then, for some reason, she decided to see a documentary about melting glaciers.
    Her reaction to the film is worth watching. It goes for one minute and 43 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw1dZNWiL8
    She’s virtually in tears. “There must be something I can do,” she repeats. “Every human being in the world should watch this movie. Everyone!” She is almost aggressive.
    You are watching the zeal of the newly converted. She is fiery, passionate, frightened.
    Most people who are committed environmentalists have experienced this moment. That point in time when they suddenly see with clarity the enormity of the problem; the importance of it; the urgency. That point when the thinking shifts from ‘somebody should do something about that’ to ‘there must be something I can do’.
    Gandhi’s attributed pronouncements start to make sense “Be the change you wish to see.”
    As do Edward Everest Hale’s: “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. I must not fail to do the something that I can do.”
    I’ve watched this moment of terrifying realisation in a number of people over the years. I noticed particularly after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth there was a rash of new awareness. Pledges were made, meat eschewed, car use limited…
    Meanwhile, the latest analysis (pdf) of how global temperatures are tracking against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) forecasts show the world is on track for the warming predicted. The IPCC forecasts a rise in temperatures of 1.8 to 4 degrees. Sea level rises may in fact be worse than predicted.
    And this is all before the increasing wealth and associated carbon emissions from the Chinese, Indians and other developing countries are factored in. Just wait until they all can afford a car, a TV and air conditioning. Just wait until the world’s population grows some more and all those new people have a car, a TV and air conditioning…

    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/12/07/3649206.htm

    some further detail, including o’reilly’s CAGW-believing comments. as those of us outside the US, who get “Fox Extra” fill-ins instead of ads every few minutes will know, it sometimes seems all these spots are devoted to how to reduce your carbon footprint & other CAGW rubbish:

    30 Nov: JunkScience: Russell Cook: Bizarre ‘Fox Lies’ video: Alleged “Climate-Denying O’Reilly Fan” Now Believes Global Warming is Real

    http://junkscience.com/2012/11/30/bizarre-fox-lies-video-alleged-climate-denying-oreilly-fan-now-believes-global-warming-is-real/comment-page-1/

  31. Well done me-Lard !

    Some time ago I did as you suggest put the Central England temperature (the longest available) from 1659 to 2010 into Excel and put in a least squares trend line.

    The result : 0.25 C Deg per Century.

    Your estimate of more than 1 C deg per Century I would say suffers from “picking the end points problem” as you so clearly pointed out to Mr IPCAC in your lectures.

    But no worry your conservative estimate is well on the “safe” side.

    10 out of 10 for your effort at the Doha yaba yaba fest.

    Cheers.

  32. Whatever one’s views might be on the science or the politics, this was a United Nations conference with its delegates entitled to the same facilities and diplomatic immunities as “experts on mission” for the United Nations (the only body recognised by international law as entitled to authorise member states to “do all things necessary” – including military invasion – to back its resolutions).

    Our noble correspondent appears not to have been a delegate to this UN conference but to have usurped the place of a delegate – possibly a whole delegation – in order to address the conference, clearly before other delegates had time to recognise what was going on. As has been said elsewhere, this was a stunt: IMHO it was not the way for any UK hereditary peer to conduct himself and – in a different time and place – could have led to serious international consequences.

    To misquote Voltaire – I agree with what you had to say, but reject absolutely the way you set about saying it. IMHO the truth will prevail without resorting to stunts such as this.

  33. I do want to say Thank you very much to Anthony and to his magnificent host of readers all over the world for your very kind support. It has been a busy and interesting week here in the Gulf. I have enjoyed the sunshine. Off to the airport tomorrow morning, as planned, to head back to snowy Blighty (more global warming needed).

    Apologies for some decimal points adrift in the original draft, which was written late at night after the evening’s feast of innocent merriment.

    Thank you all again. You will find more commentary by me on Doha at cfact.org. Read all about how I fell off a camel (alas, there are no photographs of this priceless moment, because everyone was laughing too much).

    Happy Christmas, and a carbon-intensive New Year!

  34. “For a British Lord is a soaring soul, as free as a mountain bird;
    His energetic fist, should be ready to resist, a dictatorial word;
    His nose should pant and his lip should curl,
    His cheeks should flame and his brow should furl,
    His bosom should heave and his heart should glow,
    And his tongue be ever ready for a knock-down blow.

    with apologies to G&S

  35. Looks like the UN Climate Gestapo exaggerated and criminalized Lord Monckton’s ad lib eulogy the same way they do CO2’s role in the climate.

    This just might be the verbal shot across the bow of the leaky boat we’ll call the “UN Climate” that sinks her.

  36. Oh Lord Monckton, you are really wonderful! Thank you for that, priceless! The president was very polite,he looked like a stunned mullet. I wish he would have been in his white Arab garb though. lol. Ha ha ha.

  37. Lord Monckton says:

    There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

    That’s not just being mathematically-nerdy; it’s being correct. And, there has also been no statistically-significant change in the rate of warming over the rate of warming before that, e.g.,, between 1975 and 1997…which rather shows your argument to be a red-herring.

    So, if you don’t want to be “mathematically-nerdy”, you could just as easily say “The warming rate for the past 16 years has not changed from the warming rate during the 1975-1997 period.”

    You are basically just using the fact that the trend is sufficiently uncertain over such timescales and so it is hard to rule out lots of things with 95% statistical significance.

  38. The truth is most of them already know it is a charade. They key players know before they get to the conference what they are going to decide. They just have to pretend its all being decided and they are all listening to each other and that it all matters. They have to be seen to be going through the motions of taking it seriously to avoid incurring the wrath of the greens.

    So they sit there day after day playing Sudoko on the phones pretending that …

    And then Monckton comes in and they all have something funny to laugh about instead of the boring dull charade play of doing something important.

  39. Christopher Monckton said,

    “””• An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.”””

    – – – – – –

    Christopher Monckton,

    First, great show from you there at Doha!! Amid your keenly relevant statements on climate science there was just the right level of contemptuous disrespect for all the bizarre catastrophist-fests leading up to and including Doha.

    Second, the point of yours that I think is most important is your recommendation about the need for an independent enquiry on the UN’s climate assessments and their internal processes that manipulate them.

    QUESTION; Do you have suggestions on how the community of independent critical thinkers on the subject of climate science can make your suggested enquiry happen? Let’s do it.

    NOTE: I have taken some of Judith Curry’s blog discussions as also implying that some independent efforts are needed to balance against the IPCC’s products and processes.

    John

  40. Congratulations !
    You, Lord Monckton have pranked them totally.
    And with great courage.

    And a happy Christmas to you to.

  41. The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it.

    This reminds me of a scene from “No Highway in the Sky”, a 1951 Jimmy Stewart movie, He is an aeronautical engineer worried about metal fatigue on a new passenger plane. On a trip from London to Labrador to investigate a crash of that design, he learns he is on board the prototype plane with nearly the same hours flying. He persuades the pilot to inspect at Gandor, but fails at getting the plane grounded. While pleading with the pilot prior to departure, he sees the landing gear lever — and pulls it. The gear retracts as the plane plops onto the tarmac. Well they wouldn’t listen to me and the lever was right there so I just pulled it.
    Movie synopsis and similarity to the de Havilland Comet crashes in 1953-54.

  42. TimC says:
    December 7, 2012 at 11:43 am

    If you insist on playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules when your opponent is engaged in a street brawl, you will lose.

  43. “But it is virtually impossible to tell the negotiating delegates any of what I have set out here. They would simply not understand it.”

    They don’t understand your numbers because those are not the numbers they are looking for. They are looking numbers that start with a $ or € or £ and have the word “Billion” at the end.

  44. AP and Fox News are reporting on the event, even if the BBC has not so far. See:

    Tensions mount at UN climate talks as rich and poor spar over money
    Published December 06, 2012. Associated Press

    British climate change skeptic Christopher Monckton even managed to slip into a conference hall where he addressed a plenary session, apparently mistaken for an official delegate. A tweet from the U.N. climate secretariat said he was “debadged and escorted out” of the venue “for impersonating a Party” and violating the conference’s code of conduct.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/06/tensions-mount-at-un-climate-talks-as-rich-and-poor-spar-over-money/

  45. One other thought. You would have thought that our warmist friends would actually be delighted that warming had stopped or at least slowed down.

    It’s like when a Cat 6 hurricane is forecast to blow in and then turns out to be a small storm. People would be out thanking their lucky stars.

    Instead this lot seem to be genuinely upset.

  46. The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it.

    Priceless! Thank You, Sir!!!

  47. “The funniest was the Monck.
    He climbed up the elephant’s trunk.
    The elephant sneezed,
    and fell on his knees,
    But what became of the Monck?”

    Sir, I add to your titles:
    “The Monck That Roared”
    “Reepicheep of the Righteous Right”

    Thanks. God bless you.

  48. kim2ooo says:
    December 7, 2012 at 11:53 am
    Can I be a member of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative?

    Qualification as a member plenipotentiary requires speaking at a U.N. plenary session as an undocumeented observer or gate-crasher.

  49. It doesn’t add up… says:
    December 7, 2012 at 11:51 am
    Today I note that the Wayback Machine servers are having trouble with this file:

    http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20Sep%202007%20background.pdf

    Is that a coincidence? Or has the BBC managed to airbrush another piece of history?

    I just tried by a slightly different route and got this message:

    “Bummer.
    The machine that serves this file is down. We’re working on it.”

  50. Paul Homewood says:
    December 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    One other thought. You would have thought that our warmist friends would actually be delighted that warming had stopped or at least slowed down.

    It’s like when a Cat 6 hurricane is forecast to blow in and then turns out to be a small storm. People would be out thanking their lucky stars.

    Instead this lot seem to be genuinely upset.

    Probably the first mention of climate science they’ve heard in years. And it didn’t square with what they remembered from way back then.

  51. [snip – if you want to make an argument for fairness, calling us “deniers” doesn’t really help your case. See the policy page. -mod]

  52. You KNOW you’ve busted the command bunker when the enemy remains silent.
    Checked the UK Guardian’s version of story…went to the comments section. No comment! They simply couldn’t risk it. Priceless.

  53. You know this reminds me of the time more than 35 years ago when I attended a international modelling conference (not on climate) and someone got up spouted on about the 25 parameters used to “fit” the measured results. Ridiculous I thought.

    I pressed the mike button and stated:

    There seems to be three types of people in this audience Mr Chairman

    “Those who are making things happen
    Those who are watching things happening
    And those who are wondering what the f..k is happening

    And I happen to be in the last category”

    The translators in their booths had a bit of trouble translating the last quote so it took
    some seconds before the there was a roar of laughter in the audience.

    Yes many agreed. I suspect not a lot of difference at Doha with no doubt many in the last category.

  54. Bravo again to another brilliant compendious presentation and departing encore!

    (My pint of polluting CO2 laden pale did hence cheerfully drowned my thirst.)

  55. The delegates at the conference love going to conferences, its a good life and they have become so used to it they dont want the travelling circus to end. They are saving the earth no less, what is more noble and important than that? Or so they want to believe, they all get together and reinforce their personal beliefs through groupthink, they dont challenge each other or themselves because the truth would stop the travelling circus in its tracks. What would these delegates be doing if there were no regular expenses paid trips to conferences all over the world? You can understand their reluctance to challenge the orthodoxy, it is nothing new of course, you could easily fill a hall with mindless nodding heads, its been done a hundred times a hundred times in the past.

    A hearty congratulations to Lord Monckton who has succeeded in pricking the bubble of their insufferable pomposity, its something they didnt want to hear but something they will certainly remember when their freak shows collapses about their tin ears. Telling the truth to a cult that cannot stand to hear it, they are simply not used to it at all. Just a few quietly spoken words and they will resonate far beyond this time, the simplest of truths often have that power. The delegates were not ready to listen but they heard all right and it upset their apple cart more than would like to admit, they were made to look like utter fools. Someone needed to say the words that others so desperately didnt want to listen to, but they heard all right.

  56. My exhaled breath contains Gaia Food. We work well together.

    I heard Lord Monckton on the Alex Jones show today. He’s like throwing holy water on a vampire.

    I see the Sun is still in a sleepy time phase. It is recommended it stay that way till the majority of people learn their lessons.

  57. Great job!

    These loons don’t really care about the facts. They’ve been busy for years telling each other how self-righteous they are. It’s now reached a point where they’re all wallowing in so much self-righteousness they’re completely convinced that the rest of society owes them a huge debt. They want payment in the form of six figure salaries for themselves, their friends, and their families, with tenure, and a gold plated pensions and benefits plan too.

    There are simply parasites but they are well on the way to killing their host.

  58. Amazing what kind of fuss you get when simply stating a fact! No one called out that Monckton was wrong – they impotently boohed and said throw the bum out. I’ve been around a long time and it is only in the two dozen years or so that speaking the truth has become an international crime. Oh it has been a crime in parts of the world run by tyrants throughout history, but at a conference run by an organization that was created to rescue humankind from tyranny? It seems the fall of the iron curtain wasn’t all good. No small number of “central planners” escaped to take over international government and NGO organizations while the rest of us were rejoicing at the fall.

  59. “Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative”

    I wish he had used “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”

  60. Well said Christopher Monckton, we certainly need your courage and intelligence to combat the spreading cancer promoted by the CAGW industry. BTW, I don’t think there was a stunned response at all. In the half empty forum, delegates were probably unaware of the Lord’s comments being either asleep or bored out of their brains.

  61. Lord Monckton, absolutely brilliant! I hope there is much deserved publicity, but I doubt it.
    To paraphrase slightly; it is an absolute travesty that they cannot understand the term “No global warming for 16 years”.

  62. Lord Monckton,

    As a registered nurse in my last (of numerous) occupations, I will say only that IPeCaC makes me want to vomit. :-)

    Thank you for both your wisdom and your wit, sir.

  63. Encore!!
    Witnessing as we have done the precise placement of a sharp needle into the over-in-flatus balloon of the UN climate buffoons of Doha is a priceless Christmas present. Thank you Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

  64. Professor Phil Jones, in his own words, on plotting a trend in Excel:

    ‘I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.’

  65. I found this lovely tidbit …

    He [Monckton] was promptly stripped of his badge by UN officials for “impersonating a party” and banned for life from future meetings.

    Impersonating a party? Impersonating? He IS the party …

    Again, Christopher, most excellent theatre. Brilliant.

    w.

  66. This reminds me of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” or “Keiserens nye Klæder”.

    “…So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

    “But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.

    “Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

    “But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

    The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all”.

    http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

    Thank you Christopher Monckton, thank you!

  67. Terrific work Lord Monckton. Brilliant.

    At this rate you’ll be making serious enemies with your truth-saying; they can’t handle the truth you know. Perhaps be careful who you advise of your flight schedules and maybe you should get yourself a food-taster, too.

  68. Excellent – I would also like to see the study that indicates a direct correlation between lack of education or liberal arts education and belief in global warming. Dumb and Dumber!!!

  69. The ‘President’ thought the speaker (Monckton) was from Myanmar (Burma). He then said “When I looked at his face I realised he was not from Burma”.

    Oh. All Burmese people are brown with funny eyes right?

    Racist Arab…

  70. Well done sir – I envy you your minute of fame. I thought I’d look up “Brenchley” for anything interesting and found something of note:

    Brenchley is the older of the two villages with a church (All Saints) which dates back to the 13th century and has an avenue of 400 year-old yew trees. The Kentish rebel leader Wat Tyler is said to have lived in a cottage near Brenchley before he led the peasants’ revolt in 1381.

    http://www.brenchleyandmatfield.co.uk/

    We have a new leader for the peasants’ revolt of 2012 it seems!

  71. This is the stuff of heroes ! Thanks so very much for doing what we, who are in no position, are unable to do. You speak for the planet !

  72. Wonderful. Loved every second of the video. What an elegant way to stand up for the truth. Quite a lesson, for me anyway.

  73. wonder if Lord Monckton saw this mafia boss hiding out in Doha?

    7 Dec: ANSA Italian Wire Service: Mafia arrests for Sicily renewable-energy infiltration
    Cosa Nostra ‘got wind-farm, solar work to help boss in hiding’
    Italian police on Friday arrested six people and seized 10 billion euros in assets in a probe into suspected Mafia infiltration of renewable-energy facilities in western Sicily whose proceeds are believed to have gone to fugitive Cosa Nostra head Matteo Messina Denaro.
    Police said Mafia members got contracts for work on wind farms and solar-energy plants near Agrigento, Palermo and Trapani. A wave of arrests over recent years have closed the net around fugitive 50-year-old Agrigento-based boss Denaro, one of the world’s 10 most-wanted men, who took control of Cosa Nostra after the 2006 arrest of Bernardo Provenzano.

    http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2012/12/07/Mafia-arrests-Sicily-renewable-energy-infiltration_7917279.html

  74. They don’t like it when it happens to them, but they send in their minions to protest and that’s OK. :lol:

  75. Dear mod

    Have scanned policy page, all i can say is that I think you are too sensitive over certain words! I get called worse than that on other sites, ‘AGW wacko, AGW loon, etc, etc, but it’s just water off a ducks back! But seen as you are denying the vast majority of scientific evidence then logically you must be a denier!

    ‘[snip – if you want to make an argument for fairness, calling us “deniers” doesn’t really help your case. See the policy page. -mod]’

  76. “Lord Monckton of Myanmar”
    I love it!
    Well done.
    I loved the way that he spoke so calmly and authoritatively that nobody even realised what was happening.

  77. TimC says:
    December 7, 2012 at 11:43 am
    Whatever one’s views might be on the science or the politics, this was a United Nations conference with its delegates entitled to

    Aaaaaand that’s where you lose me. Power-mad petty bureaucrats can declare themselves entitled to exclusive insulation from dissenting voices, infinite power over space and time or the contents of your wallet, that doesn’t make them “entitled” in any meaningful way.

    IMHO they’re entitled to stop spending other people’s money on intellectual baubles and demands for MORE MORE MORE and go home.

  78. Willis Eschenbach says:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    We need to help him to find a island to become a state and qualify as a Party to the COP. Preferably, it could be a South Pacific pinnacle endangered by the rising sea levels to lend the required level of pathos for such a gathering.

  79. “Objective scientific truth no longer has anything to do with these negotiations”

    Not even the IPCC is allowed in these days, let alone serious scientists. The IPCC are getting to be an embarrassment and they have served their purpose well enough. The Political Head has divorced itself from the pseudo-scientific body denying now even a pretence of science. The pretence is important no more. What matters is the fleshing out of the embryonic unelected world government and the New World Order.

    The plan is to move quickly now before anybody notices.

    Stay cool.

  80. The plan is to move quickly now before anybody notices.

    … Well OK it might take them a few centuries….

  81. As a UK citizen, I’ll say it again: It’s a total disgrace that the BBC have absolutely nothing to say about Lord Monckton’s timely ‘Doha Intervention’. Roger Harrabin, their staunchly pro-CAGW propagandist-in-chief, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. If this had been an incident where a ‘nasty’ fossil fuel conference had been infiltrated by ‘common purpose’ drones from some ‘green’ NGO or other, Harrabin would have been all over it like a rash.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20639215

    Piffle and tosh. Tell us the truth, Roger.

  82. Christopher:

    Thankyou for your account and – much more importantly – for what you did in Doha.

    I take the liberty of copying to here a comment I made on the other thread because it explains the importance of what you did.

    Richard

    ==============
    richardscourtney says:
    December 7, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    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 arisen 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

  83. Mr Monckton,
    you have indeed been bad.
    In fact that was totally Wicked!

    P.S. – I intend no disrespect with the use of “Mr”. I am simply exercising my philosophical objection to hereditary titles. Nothing personal.

  84. Carter says:
    December 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm


    But seen as you are denying the vast majority of scientific evidence then logically you must be a denier!

    Was wondering if you could help us out a bit, Carter: Everybody here believes the earth is warming up–it’s that part where man is causing a big (or even small) portion of it.

    Could you please give us links to one or two scientific papers that prove this anthropogenic thingy–using verifiable science, that is. (And no, web sites that spin a yarn or tell a tale won’t do–and please make sure your links to these scientific papers aren’t pay-walled.)

    Thanks in advance.

  85. I believe the suggestion that the lack of atmospheric warming in the last 16 years (which I believe is a cherry pick and also doesn’t show cooling.) is proof global warming has stopped is just as silly (immature?) as when my 8 year old child tells me they don’t need to wear a coat this evening because it was warm at lunch time. They can only be convinced otherwise when they hear about the other lines of evidence that yes, it is expected to get cold in the evening. But if the child refuses to listen to the alternative lines of evidence that do not conform to their beliefs, then they run out of the house without their coat and suffer the consequences several hours later.

    Keep your eyes on the multiple lines of empirical science, or you may find you are running out of the house without your coat on. (I’m particularly worried about ocean heat content trends.)

  86. How convenient for the UN’s internet summit in Dubai and Cop18 to be so close geographically, and held simultaneously, in December.

    “The ITU is holding the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai from Dec. 3-15 on the topic of the Internet, and in so doing, has garnered criticism in some quarters that it might be making some kind of power grab to try and control Internet regulation. Among the critics has been the hacktivist group Anonymous, which this week issued a call to its adherents to launch an online attack on the ITU, an action that succeeded in some part.”

    I am not a fan of Anonymous in every case, but they reportedly have hacked the computers at the WCIT meeting in Dubai. ANONYMOUS – OPERATION ITU- WCIT

  87. There was an arm that not quite got in the way of the footage of Viscount Monckton. As it lolled there on the back of the head rest it sort of suggested that the bludger to whom it belonged was asleep.

    Any MSM airing of this fabulous footage?

  88. Pete Wirfs:

    Your post at December 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm seems to imply willful disregard of the significance of the recent period of no discernible warming at 95% confidence.

    Please read my post at December 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm which explains your error.

    Richard

  89. Hmmmn.

    Peter: YOU are the one demanding immediate and catastrophic action certain to kill millions through lack of affordable energy (bad water, no sewage treatment, no transportation, bad food processing and storage, and corruption of an UN/EU dictatorship based on carbon restrictions on the innocents least able to help themselves.

    Now, if your 8 year old pointed out that there is NO increase in average yearly/monthly/daily temperatures for 16 years, why should HE bankrupt HIS future and die early from starvation and illness due to YOUR assumed religion of man-caused global warming?

    Your religion will not kill me. My caution – my demand to see real evidence of actual man-caused harm through CO2 releases and cheaper energy – will save billions of lives. As it has saved billions the past 100 years through better water, better sewage and food treatment, better transportation, and more growth.

    YOUR fears of a non-existent “harm” based on prejudices and nonsense – WILL kill your son’s generation. Deliberately kill millions, and harm billions, I will add – based on the public statements of your theistic religious leaders.

  90. I only wonder how many times Lord Monkton pressed that button. My guess is he was nailing it towards the end of every speech. Godspeed, you ballsy son of a pistol.

  91. Carter.Please tell me how the climate is changing because there has been a rise from 290 to 380 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of all the other gases in the atmosphere? Can you also confirm that these extra 90/1,000,000 molecules have been produced by mankind?

  92. Its odd how the UN willfully disregards, the UN declaration on human rights and now thinks that free speech is a crime. Or maybe it is less odd and more so criminal. Again I call for a halt to all funding of the UN.

  93. Peter Wirfs: As a geologist I recommend that you pray (or at least be thankful) for every warm day between now and when the next Ice Age kicks in. Because when that happens, everybody will be sitting around flagelatting themselves with their own belts that they were worried about a little warmth when their big (and I do mean BIG) problem will be wondering how we’ll all survive.

    Go take a peek at what happens to temperatures with the onset of an Ice Age. Subtract that from the average temperatures where you currently live (weather.com is a good source), and figure out how you’ll even be able to grow carrots there.

    Then go find how long scientists figure it takes for the earth to revert from a typical temperate Interglacial climate back into the next Ice Age. Palynologists will help you there.

    And then try to get some sleep tonight.

  94. well done sir, well done.
    I also enjoy your articles over at worldnetdaily.
    thank you for being the right person in the right place at the right times and being right enough to do whats right :)

  95. I’m wondering how Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself these days, one of the poorest countries on earth, is sending a delegation to Qatar in the first place. Also, what “party” was their delegation attending?

  96. Sean:

    At December 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm you write

    Its odd how the UN willfully disregards, the UN declaration on human rights and now thinks that free speech is a crime. Or maybe it is less odd and more so criminal. Again I call for a halt to all funding of the UN.

    NO! Your comment shows a lack of understanding of the courage displayed by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

    Observers to a Conference are allowed to observe and they do not have a right to participate. And this is true whomever organised the Conference. Free speech does NOT include taking the seat of an official delegate to a Conference then using that position to address the Conference.

    But Lord Monckton did that as a deliberate act of civil disobedience to enable those present and others observing at the Doha CoP to hear important pertinent and factual information which otherwise would not have been presented.

    His act of civil disobedience was conducted in a country which is not noted for its record on Human Rights. Any such act in such a place is an act of bravery.

    Richard

  97. @ Pete Wirfs, for the umpteenth time, it is illogical to call the last 16 years a “cherry pick”. The starting date is today, and tomorrow the starting date will be then, and in years’ time the period of no warming, or possibly even cooling will be 17 years.

  98. Lord Monckton said

    “An eco-freako journalist, quivering with unrighteous indignation, wrote that I had been “evicted”. Well, not really. All they did was to say a cheery toodle-pip at the end of that day’s session. They couldn’t have been nicer about it.

    The journalist mentioned my statement to my fellow-delegates that there had been no global warming for 16 years. What she was careful not to mention was that she had interviewed me at some length earlier in the day. She had sneered that 97% of climate scientists thought I was wrong.

    I think the journalist may have been a little confused. However biased the 2009 survey might have been, it asked two questions.

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    From what I have heard of Lord Monckton I think who would agree with the 97% on both of these questions. On the second, he would probably say less than a third of warming in the last 200 years has been caused by “human activity”, as apposed to greater than 100% of the climate mainstream. Even 10% would be significant, and worthy of some investigation.

  99. AD-HOM ALERT

    By JOHN M. BRODER
    Few would compare a United Nations climate change conference to a garden party, but a pair of skeptical skunks showed up on Thursday in the persons of Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Benchley. The two make a habit of descending on climate summits and trying to debunk both the science and the politics of global warming. Mostly they generate eye-rolling and wry blog posts.

    Friday, 7:26 a.m. Eastern time| Updated
    Lord Monckton was ejected from the conference late Thursday after he posed as a delegate to gain entrance to the meeting hall and took the seat of the representative from Myanmar. Before he was identified as an imposter, he was allowed to speak and said — against most scientific evidence — that there had been no global temperature rise since the beginning of the United Nations climate negotiations. He was quickly escorted from the room and banned from the meeting.

    A United Nations spokeswoman said that Lord Monckton was registered with a nongovernmental organization, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and that his posing as a delegate “was considered a clear violation of his status as a representative of that organization.”

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/snapshots-from-doha-and-elsewhere/

  100. Brilliant exposure of Alarmist follies…. however, if James Hansen and Stephan Lewandowsky have their way then Lord Monckton and all of us cheering for him will be tried for “crimes against humanity” — More Lew-spew to contrast with the sensible statements of Monckton: climate hallucinator Stephan Lewandowsky channels some of the more extreme nonsense put out by the hyper-Alarmists:

    http://theconversation.edu.au/the-real-debate-on-climate-is-happening-in-san-francisco-11209

    [LEWANDOWSKY]:
    …There is, however, one issue that is not being debated: Nowhere is there a debate about the fundamental facts that the globe is rapidly warming and that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for that warming.

    That scientific debate ceased decades ago.

    It is only in the fantasy world of climate denial that ignorant chatter about those physical fundamentals continues, to the detriment of the public which would be better served without such distracting noise….

    ….

    …Dr. Jim Hansen, one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who first alerted the world to the risks from climate change decades ago, gave a presentation on Tuesday night. A patrician figure, he was greeted with a standing ovation even though the message he had to deliver, based on the latest available science, was far from encouraging. Decades ago, Dr. Hansen predicted events such as Hurricane Sandy, and he has been warning about the implications of climate change ever since.

    Dr. Hansen expressed the view that the professional dis-informers who facilitate and encourage climate denial, and who obstruct and delay a solution to the problem at great cost in dollars and human lives in support of their own short-term greed or ideological agenda, ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.

  101. joeldshore said “You are basically just using the fact that the trend is sufficiently uncertain over such timescales and so it is hard to rule out lots of things with 95% statistical significance”

    You’ve missed the point as usual. The highest-per-capita CO2 producers from Qatar who appear in that video don’t care about your fact any more than Monckton’s. They don’t care about facts at all, just piling on to the “do something now before we all die like the Philippines” fake argument. What Monckton did was call out their charade in the simplest possible terms. You’ve agreed his argument is factual. You’ve wisely avoided commenting on the other part of his argument which you would also have to agree is factual.

  102. “It hasn’t warmed for 16 years” Huh?

    In the 16 year period since 1996, the temperature has increased. (WTI index is created from the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH).

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2013/trend

    If you want to cherry pick your data properly to get your desired result, you should start with the exceptionally high el nino southern summer of 1997-1998 and even then there is a slight upward trend. But don’t wait until 1999 to start your cherry picking , because then you are back to the same rate of increase as in 1996.

    Cherry pickers hate using the most scientifically legitimate data set, that obtained from the beginning of these data sets in 1979 to the present, but just to indicate the kind of fun you can have with cherry picking, consider this. 1979 to the present is significantly upward, the line from 1979 to 2007 is even steeper. So the line from 2008 to the present must be really downward right?

    Well no, trend from 2008 to the present is the steepest of the lot!!!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2007/trend/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2013/trend

  103. “… shrieks of rage from the delegates … Outrage! Silence him! …. Gettimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh! …”
    ============================================
    If the good delegates’ real concern was the welfare of humanity they would welcome any indication that the planet was not headed for catastrophe.
    Christopher Monckton’s article is, as usual, crisp and good humoured. My only reservation, which will raise no hackles here, is the assumption that the surface temperature record since c.1880 is authentic and has not been tampered with by the respective principal custodians in collusion, both of whom are CAGW devotees and were even before any post-war warming was evident.

  104. Independent thought is an impediment to coercing a consensus. While the science remains unsettled, the political, economic, and social benefits to leaders and activists were previously identified.

    The longer this charade continues, the more it resembles a naked grab of power and capital through manipulation of perception, appeals to emotion, and exploitation of people’s baser nature. This is exactly the tactics employed by left-wing (i.e. authoritarian monopoly) regimes to establish and preserve their control of a society.

    What a joke!

  105. Step 1. Get the monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies since January 1997 from the Hadley Centre/CRU.

    With all due respect, Lord Monckton, a “mean global surface temperature anomaly” is a completely useless construct for determining the heat content of the atmosphere. As long as both sides continue to parade out this completely meaningless thing, we will never get anywhere. You might as well argue about whether Solo fired first.

  106. Philip Shehan, you’ve missed the point as well. The predictions for 0.2C per decade or more warming are almost 2x too high. The recent modest warming is a scientific triviality worthy of no serious discussion or policy changes. The conference is wrapped in a cloak of seriousness with the very serious looking local delegates trying their best to avoid admitting their hypocrisy and paying out too much (or any) of their own loot to the alleged victims. Monckton simply pointed out that the delegates have no clothes, their rapid warming CAGW facade is fake and their policy debates are meaningless.

  107. vukcevic says:
    December 7, 2012 at 10:39 am
    ———————————————
    That was worth reading.

  108. Philip Shehan,

    Most climate alarmists suffer from psychological projection. It is you who are cherry-picking. You make the argument that starting at 1997 is cherry-picking — and then you cherry-pick 1979.

    If you want to view the trend you need to go as far back in time as there are reasonably accurate records.

    The long term natural global warming trend has not accelerated, despite a 40% rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is too insignificant to have any measurable effect.

    Finally, your alarmist arm waving over a few tenths of a degree is appropriate for a wild-eyed lunatic, but it is within the calibration error of the recording instruments. When viewed with a normal y-axis, your scare vanishes.

    Better run along back to Pseudo-skeptical Anti-science or RealClimateCensoredPropaganda for some new talking points. The ones you posted have been repeatedly debunked here. That’s why WUWT gets the site traffic and your alarmist blogs don’t. This is the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site, and misinformation like you posted gets corrected fast.

  109. Mostly Harmless. Why did Watt Tyler lead a revolt of thousands against the Aristocrats? Most likely the poll tax – imposed by the Crown – which targeted the tenanted poor more than the landed wealthy – plus ca change…
    How did Tyler die? Apparently he went unarmed and alone -duhhh- to negotiate with the King under truce and was promptly siezed and beheaded on the spot.
    If Lord Monckton is to be the new Tyler, methinks the good Lord should be backed up by several large, well-muscled followers, all armed and ready for negotiations. The precautionary principle and all that. When rent seekers get your cash, history shows they will do anything, lawful or otherwise, to hold on to it….plus c’est la même chose

  110. I have to wonder if many, or at least some, of the delegates had never heard that fact before. We see so many Algore types being knowingly deceitful that it’s easy to forget that some of the higher ups honestly believe the pap that they’ve been fed. Maybe this is the stone that causes an avalanche? We can only hope.
    (And keep stealing the mike.8-)
    PS No, I’m not holding my breath.

  111. Jeff Alberts:

    Exactly. Unless there is an overwhelming change in global conditions, then that metric is irrelevant and even meaningless. The only legitimate and useful metric is restricted to local and regional effects.

    That said, while it risks offering legitimacy to their arguments, it can be useful to confront them on their manufactured grounds.

    I wonder how they explain the carbon credit exchange and developing nations anomalies. Setting aside that the system remains incompletely characterized and its scope ensures it will remain unwieldy to model, those two anomalies alone challenge acceptance of a consensus, and the latter challenge acceptance of their claimed skill and accuracy.

  112. It is sad to see all the commotion about man-made global warming when we face real, dangerous things such as pollution of air, water, and soil; abuse of non-renewable resources; extinction of flora and fauna; and last but not least continuing population growth. In the 1920s the world’s population was fewer than 2 billion, now it is more than 7 billion and rising. If there is a man-made warming we must adjust to it, we can change neither that nor natural climate variability.

  113. Russian Times seems to give Lord Monckton some credit for squelching any agreement. Personally, although it probably helped to cause some to face up to what they have been trying to deny, I think the majority has come to the conclusion that the dire emergency just isn’t there. Look at the importance to these guys of adding bits to the warming temp, revising history in lowering their 1990s estimate of global average temp from 15C to 14C to bend cooling back to warming, shoving the unmistakeable record high Temp period of the 1930s down a degree or so, so that it wouldn’t still be a record for the last 160 yrs, abandoning the Greenland ice cores that show temp leading CO2 and its cyclic nature at a time when there was hardly anything anthropgenic, picking only trees with rings that support the cause – even using imaginary ‘missing’ rings as evidence of underestimation of volcanic aerosol cooling……,

    Ya know, if things are so desperate, we could leave the data raw and it would eventually yield an unequivocal signal. If sea level is going to 4-6 metres by 2100 (we’re one eight the the way to that date already- we are a third into a century since the alarm was raised) then the 1000 months remaining would see accummulating rises of 4 to 6mm a month and 50 to 70 mm a year. No need to adjust this with addition of 0.3mm a year gravitational rebound. Actually the tide guages would eventually be a few metres less than the “official” levels if they are wrong. Let’s wait until 2020 before we waste another dime.

  114. Philip Shehan says:
    December 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    ”It hasn’t warmed for 16 years” Huh?
    That IS in fact the case for RSS and others are not far behind.
    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

  115. Ahhhhh……. Speaking truth to power

    This, ladies and gentlemen, is as far as our species has made it…….during this interglacial

    Fascinating!

  116. “an impressive indaba of stony-faced U.N. officials”

    “Indaba” seems the right term to use for such a tribal gathering.

  117. So would the Russians now give the scepter to Czar Monckton? Should they scrap the “Lord” title and call him King Monckton in Great Britain?

    I mentioned earlier this ad lib sequitur by Monckton might be the death knell of CAGW; it might be what sinks the good ship “UN Climate“.

    I would be honored to serve even as a lowly jester in King Monckton’s court.

  118. @ Carter: The folks here believe the d-word is associated with “holocaust deniers” who are antisemitic or even neo-fascist. I have never bought this argument, but it is their site so when I occasionally post here I respect their rules. Oh, and don’t bother trying to debate the science with them.

  119. mbw says:

    “Oh, and don’t bother trying to debate the science with them.”

    mbw has learned his lesson the hard way: scientific skeptics have won the debate based on real science and real world observations. It is the propaganda debate that is being fought over, and which the mendacious climate alarmist cult has relied on for their part of the argument. Cases in point are Carter’s constant ad hominem fallacies, which take the place of logical thinking — something that Carter cannot handle.

    But the science debate has clearly been won by skeptics, who have routinely skewered the alarmist crowd with scientific facts and empirical observations. Unfortunately, we have passed the Enlightenment, and we now appear to be entering a new Dark Age, run by the Idiocracy. Burn the witches!

  120. Lord Monckton,

    Wonderfully done. Bravo! It must be an incredible shock for them to realize that there is a world outside their bubble (and cellphones ;-)

    FWIW, there are cycles longer than 60 years as well. There is a high probability that we are at the end of a 1500 year cycle (when things warm) just before they plunge into cold (relatively speaking). In that case, CO2 becomes quite irrelevant.

    I have a suggestion: Authorize a T-Shirt with your image upon it, and the number “16”…

    Each year a new one… I’ll be buying a couple each year…

  121. D Böehm : December 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Of course i was cherry picking. That was the point of my post (Philip Shehan says:
    December 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm). You can get any result you like if you cherry pick years. Werner Brozek , December 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm, refines this to years and months! More fun with cherry picking:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gi

    The long term warming since the industrial revolution is clear and not, as Monckton wrongly assumes, linear:

  122. ‘There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.’
    No, you cannot say there has been no warming. You need another type of statistical analysis in order to show that a negative is true. From your analysis, all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.
    Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it.

  123. Philip Shehan,

    Please, stop posting totally bogus, fabricated charts from your “unreliable” blog [see the WUWT sidebar for details].

    The Wood For Trees [WFT] site uses verifiable data, which contradicts your ridiculous propaganda. There has been zero acceleration of [natural] global warming since the LIA [the green line shows the long term declining trend].

    If you are going to use mendaciously fabricated, unsourced, pretend data, the go-to climate propaganda source is the ‘unreliable’ climate alarmist blog Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science. But they are not credible. If you want credibility, at least stick with the WFT databases.

    The fact is that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years — much less any accelerated global warming. So who should we believe, a failed cartoonist’s thinly-trafficked propaganda blog, or Planet Earth? The answer is obvious.

  124. [snip. Some folks never seem to learn that “denier”, “denialist”, etc., are not tolerated here. — mod.]

  125. From your analysis, all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.

    This is very true, but I am ‘playing’ NOAA’s game with their goal posts and have proven that Earth ‘scored a goal’.

    ”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.”

  126. Now this gives new meaning to speaking truth to power. Lord Monckton is a gem, whose whit and mental acumen remind me of William F. Buckley, Jr. (RIP).

  127. “The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.”
    —————————————————-
    Send him to every one!

  128. Well Mr Monckton it seems you are not alone in challenging the current orthodoxies of identity politics although if you’re not the right identity(climatologist?) you’ll naturally be regarded as a pariah or heretic for raising some unpleasant but obvious truths.

    To the readers see if you can spot the parallels and similarities with an epiphany of healthy skepticism over the rapid rise of emotional orthodoxies among our new compassionatte classes here-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_comment31/

    In particular read Kerryn Pholis Quadrant article in full for a wry smile at healthy skepticism and questioning the consensus and edicts of cosy inner circle and its implicit identity club rules.

    Perhaps the worm is turning and we about to enter a new phase of evidential enquiry and what works rather than simply belonging to the right club and flaunting its moral badge in public. Mind you I don’t think the self-righteous occupying the taxpayer commanding heights will roll over that easily but there are some positive signs.

  129. “The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.”

    ====

    Lord Monckton,

    Perhaps you could have also mentioned that you noticed that several chairs appeared to have been abandoned and you just needed a place to sit. And then you noticed a microphone with a button on it and pressed it out of curiosity and they offered to let you speak. It’s not like you disrupted any other speaker or important ongoing dialog!

    You really rattled some cages at the circus! Priceless.

    +1

  130. Steve D says:
    December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm


    Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it.

    Or it may be so small as to be a non-problem.

    And you can’t tell which, but either way, it may not matter.

    (Don’tcha just love the word “may”? Look, there are a whole bunch of problems in the world that need solving without going about making stuff up just to have a problem to solve!)

  131. Monckton: I have been a bad boy.

    That’s what happens when you hang out with a delinquent teenager.
    : > )

  132. D Boehm,

    Yes, Wood For Trees does indeed use verifiable data, which is why I used it in my 6:43 pm post demonstrating the hazards of cherry picking which you originally objected to. Name calling and abuse is a tactic resorted to by those who have no substantive rebuttal. No scientist at any conference I have attended or spoken at ever engages in this.

    In my second post the first link on cherry picking failed so I represent the page here (figure three is what I was specifically referring to). Note that the graphs and data are from peer reviewed references. They are not inventions of the Skeptical Science site. Kindly point out where this data is wrong if you can.

  133. In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made Qatari UN Climate Conference presidents… Plus delegates that are getting harder and harder to support in the style to which they’ve become accustomed.

    They sure did get temperamental… about 98% temper and 2% mental!

    Merry Christmas Christopher Monckton!

  134. As mentioned above, Monckton says he said: “There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.”

    However, it looks to me like the lack of warming has been here for only 11 years according to smoother HadCRUT3:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    Have a look at UAH:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Apply 5-year smoothing to that, and it looks like lower tropospheric temperature only failed to warm for the past 12 years.

  135. Every so often a science realist devotee’s effort flashes above the many normal scintillations of the other noble efforts – congratulations Lord Chris, you’ve done it again!

    If only episodes like your latest could get to the general audiences. We have to keep up these soundly fact based events so they can’t be simply overwhelmed by the din of msm’s, the U.N.’s, the EPA’s and academia’s constant emotional, ideological and/or narcissistic fantasies.

    Keep the efforts coming lords and ladies, guys and gals!

  136. Steve D says: December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    “….Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it…..”

    Ha ha ha (choke …gasp) ha ha ha …..!! …I just love this argument…..

    Wipes tears from eyes and asks: “Your point being, Steve?”

  137. Brilliant! Super timing. Great follow through. XD

    And RT, i.e. the Russians of all who with the Japanese have run away screaming from Kyoto, now for audience appeal try to fain indignation. We I do hope RT gets a few more hits but like the carbon-coin market will be short lived.

    Wonder if Al Gore’s lawyers are suing AGU for the AGU’s President’s usage of an unflattering image of Al Gore vomiting fire like Godzilla.

    Well.

    AGU has come to an end even if COP18 can’t or the government zombies refuse to die peacefully. There was a time when I really enjoyed ‘mopping up’ operations in various countries of the world.

    Bravo Lord and May God Save the Queen and All that.

    Cheers

  138. Very nicely played Christopher.

    Could it be that the World is even more indebted to the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, than they were to the first Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

    And you do it in such style. Thank you your Lordship.

    George E. Smith

  139. D Boehm,

    Regarding your assertion that your link shows there has been no acceleration in warming trend while condemning the data and fit from Skeptical science. Compare the two figures you will see that the temperature data are essentiually the same.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.15/detrend:-0.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.4/detrend:-0.18/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5/plot/hadcrut3vnh/scale:0.00001/offset:-1.5

    Your plot looks flatter because your multiple use of offsets means that the temperature scale is compressed with respect to the time scale. The ratio of the scales is essentially arbitrary and has no physical significance.

    Wood for trees does not have an option for non linear fits so you are stuck with a linear fit. There is no reason to expect that the plot should be linear. The Skeptical Science plot has used a non linear fit (unfortunately it does not give the function but it looks exponential). This line has a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.8412. No correlation coefficient is supplied for your linear fit, but eyeballing the green line clearly shows that it does not fit as well with the data as the non-linear fit

  140. When Monckton said “There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons” the delegate behind him looked as if he was about to choke on his carbon credits!

  141. I love it!

    So, the Apostolic High Priests at the Inner Temple of the Holy Planet Ziggurat of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have excommunicated the evil heretic Lord Monckton for upsetting a lot of bent Gaia botherers with a truth display and ejected him into the outer darkness of the real world.

    Excellent! Go Monckton! Next time you’re minded to venture in their direction, kindly ratchet up the upsetting a few notches — gatecrash the event, burn their Temple down and napalm the lot of them. You’re a man of means. Please see to it. Metaphorically speaking of course.

    Well maybe. For sure I wouldn’t lose any sleep one way or the other. In fact…. :)

  142. SteveD
    “all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.”

    roflmao..mrh

    or COOLING may have occurred and you have not detected it.

    or a pink elephant flew across the sky.. and you failed to detect it.

  143. tiresome and boring when NOTHING UNTOWARD IS HAPPENING, isn’t it !!!

    oh.. expect plant life being really happy ;-)

    I like trees.. do you ???

    its all right though…

    DON’T PANIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  144. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    December 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Apply 5-year smoothing to that, and it looks like lower tropospheric temperature only failed to warm for the past 12 years.
    ——————————————————————————————–
    Yes, yes, and with fifty or hundred or thousand year smoothing you could eliminate any trend.
    Your point?

  145. Steve D:

    At December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm You write in total

    There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

    No, you cannot say there has been no warming. You need another type of statistical analysis in order to show that a negative is true. From your analysis, all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.
    Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it.

    OK.
    I have malevolent faeries at the bottom of my garden. They are so small it is beyond your ability to detect them, but they may cause severe harm at some time in the future.

    I need money to defend against the faeries so I intend to take the money from you to do it.

    Don’t complain. Just give me the money.

    Richard

  146. Steve D says: December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm
    “….Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it…..”

    It’s a pity that the UN top honcho didn’t think of that to counter Lord Monckton’s argument. That would have cleared things up and we would have a Global Warming treaty now, probably one that agrees on paying an infinite amount of money for an undetectable amount of warming… :-)

  147. Donald L. Klipstein:

    You move the goal posts to off the planet in your post at December 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm.

    Your post says in total

    As mentioned above, Monckton says he said: “There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.”
    However, it looks to me like the lack of warming has been here for only 11 years according to smoother HadCRUT3:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    Have a look at UAH:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Apply 5-year smoothing to that, and it looks like lower tropospheric temperature only failed to warm for the past 12 years.

    It does not matter what you think “smoothing” makes the data “looks like”.

    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 climate models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more. But that has happened according to all the major global climate temperature data sets (except the totally corrupted GISSTEMP): as Werner Brozek reports in his post at December 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm

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

    And if you want to use the corrupted GISSTEMP then you need to explain this

    The models represent the understandings of climate promoted by e.g. the IPCC.
    The more than 15 years of no discernible warming at 95% confidence shows the models are wrong.

    Richard

  148. Isn’t it significant that Lord Monckton’s one minute address had such a impact on a two week (80 hour, 480 minute) conference by the official rent seekers (we can’t call them experts) trying to influence the future of the planet, in the interests of all mankind? sarc. Lord Monckton you have done the planet a great service.

  149. • There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.
    ————-
    True, but misleading. That 16 years of “no trend” can be asserted over and over again by selecting any number of 16 year ranges from the last 100 years of warming.

    Chris just has a total lack of skill when it comes to interpreting graphs showing a lot of random variation.

    Having spent a fair amount of time staring at real time charts looking for a signal I know from personal experience how easy it is to get your hopes up over some noise blip or other.

    Very often the blips are just noise not real signal. Takes a stubborn person not to learn from these mistakes. Chris is real stubborn.

    For more context about whether the recent temperature variation looks like any other random wandering on the trend graph look here:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#section_2

  150. And here is a riddle for you.

    If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.

    So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason.

    Anyone like to suggest why the trend in UHI is flat? Has urbanization stopped? Has China stopped developing? Has South America stopped developing? Has Africa stopped developing? Has Canada etccc. stopped building sprawling cities?

    What could explain this?

  151. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am

    This confirms Einsteins saying. A couple of sentences, and the thruth is revealed. The emperor has no clothes!!! Yikes!!!

  152. Mods:
    Perhaps you could show again the UK Met Office graph they published a few weeks ago that showed no warming for 15 or 16 years. That should stop some of the argument. Thanks.

  153. LT.. obviously the UHI effect has slowed, as most once rural stations have now been swallowed and its becoming much harder for GISS and HAD to justify/hide their upward trend adjustments.

    Too many people are now watching them

    Also, since there are still some small amount of urban and mannipulation effects, the REAL global temperature is actually dropping, in line with the inactivity of the sun.

    Thanks for pointing this out !!

  154. Just looked a the RT article.

    Nicely reported!

    Monckton of Brenchley’s statement is reported in full, and really is the main focus of the whole article!

  155. I can understand the temptation and accept the prank (must have been only humorous talk for a full week) but please not do it again.
    Self-rightous, above the law vigilanteism is best left to the other side, we should stay on the high ground. In the long term term that tends to be the winning tactic.

    PS: The video is priceless, you are so out of script but only the chair and some officials clearly gets the points. A true “the emperor has no cloths on” moment. A little sad the process is so railroaded it will not matter at all but that is UN.

  156. “Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.”

    Surely just an attribution of sequence rather than blame.

  157. “So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason.”

    Logic FAIL here – it means that UHI must be keeping temps flat, so real temps are FALLING!!!!!

  158. @joeldshore
    “So, if you don’t want to be “mathematically-nerdy”, you could just as easily say “The warming rate for the past 16 years has not changed from the warming rate during the 1975-1997 period.””
    +++++++

    Well you sure got that wrong! There was statistically significant global warming from 1975-1997. That is held to be the proof of anthropogenic CO2 working its evil mischief in our thermometers.

    There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1997. That is a very different situation. The warming has stopped inferring that the rise in the 1975-1997 period may have been created by other causes. As about 1/3 of all human-sourced CO2 has emitted since 1997, it is already evident that CO2 has no detectable influence on the global temperature. If it was detectable with confidence (95%) the signal would be larger than the error bars. It is not.

  159. Even in the face of clear evidence that Earth isn’t burning to a crisp as charlatans and ‘experts’ keep insisting is and will be happening and temperature trends fluctuate with a barely perceptible increase, despite an increase of some so-called ghg’s, there are some who are quite disturbed by this. And although this is [or should be] good news for all earth citizens, many are disturbed by this. One of the things I do is help someone who suffers from cognitive impairment which can’t be helped, but it is disturbing when those with well-functioning cognitive systems indulge in cognitive dissonance or some other disorder in order to deny that the Earth isn’t about to burn up and are quite upset that mankind can no longer be blamed for the earth-combustion that’s not going to happen and so can’t be legitimately punished and precious $ sources may dry up. The stubborn and wealthy Al Gore’s, et al will never concede and return to reality since that would mean having to agree that Earth doesn’t really have a Fever and agreeing with skeptical and honest citizens.

  160. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am

    Your “questions” are absurd and idiotic, even for you. The FACT that there has been no further warming the past 16 years has nothing to do with the FACT that UHI, as well as other factors such as stations in rural areas dropping out worldwide (except the U.S.) has been responsible for a significant (perhaps as much as 50%) portion of the reported warming. Most of the worlds’ weather stations are concentrated in the U.S. now. You and your brethren are grasping at increasingly flimsy straws.

  161. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am

    “And here is a riddle for you. ”

    Mr. Teenager, I have a suggestion for you; Get some education within process control. You would then immediately understand that there could be another explanation; The temperature is actually decreasing……

  162. I commend Lord Monckton on his activities and that of CFACT, including the tireless Marc Morano, at COP 18, however it ain’t dead yet.

    If you want to see what sort of a party they were having, look at the galleries here:

    http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/26nov.html

    Check out Christian Figueres and her Media man, ex-Reuters SE Asia Editor, Eric Hall, in his Chairman Mao tunic. http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/images/30nov/DSC_4140_cfpress.jpg

    See some social justice here: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/images/4dec/DSC_5961.jpg

    Check out John Schellnhuber pulling in new contracts for his Potsdam Institute, with Qatar signing on the dotted line for a new Climate institute, http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/5dec.html. That will be another one to add to the “consensus”.

    Have a look at the links at the bottom of the gallery pages where the real work takes place. All manner of things are negotiated behind closed doors with the full involvement and co-operation of our governments. Billions are promised on our behalf and they meet all year round. Even though countries such as Canada have pulled out of Kyoto, they are still pushing loadsa money into the whole system. Western countries actually pay for poor countries such as Myanmar to attend.

    Environment Canada – Minister Kent Announces International Climate Funding (Durban last year) http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=B37E3BE6-5D04-4566-B674-677A20213456

    “Canada’s contribution is for three years. An initial contribution of $400 million is already starting to produce results and today, the Government is announcing further investments of almost $600 million for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.”

    Here’s where the money went in 2010-11: http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=5F50D3E9-1
    “As part of our commitment to provide our fair share of fast-start financing, Canada is contributing $1.2 billion in new and additional climate change financing for the fiscal years 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/2013. This is Canada’s largest ever contribution to support international efforts to address climate change. It is focused on three priority areas – adaptation, clean energy, and forests and agriculture.”

    http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/fast_start_finance_progress_report_canada_-_final.pdf

    The UK just committed £2 billion of new money: http://www.thegwpf.org/2-billion-uk-funds-green-investments-africa/ and it was at Copenhagen that Hilary Clinton announced that, “the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries.”

    As long as our politicians give away money that we haven’t got, this Hydra headed monster will not die.

  163. And using wikipedia as a climate reference… seriously???

    Next you’ll be citing SkS…. or your junior high school notes !

  164. “And here is a riddle for you.

    If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.

    So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason. ”

    Once again, a warmist show how illogical and indoctrinated one has to be, to believe in AGW.

  165. Crashed in the sense of a Kamikaze or ‘divine wind’ I assume, thank goodness someone has found a use for wind (speaking truth to) power.

  166. “The most eye-catching moment was likely when Lord Monckton, a staunch critic of the climate change movement, gate crashed the summit by disguising himself as a delegate from Myanmar.”

    “disguising himself”? It’s not a disguise. He’s always looked Myanmarese.

  167. It was pretty much doomed to fail from the start, but Lord Monckton can take at least some of the credit for helping that happen.
    Lazy, your “questions” are becoming increasingly ridiculous, even for you. I guess it must be difficult for you, having your Warmist ideology collapsing, leaving you to flail away helplessly.

  168. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
    “Anyone like to suggest why the trend in UHI is flat? Has urbanization stopped? Has China stopped developing? Has South America stopped developing? Has Africa stopped developing? Has Canada etccc. stopped building sprawling cities?

    What could explain this?”

    You’ve been around here for years so I guess you’re trolling as you must have seen the posts explaining it.

    But even trolls need to eat, so here is your fodder:
    Dr. roy Spencer, UHI

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/spencers-uhi-vs-population-project-an-update/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/03/spencer-using-hourly-surface-dat-to-gauge-uhi-by-population-density/

  169. Fairfax Media, which owns the following SMH, is sacking/making redundant hundreds & hundreds of journalists, but keeps on an army of CAGW hacks to write rubbish such as this:

    9 Dec: Sydney Morning Herald: \Fake plastic trees and a volcanic push to keep the globe cool
    by Ben Cubby, Tom Arup, Adam Morton and Nicky Phillips examine plans that range from the realistic to the wacky
    Artificial volcanoes, ships that paint the clouds whiter, and forests of fake trees planted across the outback: some of the ”answers” to climate change sound like they’ve been torn from a science fiction magazine…
    Estimates of the cost of plan ”B”, a comprehensive climate adaptation plan for Australia, vary widely. In general, the costs are governed by the principle laid out in the Garnaut Climate Change Review – the longer we wait, the higher the price.
    That’s why scientists keep returning to plan ”A” as the only viable option – cutting greenhouse gas emissions, by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and other technologies. The longer the world waits, the more the cost of adapting to climate change escalates, and the higher the risks. And, barring an unforeseen technological breakthrough, the geoengineering hopes of plan ”C” are unlikely to do more than mask a portion of rising temperatures.”This is critical – we really need to see emissions start to come down in the next three to four years,” says Professor Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University climate change institute and a member of the government’s Climate Commission.
    ***Clarification
    Part one in this series, published on Saturday, said a five-degree rise would increase the global average temperature from 14 degrees to 19 degrees. This is correct. It also said this would make the average day 35 per cent hotter. This may be misleading. Using the Kelvin scale, which places absolute zero at -273 degrees , an average day would be 1.7 per cent hotter.
    This is a clarification in how the relative increase in temperature is expressed only. It does not affect the rest of the article, which describes what scientists believe a five-degree warmer world may look like and explained how projections of future temperature rises are made.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fake-plastic-trees-and-a-volcanic-push-to-keep-the-globe-cool-20121208-2b24u.html

  170. poor Fiona – not happy! anonymous quotes, let’s blame the hosts, don’t mention the one bright spot, Monckton’s 16 years:

    7 Dec: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: Climate change talks deadlocked on final day of UN summit
    Talks on a new climate deal ground (???) on through Friday night in Qatar, as countries failed to agree on key issues including: rescuing the Kyoto protocol, finance and compensation for poor countries suffering the effects of climate change, and how to structure a proposed new global climate change agreement.
    The negotiations, which have gone on for more than a fortnight, looked set to last for most of Saturday. But the marathon session left many delegates hopeful of rescuing a deal amid the frustration and confusion of the night.
    “We have worked without a break and people realise we need to go home with something,” said one delegate…
    Rumours and counter-rumours were flying as ministers met in small groups and huddles of twos and threes to hammer out compromises. Some meetings were fractious, with delegates conscious of the need avoid a breakdown, which would be disastrous for the image of these talks with the eyes of the world upon the 195 governments meeting in Doha…
    Talks started a fortnight ago with a limited agenda and a deal on the key issues looked likely. But in the final three days, during the so-called “ministerial segment” when environment ministers arrive to take over from officials, the talks got out of hand. Countries turned their back on compromises and retreated to their entrenched positions. Many blamed the Qatari hosts for failing to take a firm grip and allowing the negotiations to get out of hand.
    One participant said: “It’s like the Qataris think it’s a World Cup, but this is not a game of football – these are serious negotiations about the future of the planet. They have not taken this seriously – they have not got a grip.”
    Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defence Capital, said: “There’s a cultural mismatch between the Qatari team and this process. They think deal-making is beneath them. They are not managing very well.”
    One delegate accused the Qataris of going home early on Thursday instead of working through the night on the draft texts, as hosts are expected to…
    Qatar, the world’s third biggest exporter of natural gas, is also the world’s biggest per capita emitter of carbon – 50 tonnes a year, compared to 17 for the US and 1.4 for India. The country makes the majority of its $170bn annual income from oil and gas…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/08/climate-change-talks-deadlocked-summit

  171. Anyone who doubts the powerful influence of conformity and groupthink in the climate debate should ask themselves what it would take for a legitimate speaker to say the same things.

    Who would be willing to be kicked out of the “in” group.and sacrifice status built up over the course of an entire career?

  172. JBirks says: December 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    I’m wondering how Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself these days, one of the poorest countries on earth, is sending a delegation to Qatar in the first place.
    _____________________________________

    Of course they are all attending. The rainbow at the end of these conferences contains pots of gold for all the indolent and disorganised nations of the Earth, that the West has to pay for. These deliberately Third World nations are all there with their snouts in the Western trough.

  173. “Part one in this series, published on Saturday, said a five-degree rise would increase the global average temperature from 14 degrees to 19 degrees. ”

    The energy required to do this is unlikely to be found from the sun alone. To warm the planet that much would require warming a significant portion of the volume of the oceans. That is just not going to happen in only a few millenia.

  174. @SanityP Because “there’s nothing really we need to do” doesn’t afford governments an excuse to tax the people? So they’re much more happy to invest a few millions in conferences to squeeze their populations for billions in tax hikes which they can then spend on “social justice” programs to buy votes of the unproductive (many of which they’ve pushed into unproductivity with their policies, mind you).

  175. Don’t count your chickens yet, It’s not over till the fat lady sings.
    They’ll agree on something even if it’s just where to have the next meeting. And as long as their still having meetings none of us can rest easy.

  176. Teenager:
    Over the past 16 years, please identify exactly what parts and influences of the urban heat island effect have increased – over the regions where the UHI has influenced temperatures between 1850 and 2012.

    That is, if New York’s Central Park thermometer reads +6 degrees C higher than a “ideal” thermometer located in the same place between 1650 and 1805 – when the Hudson regularly froze over, Washington faced ice flows, and Cornelius Vanderbilt had to fight the frozen waters between Staten Island and Manhattan – why would any UHI effect be different in 2012 as it was in 1996?
    There has been no “urbanization” differences between Central Park and the nearest 60 miles between 1996 and today. Indeed, in many places across the US, Canada, and Europe, there is LESS activity the past 6 years than in 1996! There is NO UHI effect in most third world countries because the thermometer record don’t go past the cities already in place when the record began. In China and India, plot the differences in UHI according to thermometer location and industry, roads, buildings, and immediate influences: show us (don’t just claim it! – that there is a difference in sites between 1996 and today at each site being used overseas.

    We are basing the scientific fact that there has been no measured worldwide increase in temperatures since 1996 on satellite records for the entire globe (Arctic included!). The satellite temperatures do NOT require corrections or adjustments for UHI effects because they measure everything, everywhere.

    Only the ground thermometers (Hansen’s NASA-GISS much-propagandized and NOAA’s mal-adjusted records) are increased by UHI effects of various nearby cities changing between the start of the thermometer record and the area’s urbanization. That CHANGE in urbanization finished for 85% of the US stations between 1960 and 1980. An additional 8% of the US stations faced urbanization changes nearby between 1980 and 1996. Only a tiny fraction of US, Canadian, and Australian stations – and NO European stations – faced area-wide UHI changes between 1996 and 2012.

    You are making CAGW-convenient/CAGW-required claims – like those of “particulates” and “aerosols varying worldwide between 1945 and 1970″ but you have no data to justify your religion.

    Now, as to “why” Hansen “re-calibrates” (recalculates and re-writes actually) the entire United States’ temperature record since 1915 every month based on “new” thermometer data and “new” light source backgrounds ….. Only he knows.

    See, a reasonable person would write a program that – actually “records” past data as it was written down, then “adds” new information to the past records every month. Then displays both “old” and “new” data in one plot. Then, if “corrections” or changes are warranted in specific records for specific reasons, THEN those corrections are added – and added ONLY to the corrected data points (not to every past record with no rational premis), THEN the results are plotted with the original.

    But Hansen re-calibrates EVERY past record EVERY month for EVERY station based on “average” corrections he feels necessary based on “potential and average” biases based on theoretical averaged changes in assumed time-of-observation biases and thermometer types and the latest monthly NASA light factor measurement. Thus, every month, Hansen calculates a new “non-urban” temperature record for a 1925 thermometer in rural mid-Tennessee based on the latest 2012 light data for Tennessee, north Georgia, and north Alabama for average temperature values from Huntsville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Nashville.

    But did that 1925 rural TN temperature actually change in 2012? Nope.
    Did that 1925 rural TN temperature value change between 1925 and 1996 due to UHI? Maybe. Maybe not.
    Did that 1996 temperature value change between 1996 and 2012? No.
    Did that rural 1925 temperature value change in 1932 due to a change in observation time or observatin technique? Maybe. If it did – change the “output” ground station record ONCE. Don NOT change the “original data” for 1925 through 1932 as Hansen does every month, but rather change the “output” record for 1925 through 1932. But change EVERY (past) record FOR THAT PARTICULAR station ONE time with a specific site-justified edit that never changes again. Then, if a recording change happens again in 1944 with a site location change …. create a NEW single-station edit. Don’t change north Georgia’s past records based on assumed and theoretical TOBS changes that happened in rural TN or rural AL or urban GA stations at other dates and at other times.

  177. Well done Lord M.
    Remember what happened to the bloke who was thrown out of the Labour Party Conference for shouting, “Rubbish”?
    You could be up on the podium at their next shindig.

  178. Funny & fitting how things come around. The good Lord is just using the same tactics as the hippies used & espoused 40 yrs ago against the “establishment”. Now they’re the establishment….

    Back at ya!

  179. ****
    LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am

    And here is a riddle for you.

    If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.

    So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason.
    ****

    Duh. It means temps unaffected by UHI are actually falling. Some people just can’t conceive of that….

  180. SanityP says:
    December 8, 2012 at 4:41 am

    Why aren’t there any regular Anti-AGW Climate Conferences ?

    Heartland Institute has one every year and they’re much more informative than these UN-sponsored shindigs (which are designed primarily to take money on false pretenses but not much more).

    And Anthony held his first ever 24-hr climate science marathon less than two weeks ago–and he’s been putting segments of it on YouTube and past threads here at WUWT for your viewing pleasure 24/7. I’m sure we’ll have another next year to counter Gore’s fiasco.

    Those are pretty regular “conferences”. And they’re Anti-AGW (or pro-science, if you catch my drift). The content of both is superb.

  181. Carter says:
    December 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    But seen as you are denying the vast majority of scientific evidence then logically you must be a denier!
    ==========
    No, because science doesn’t “count” the number of times something is shown to be true as proof that it is true. Science only counts the number of times something is shown to be false. If that number is greater than zero, then it is false.

    The reason for this is at the heart of the scientific method. You can always find for example tall, red-headed men as proof that red hair makes men tall. If you pay people lots of money to do studies to find just such a correlation, you will end up with thousands of studies showing that red hair makes men tall.

    However, the fact that there are thousands of studies showing that red hair makes men tall doesn’t make it true. What makes it likely is that you cannot find a single short man with red hair. However, if you do find a single short man with red hair, then this is proof that the theory is wrong, red hair doesn’t make men tall.

    What is being “denied” when you count studies is the scientific method. We “count” in politics. The number of “yes” votes versus the number of “no” votes. So, when you talk about the “vast majority” you are talking politics, not science.

    When you use the term “denier” this is not science, it is a form of propaganda in support of politics. The term “denier” has political meaning as in “holocaust denier”. It has no scientific meaning. In science the term is “skeptical” because the history of science shows that 95% of what we believe to be true today will eventually be shown to be false.

    Today we believe matter is made from quarks, yesterday we believed it was made from atoms, and tomorrow, who can predict what we will find? Every time we think we “know” the truth we are surprised to find that there is yet another “truth” underneath. And every time we look, we find yet another truth under that.

  182. A Robbin Williams-esque treatise on the politics of Climate:

    Climate Change

    Rich countries: The earth is warming and the consequences have already been disasterous, and will be increasingly so if we don’t all do something!
    Developing countries: We’re not responsible for the previous warming, you are. Therefore, we should be allowed to continue our development without regard to C02, just as you have done previously.
    Poor countries: Wah -wah! We’re poor, and the most affected by the already-disasterous consequences of climate change, which you richer countries have caused, and continue to. You owe us $100 billion per year in climate reparations, and to enable us to go Green. Pay up!
    Rich countries: Well, things are a little tight right now, and besides, the developing countries need to cough up their fair share.
    Developing countries: No way Jose.
    Poor countries: Boo-hoo-hoo. Nobody cares about us. We are going to secede from the planet!

    Climate Change

  183. Brilliant.
    What surprises me most is that it seems that nobody in the room knows who he is. Were there no veteran climate warmers in this the meeting? For them He is public enemy nr 1 for so how the hell did he get in? It is as if Bin Laden is walking inside The White House.

  184. According to the latest (15:30 gmt) post on Conservative Home, the developed world may soon be compensating the developing world for climate change. The US appears ready to consent to it this time, because the wording of the proposal caps compensation payouts by wealthy countries at a nonetheless-eye-watering €100bn a year.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/12/the-developed-world-may-soon-be-compensating-the-developing-world-for-climate-change.html

  185. dc 51 says:
    December 8, 2012 at 6:06 am
    They’ll agree on something even if it’s just where to have the next meeting.
    =========
    Surely you must know the first rule of conferences. The most important thing to be decided at any conference is where to hold the next conference. The second most important is where we are going to party while at the conference. And the third most important item is to collect enough evidence to convince your boss to send you to the next conference. A couple of compromising photos of your boss partying while at the conference and you can wrap up point 2 and 3 quite neatly, leaving point 1 as the only thing to be decided.

  186. So after countless previous speakers, the only reason Doha failed was because of Moncktons 40 second speech… Still, that’s all it takes, one little bit of genuine science trumps BS.

  187. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am

    Having spent a fair amount of time staring at real time charts looking for a signal I know from personal experience how easy it is to get your hopes up over some noise blip or other.

    Is this some kind of Zen technique? At the moment I’m using maths to reveal signals in noise. I sure would like just to be able to stare at the charts and have them reveal their secrets.

  188. I used to watch RT, and they do offer some novel perspectives. The US and Britain, for example, are responsible for instigating the Syrian uprising, and the anti-capitalist demonstrators in New York were the victims of brutal police oppression and violence.

    Their report on Doha seems relatively balanced in that they do mention the fact that there exist critics of AGW. As for Lord Monckton being responsible for the failure of CoP18, if indeed it has failed (see my previous post), I hope he attends Cop19, and the CoPs after that.

  189. Philip Shehan says:

    “Name calling and abuse is a tactic resorted to by those who have no substantive rebuttal. No scientist at any conference I have attended or spoken at ever engages in this.”

    Shehan is blinkered and sees only what he wants to see. Michael Mann is the King of name-calling and abuse. If I had a dollar for every time Mann called scientific skeptics “denialists”, I could retire rich.

    Despite Shehan’s blinkers, I thoroughly rebutted the “carbon” scare with verifiable facts. Shehan is in denial because he believes, without any empirical, testable evidence, that more CO2 causes a measurable rise in temperature. It does not. The only empirical evidence showing correlation between CO2 and temperature shows that CO2 follows temperature — not vice-versa. I also showed conclusively that there has been no recent acceleration of global warming. In fact, global warming stopped in the 1990’s, as Lord Monckton so effectively stated. No amount of Shehan’s artful cherry-picking can change the trend. Only the planet can do that.

    Shehan gets his anti-science nonsense from the incredible pseudo-science blog that is listed in its own “Unreliable” category on the sidebar, so naturally his conclusions are wrong and thus easy to debunk.

  190. Robert of Ottawa says:
    December 8, 2012 at 5:34 am
    I liked the bewilderment of the chairman.
    ===========
    Like a loud fart heard during an important speech. Everyone looks around bewildered as if to say “who farted, it wasn’t me”. Afterwards, the speech is forgotten, while everyone remembers the fart.

    Well done Monckton! It isn’t what you say so much as how you say it.

  191. Greg House says:
    December 8, 2012 at 8:54 am
    Dear optimists,
    please, take into consideration that “16 years without global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.

    Dear Catastro-Psuedo-scientifics,
    please, take into consideration that only “22 years with global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.

  192. The Russian article ends with a ludicrous lie:

    “Critics, however, say those claims are not substantiated with science, and argue that there has been little, if any, climate change over the course of human history.”

    First phrase correct, but second preposterous. “Critics” point to the fact that over the course of human history, ie the Quaternary, climate has constantly changed in cycles of varying lengths. Climate in the past 2.5 million years of our genus has gone from much warmer than today to much colder, repeatedly. Same goes for past 200,000 years of our species & subspecies (longer if Neanderthals & Denisovans be considered subspecies of sapiens, as IMO they were, along with African ancestors of anatomically modern H. sapiens).

    I guess the statement is meaningful if “climate change” means constant cycles.

  193. RACookPE1978 says, December 8, 2012 at 9:08 am: “Dear Catastro-Psuedo-scientifics,
    please, take into consideration that only “22 years with global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.”

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

    Wonderful, but there is one problem: the fixation on only last 16 years implies that the whole “global warming” thing is correct, which it is not.

    So, when our hero says again and again that there is global warming, warmists say “thank you”. And when he says “16 years without global warming”, they can easily point out to other periods without global warming and easily dismiss those “16 years without global warming” as a natural deviation from a large scale trend. As I said before, this is not a winning strategy.

  194. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
    And here is a riddle for you.
    If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect?

    And I have a riddle for you.
    As I have shown above, the trend for RSS is flat for 16 years. So if the north polar region had a large increase in temperatures as is claimed, what does that say about the rest of the world over the last 16 years?

  195. And when he says “16 years without global warming”, they can easily point out to other periods without global warming and easily dismiss those “16 years without global warming” as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.

    However the previous 16 years without warming occurred before CO2 really became an issue. Note the final bold sentence below in particular.
    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.

  196. RACookPE1978 says:

    “please, take into consideration that only ’22 years with global warming’ can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.”

    True. When trends are discussed, the longer the time frame, the more clearly and accurately a trend can be seen. SkS constantly cherry-picks very short time frames in a mendacious attempt to show that global warming is accelerating. It is not; they are simply being dishonest.

    The long term global warming trend is not accelerating, as can be seen by viewing a very long time frame.

    In fact, rather than accelerating, global warming has recently stalled. This has repeatedly happened before — and during times when CO2 was much lower, proving that CO2 has no measurable effect. QED

    If CO2 has any effect on temperature, it is clear that the effect is minuscule; far below anything the alarmist crowd [or even many skeptics] believe it is. Otherwise, the effect of CO2 could be measured following its recent 40% rise. But there are no such empirical measurements or observations.

    Since the effect [if any] of CO2 is demonstrably too tiny to measure, no further funds should be expended on the “carbon” false alarm. For all practical purposes, CO2 has zero effect on global temperatures. Any refutation must be backed up with testable, empirical measurements. Otherwise, any such disagreements are nothing more than evidence-free conjectures.

  197. True, true.

    But Greg and David, let me re-phrase that question two ways:

    1) How long can “man made global warming” be said to be measured?
    That is, over all history of recorded actual temperatures, over what period (for how long a period of time) have BOTH man-released CO2 AND global temperatures actually increased at the same time?

    2) Over the recorded temperature period of man-released CO2,
    – global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures decreased. (~25 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures were steady. (~15 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures increased. (~25 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures decreased. (~20 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures were steady. (~10 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures increased. (~22 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures were steady. (so far, 16 years)

    Can we prove then that the single, isolated, short 22 year period of common CO2-increase-and-temperature-increase is “proof” of natural variability?

    How long must we wait before that single short 22 year period drops below the “one standard deviation” of natural variation?

    Or has it already dropped two (or three) standard deviations below “randomly rising since the Little Ice Age” natural temperature cycle?

  198. Ah, the methane madness, or “Blazing Saddles”, analogy is excellent! I was nearly excommunicated as a teen for doing the such a deed during the homily…Maybe it was my burst of laughter which I could not contain (as a teenager). Crawling under the pew (pun?) was not an escape option. It was definitely shock and awe as seen with the above video. Totally. :)

    So much for being “inclusive.”

  199. Greg House:

    re your post at December 8, 2012 at 9:19 am.

    No! You are plain wrong both philosophically and practically.

    You say

    “So, when our hero says again and again that there is global warming, warmists say “thank you”. And when he says “16 years without global warming”, they can easily point out to other periods without global warming and easily dismiss those “16 years without global warming” as a natural deviation from a large scale trend. As I said before, this is not a winning strategy.”

    Our objective is to inform about the truth. You can’t tell the truth witha lie.

    Global warming was a reality but it stopped 16 years ago. It may resume or cooling will set in. But it stopped 16 years ago.

    And that 16-year stop cannot be explained if the hypothesis of man-made global warming is true.
    So, the 16 year stop demonstrates that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is wrong.

    It does not matter whether similar periods of no warming happened in the past because the climate models say the 16 years of cooling cannot happen now when we have emiited our CO2.
    So, the models are wrong and their ‘projections’ must be wrong.

    It is easy to tell that to anybody.

    Richard

  200. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018

    “Climate talks: UN forum extends Kyoto Protocol to 2020
    Delegates at UN climate talks in Qatar have agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, avoiding a major new setback.

    The deal, agreed by nearly 200 nations, keeps the protocol alive as the only legally binding plan for combating global warming.

    However, it only covers developed nations whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15%. ”
    So the EU, Australia and another few industrialised countries have signed up to industrial suicide and the Chinese must have grins on from ear to ear. Wonder what Obama will do with a Rep congress. They are never going to join this show.

  201. D Böehm says: “December 8, 2012 at 9:37 am : “Since the effect [if any] of CO2 is demonstrably too tiny to measure, no further funds should be expended on the “carbon” false alarm.”
    ====================================================

    Unfortunately, our hero has repeatedly stated that doubling of CO2 causes like 1C or more increase in temperature. Warmists are thankful again.

  202. Richard S Courtney says, December 8, 2012 at 9:49 am: “Our objective is to inform about the truth. You can’t tell the truth witha lie.
    Global warming was a reality but it stopped 16 years ago. It may resume or cooling will set in. But it stopped 16 years ago.
    And that 16-year stop cannot be explained if the hypothesis of man-made global warming is true.
    So, the 16 year stop demonstrates that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is wrong.”

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

    This is a very weak point, Richard, see my argumentation above.

    And, by the way, Christopher supports the concept of “man-made global warming”. His arguments about it not being catastrophic can be easily dismissed. I do not understand, why warmists avoid debating him. If I was one, Christopher would be my favorite opponent. I would admit some minor uncertainties or mistakes and let him confirm the main message about “man-made global warming”. His argumentation about feedbacks and costs can be easily dismissed, too.

  203. Joe Guerk says:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    “Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative”

    I wish he had used “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”

    Be careful of what you wish for. Read ‘War Without Mercy’ by John Dower

  204. Just been listening to Harrabin bleating on about the UK’s historical CO2 emissions on the BBC news channel mentioned the cash wanted by smaller.poorer countries over the damage climate will do???? what a sanctimonious w****r this supposed journalist is, really starting to stick in my craw that i am paying for the P****^ wages and salaryout of my license fee :(

  205. LazyTeenager says:
    December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am
    Having spent a fair amount of time staring at real time charts looking for a signal I know from personal experience how easy it is to get your hopes up over some noise blip or other.
    +++++++
    Human beings hear sentences in records played backwards. And you will hear different sentences from the same exact sounds, depending on what you have been told you will hear. This has been widely studied and verified as a result of the Manson murders.

    What we are hearing is the exact same thing as seeing faces and animals when looking at clouds. The human brain is a pattern recognition machine, that is very good at matching patterns, even when no pattern exists.

    What are brains are very poor at is recognizing that random events have no pattern. When there is no pattern, our brains invent one from past experience.

    As a result, humans are easily fooled. We see witches where there are no witches. When something happens that we cannot explain, our brains assume that someone else must be the cause. The solution is then to take action to stop them. Eventually the ultimate solution is discovered, human sacrifice in one form or another.

  206. Where is the astounding, astonishing and unprecedented change in climate that requires a scientific explanation? Ho and hum. I see none. Extremes, within the normal range, of this and that occur (rain, wind, temperature) but so what? Nothing could be more abnormal than the absence of unusual weather.

    It is part of that present and recent normality that the Earth continues to gently warm a very little. I dread the day when it cools down and downer. Yet, providing governments do not completely suppress economic advance, and if the next ice age does not arrive for a few hundred years, humanity will be well equipped to prosper even then.

  207. Greg House,

    I am sorry you could not understand my comment, which referred specifically to measurements. I made it clear that without empirical measurements proving that CO2 causes global warming, believers in AGW are merely stating a conjecture. They need to back it up with verifiable, testable scientific evidence. But the only empirical measurements that exist show that ∆CO2 follows ∆T.

    There is nothing wrong with a Conjecture; it is the first step in the scientific method hierarchy, before Hypothesis, Theory and Law. But there was more scientific evidence for planetary movements in an Earth-centric universe than there is for AGW. At least pre-Copernicus there were verifiable, predictable, accurate measurements of epicycles, even though they were based on a false premise. With AGW, there are no empirical measurements. Thus there is no way to quantify AGW, which is why there is wide disagreement over the CO2 sensitivity number.

    Promoters of AGW need to produce empirical, testable measurements to support their conjecture. They have tried, but failed. Based on that failure, my view is that AGW may or may not exist. If it does exist, it’s effect is much more insignificant than claimed. OTOH, Dr Miskolczi may be correct: at current and projected concentrations, CO2 may have no warming effect because it has already saturated its IR window.

    The sensitivity number for CO2 is estimated by some well qualified climatologists [eg: Miskolczi] as being 0.0ºC for 2xCO2. Some [Lindzen, Spencer] give estimate of below 0.5ºC for 2xCO2. Others [Idso, pere & fils] estimate under 0.3ºC. And the UN/IPCC estimate for 2xCO2 is 3ºC+. But the real world is actively falsifying the IPCC’s increasingly preposterous sensitivity estimate.

    So it all comes down to measurement. If the effect of CO2 at current concentrations is too small to measure, there is not much science supporting AGW.

  208. CO2 goes up. Temperatures don’t go up over the last 16 years. Human effects should have made any natural cooling irrelevant according the AGW hypothesis. Yet, natural cooling is overwhelming any human activity.

    What frame of mind does it take to believe that something exists when it doesn’t?

    Should the climate scientists not try to explain natural climate change before announcing that we are all doomed? Some skeptic scientists are doing exactly that. Unfortunately, I don’t think people would be too interested in funding natural climate change.

  209. LazyTeenager says: December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
    And here is a riddle for you.
    If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.
    _________________________________

    It says that real global temperatures are already falling, but we cannot detect that because the ever-increasing UHI signal is masking that fall.

    Duhhh….

  210. Mycroft says: December 8, 2012 at 10:33 am
    Just been listening to Harrabin bleating on about the UK’s historical CO2 emissions on the BBC news channel mentioned the cash wanted by smaller.poorer countries over the damage climate will do???? what a sanctimonious w****r this supposed journalist is.
    _________________________

    Then go to the BBC website, and make an official complaint via their online complaints system.

    You do get replies from them, and they do sound harassed. I have made five complaints about this w******* already, and the excuses are getting more lame by the minute. One day, come the glorious day, we will get an apology and Harrabin will get a spanking.

    Equate Harrabin’s lies to the lies told over Jimmy Saville – they hate that and it sends the complaints department into a complete tizzy. They are really afraid down there, really afraid, and it is beginning to show.

    .

  211. As only a dull and boring engineer I wonder why the emphasis on the linear trends when we know that the climate pattern contains many known cycles. Looked at from this perspective many years ago , like about the time the name changed from global warming, it was obvious that we were in a phase where two cycles were combining and both at their peak. When you subtract this there was still a rise but not one to worry about and if you subtracted the bit that was pop up hot spots in the Arctic, purely coincidentally just where the ice melts, the difference became really trivial. I know this is not climate science it is signal analysis but I really felt it deserved some sort of explanation as to why it should be ignored rather than equating those who asked why this didn’t matter to climate scientists with holocaust deniers and .perverts as some of those in senior positions did and not just in private either.

  212. The truth of Lord Monckton’s conclusion that there has been no global warming in the past 16 years depends upon what is meant be the phrase “no global warming.” Monckton’s description of the procedure by which he reaches this conclusion makes it clear that the phrase “no global warming” is the equivalent of the popular phrase “no statistically significant global warming” (NSSGW). The conclusion that there has been NSSGW in the past 16 years rests on three assumptions. These are:
    1) the mean value of the temperature in the underlying statistical population varies linearly with time,
    2) at constant time, the temperature is normally distributed and,
    3) the elements of the underlying statistical population are statistically independent.
    These assumptions are premises to the argument that is made by Monckton.

    Unfortunately, climatologists have yet to identify the statistical population that underlies their inquiry into global warming. For this reason, Monckton is incapable of supporting the premises to his argument and it follows that Monckton’s conclusion must be regarded as unproved.

  213. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm
    The truth of Lord Monckton’s conclusion

    Terry, just look at the graph! If you look at the underlying statistics you can be sure what there is has been warmed up slightly more than decency permits. Hey and it is the keepers of the data that themselves have recognized the “travesty” of no warming. Surely you wouldn’t dare argue with them now.

  214. richardscourtney says:
    December 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    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.

    No reason to, it’s correct, however the version you quote is incomplete and your interpretation is mistaken. The correct interpretation is:
    The models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more in the ENSO-adjusted data, and that has not happened.

    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?)

    Nobody pointed it out because it’s not in error, now that you have incorrectly used I have pointed out your error here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/#comment-1165367

    I have also tried to correct it in other threads but for reasons best known to the Mods they disappeared?

    [Reply: Nothing in the SPAM queue. Perhaps you ought to see if they actually showed up. Otherwise, no idea. -ModE ]

  215. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Unfortunately, climatologists have yet to identify the statistical population that underlies their inquiry into global warming.

    If that is so, how can climatologists model future temperatures?

  216. Terry Oldberg:

    Your post at December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm shows as much misunderstanding as a post from Greg House.

    The statistical population is not relevant in this case.
    Please read my post at December 8, 2012 at 1:21 am which explains the matter.

    Richard

  217. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    The truth of Lord Monckton’s conclusion that there has been no global warming in the past 16 years depends upon what is meant be the phrase “no global warming.” Monckton’s description of the procedure by which he reaches this conclusion makes it clear that the phrase “no global warming” is the equivalent of the popular phrase “no statistically significant global warming” (NSSGW). The conclusion that there has been NSSGW in the past 16 years rests on three assumptions. These are:
    1) the mean value of the temperature in the underlying statistical population varies linearly with time,
    2) at constant time, the temperature is normally distributed and,
    3) the elements of the underlying statistical population are statistically independent.
    These assumptions are premises to the argument that is made by Monckton.

    Unfortunately, climatologists have yet to identify the statistical population that underlies their inquiry into global warming. For this reason, Monckton is incapable of supporting the premises to his argument and it follows that Monckton’s conclusion must be regarded as unproved.

    Then for exactly the same reasons, “climate scientists” are also incapable of supporting any premises to say the earth has been warming. And wouldn’t you think it is incumbant on “climate scientists” to have identified the “statistical population” that underlies their inquiry into global warming? Isn’t that what they’ve been paid $Billions and $Billions to do? Isn’t that what this whole CAGW meme is all about? Isn’t that their JOB?

    And that’s why I usually refer to them them as “climate scientists” with quotation marks. Better yet (and if what you say is true), they should be called “climate hacks” or “climate swindlers” or “money grubbing thrill seekers of unwarranted fame and fortune dudes” or something similar.

    On the other hand, I seriously doubt Lord Monckton makes any money from his efforts (that’s a hint as to the veracity of the two arguments, by the way).

  218. Gary Pearse (Dec. 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm):

    Re: The truth of Monckton’s conclusion.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. One is logically forced to disagree with those who conclude that there has been no statistically significant warming while it remains impossible to validate the premises to their argument.

  219. richardscourtney said (December 8, 2012 at 1:21 am):

    “The models represent the understandings of climate promoted by e.g. the IPCC.
    The more than 15 years of no discernible warming at 95% confidence shows the models are wrong.”

    I noted above that you have to cherry pick the extreme southern el nino summer of 1997/1998 as a strt point to arrive at this conclusion. It does not work if you choose ayear before or after as a start point.

    But that aside I am grateful to drawing attention to what “statistically significant” at the 95% confidence level means. It means that the data must have a 95% chance of being correct. This shosw that the “alarmist” scientists set a very high bar on these matters.

    Accepting for the sake of argument that it has not warmed for 15 years to this level of significance, (and note that the trend line is even then slightly up) it does not preclude that significant warming has occured to a 90% level of probability.

    The chance of being 90% correct does not show that the models are “wrong”.

  220. Anthony, you are a bit harsh on the Russian story. If you read it, it is much more factual and balanced than most articles in this debate. It is odd phrasing however; perhaps they meant to cite Monckton’s prank as an indicator of how poorly the conference was going.

    Anyway, I enjoy your site and hope you and Lord Monckton do not lose patience and resort to foolish language and actions. Please continue to advance the science and keep the conversation civil, regardless of what your detractors do. Thanks for all your hard work.

    • eric1skeptic:

      re” Easterling’s paper

      Thanks for taking the time to respond and for the penetrating question. I searched the paper on the terms “population” and “event” without scoring a hit. The authors do reference a global surface temperature time series. The elements of this time series can be taken to form a kind of population.

      However, as it references only a single state-space this kind of population is unusable as the empirical basis for a predictive model. For this purpose, the population must reference a pair of state-spaces. The elements of one of them contains mutually exclusive conditions on the Cartesian product (see Wikipedia for definition) of the values of the model’s dependent variables; conventionally, these conditions are called the “outcomes.” The elements of the other contains mutually exclusive conditions on the Cartesianan product of the values of the model’s independent variables; conventionally, these conditions are called the “conditions.” Each event in the population underlying the predictive model is describable by a condition and an outcome.

      At the time a prediction is made, the condition is observed. As the outcome will occur in the future, it has not been observed; however it will become observable when it occurs.

      The intended role for the predictive model is to make it possible for the outcome to be inferred. In this circumstance, knowing the condition provides information about the outcome. If there is only the single state-space containing the outcomes, policy makers can have no information about the outcomes from their policy decisions and thus the climate is uncontrollable. Thus, while Easterline and his co-author do seem to reference a kind of population, this kind of population is irrelevant to the task of trying to control the climate.

      I’d like to leave you with the additional thought that under climatological tradition, meteorological variables are temporally averaged over periods of 30 years in arriving at climatological variables. Under this tradition, the spatially averaged surface air temperature should be temporally averaged over 30 years in defining the outcomes of the events of global warming climatology. Under this tradition, the time series that is referenced by Easterling and his co-author does not form any sort of population for though the temperature is spatially averaged it is not temporally averaged.

  221. Sometime in the future, Lord Mockton and whoever leaked the Climategate emails, will both recieve the George Cross or the Victoria Cross. Hope I live long enough to see it.

  222. Philip Shehan.
    What do you think Professor Phil Jones of UEA meant when he said in a Climategate email…
    ‘I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till 2020’?
    I really love Warmists doing ‘twisty stuff’ so is it:
    A: He didn’t actually say this and that Climategate is ‘not real’?
    B: He did actually say this but when he said ‘lack of warming’ he meant something that only climate ‘s’cientists would understand?
    Please, please have a go at explaining this to us all because if one of the IPCC lead authors and hockey stick progenitors thinks there is a ‘lack’ of warming what qualifies you to say that he’s wrong!
    Go on Phil, give us all a laugh.
    By the way I think it’s great that you and your Warmist friends can come here and say their piece, the Guardian have shut their comments on Monkton…wonder why?

  223. EU must be banking on getting carbon dioxide trading up and running somehow:

    9 Dec: Telegraph: : Doha: climate change talks end with compensation deal for poor nations that could cost billions
    By Louise Gray, Doha and Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
    Angry exchanges between delegations over the measure brought threats of walkouts and even tears from small island states, which pushed to have the new mechanism introduced despite fierce opposition from the United States…
    It comes as economists warned that commitments to cut carbon emissions – agreed earlier in the talks as part of negotiations carried out by the European Union as a whole – could cost the British economy around £23 billion by 2020.
    Other major economies such as the USA, China and Japan refused to sign up to similar commitments, leaving businesses in the UK and other European countries at a competitive disadvantage…
    Ed Davey, the climate change and energy secretary, who is leading the UK delegation, said the UK had backed putting a reference to loss and damage into the agreement and was in favour of stronger targets on climate change.
    There were cheers around the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha yesterday when the final text of the agreement setting out the plan to introduce the compensation measures was passed despite objections from Russia and the USA.
    Ed Davey, the climate change secretary, said poor countries were already dealing with rising sea levels and the seepage of salt into water supplies – and rich countries like the UK had a duty to help by developing a loss and damage mechanism.
    “I do think we have a duty to help people who are losing their countries below the waves,” he said.
    Mr Davey said recent floods in Britain showed how important it was to deal with floods…
    The exact details of the loss and damage scheme, including how much developed countries will have to pay, are expected to be worked out at future meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, next year or in 2014…
    However major polluters including China, USA, Canada, Russia and Japan did not sign up to the pact…
    David Cameron, the Prime Minister, is likely to face heavy criticism from his backbenches if Britain is left facing expensive carbon cutting targets that are not being matched by industrial competitors.
    More than 100 Conservative MPs – including several within the Cabinet – are said to be climate change sceptics.
    Clacton MP Douglas Carswell, one of the leading Conservative climate-change sceptics, said: “Britain should have absolutely no part in this. The whole science of climate change is highly questionable. By pursuing new emissions targets we are only accelerating a process of deindustrialisation in Europe, which is transporting manufacturing jobs to other countries.
    “The United States was right to oppose this. We would be doing the same if we had democratically accountable people negotiating on our behalf. But we have European Union officials negotiating on our behalf who are immune to the ballot box.” …
    There are more than 17,000 delegates attending the talks in the desert in Doha. It is estimated that the talks themselves have had a carbon footprint of more than 40,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide – equivalent to cutting down 64 hectares of rainforest.
    The Swarovski chandeliers in the main meeting hall and a skyline of sky scrapers, with delegates ferried around in limousines, have made a surreal setting for the talks. Qatar, one of the world’s richest nations, but with plentiful supplies of cheap energy from its oil, has the largest carbon footprint per person in the world…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9732226/Doha-climate-change-talks-end-with-compensation-deal-for-poor-nations-that-could-cost-billions.html

  224. They were delegates, representing what their countrie’s stance is, and negotiating on behalf of their country. They are not there to think for themselves.

    If you were paid $100,000 to attend a delegation and negotiate on behalf of your government, that is exactly what you will do. No more, and no less.

    Whatever the delegates believe, is irrelivent to the job they have accepted to do. It is the home country which is to blame for the delegates being there in the first place, not the delegate himself.

    I do like Christopher Monckton. He makes headlines in the correct maner. Unlike that guy from NASA who makes headlines by talking about Death Trains. Cheers Christopher.

  225. Scute says:
    December 7, 2012 at 10:12 am
    “The BBC appears not to want to report on this. I checked the front page and science and environment sections of the website. There’s stuff on Doha but not on this colourful episode. Of course, if they reported it, they would have to report what he said, including the 16 year flatline. They clearly have a policy of avoiding this issue, even at the cost of a good story.”

    The BBC is “not fit for purpose.” (to use the deathless phrase coined by former Socialist Cabinet Minister John Reid.). Hasn’t been for years and will never be whilst failed politicians such as Patten remain in charge! Just look at the mess that has come to light in the past three months!!

  226. P. Solar says:
    December 7, 2012 at 10:59 am
    Oh dear, we can’t have that sort of Moncky business at the UNFXXXX can we?
    Nice work Viscount Monckton.”

    TROLL ALERT!!

  227. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Gary Pearse (Dec. 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm):

    Re: The truth of Monckton’s conclusion.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. One is logically forced to disagree with those who conclude that there has been no statistically significant warming while it remains impossible to validate the premises to their argument.

    Or yours, Terry. Or yours.

    But I would question your logic. Big time. (And where is the “force”?–in the fact that this whole facinourous meme perpetrated by the UN is so unstable that three sentences by Lord Monckton destroys the whole charade? Yes, I would agree. It must be hell.)

    • RockyRoad:

      I’m unable to decode your complaint against my argument. Please clarify it. Conveying your ideas in complete sentences and avoiding use of neologisms would help.

  228. Philip Shehan says:
    December 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    If a future strong El Nino were to bring record Global temperatures you would use that. Record global temperatures only count when it’s not an El Nino year then? Indeed the 1997/98 El Nino back then was used for this purpose to show global warming. Not really cherry picking at the moment because it is the peak global temperature on most data sets to beat and it is always from today. Comparing peaks with peaks is not cherry picking, but comparing peaks with troughs can be that are not obvious longer term trends. What it shows that despite El Nino’s after it, general global data sets are no warmer. Any trends 3 years before or after this show no warming greater than the error range.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/plot/wti/from:1993/trend/plot/wti/from:1994/trend/plot/wti/from:1995/trend/plot/wti/from:1996/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1999/trend/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/plot/wti/from:2001/trend/plot/wti/from:2002/trend/plot/wti/from:2003/trend/plot/wti/from:2004/trend/plot/wti/from:2005/trend

    El Nino’s are used by alarmists to show the warmest years and recent global records, so they also should be used to show no warming. Can’t have it both ways, one or the other.

  229. Once again Philip Shehan exposes his psychological projection:

    “I noted above that you have to cherry pick the extreme southern el nino summer of 1997/1998 as a strt point to arrive at this conclusion. It does not work if you choose ayear before or after as a start point.”

    Shehan himself cherry-picked certain dates, which give him the curve he wants. So I just moved his date one more year, to 2000, and guess what? No warming. And moving the year to 2002 shows this. Move the date up to 2009, and we can see the continuing decline.

    Shehan is riding the climate gravy train, and he has already made the decision to sell his soul for public loot. His deceptive comments here do not address the fact that the long term global warming trend has remained exactly the same, whether CO2 levels were low, or high. There has been no recent acceleration of warming, as most of us here know. Because the long term rising global warming trend remains unchanged despite the recent ≈40% rise in CO2, then CO2 could not have had any measurable effect. QED

    Most of us don’t think much of people who lie for our money. The demonization of “carbon” is based on a lie: there is no empirical, testable evidence showing that the rise in CO2 has caused any measurable global warming. An honest scientist would have admitted that fact long before this. Instead, the lie is constantly repeated by those who benefit at the public’s expense.

    The CO2=AGW conjecture is falling apart. But there are dishonest scientists who actively promote their self-serving false narrative, because they personally cash in on the scare story. But we have to pay for their dishonesty. That’s the part that galls me.

  230. clipe says:
    December 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    Stephen Rasey says:
    December 7, 2012 at 11:57 am
    “…the de Havilland Comet crashes in 1953-54


    Hardly in the “best of all possible tastes.”

  231. I don’t always entirely agree with Monckton’s statements and antics, but this stunt gets a 12 out of 10 for me. Nicely done!

  232. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    Gary Pearse (Dec. 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm):
    Re: The truth of Monckton’s conclusion.
    Thanks for taking the time to respond. One is logically forced to disagree with those who conclude that there has been no statistically significant warming while it remains impossible to validate the premises to their argument.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Well Terry my dear chap, Dr Phil Jones (East Anglia University) one of the doyens of climate change “research” doesn’t agree with you. He has stated on the BBC some time ago that ‘there is no statistical warming that has occurred since 1995”

    Cheers.

  233. So, therefore, a CAGW theist claiming that the “last decade is the hottest ever” and claiming that a single state having a drought in a single year “proves” global warming is (1) upon us and (2) catastrophic … is dead wrong.

    Right?

    After all, haven’t you just proved that there has been no measurable global warming for 30+ continuous years at any time, ever?

  234. Once again D Boehm misses the my point on cherry picking, which was that by judicious choosing of start and finish points you can “prove” anything. The long term data shows that temperature has been climbing since the effects of global industrialization became manifest, and doing so at an accelerating rate.

  235. RACookPE1978 : December 8, 2012 at 9:43 am says:

    “…..Can we prove then that the single, isolated, short 22 year period of common CO2-increase-and-temperature-increase is “proof” of natural variability?

    Over the recorded temperature period of man-released CO2,
    – global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures decreased. (~25 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures were steady. (~15 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures increased. (~25 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures decreased. (~20 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures were steady. (~10 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures increased. (~22 years)
    – global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures were steady. (so far, 16 years)…..”

    Nicely laid out argument RAC…

    But is it not better phrased (as a question to our CAGW …um…brethren….) as below?:

    How can you infer that the single, isolated, short 22 year period of common CO2-increase-and-temperature-increase is “proof” of CAGW?

    Yeah, then they dig into the grab basket of replies and labels, and come back with, “Aha, you are a “high proofer” then” … and usually continue with (and here I paraphrase), “…..It is quite obvious to us religiously fervid CAGW believers what is really happening!”

  236. Christopher Monckton:

    “But it is virtually impossible to tell the negotiating delegates any of what I have set out here. They would simply not understand it. Even if they did understand it, they would not care. Objective scientific truth no longer has anything to do with these negotiations. Emotion is all.”

    Yup…. Who is John Galt?

  237. Lord Monckton,

    I’ve been thinking over your success at Doha. Have you worked out the different scenarios whereby more lengthy periods might materialize?

    If a plateau for a couple more years, then a bit of cooling for instance. I’m trying to guess what could be the earliest 30 no warming 30 yr stretch achievable using non extreme changes.

    Thank you.
    tingtg

  238. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Monckton’s description of the procedure by which he reaches this conclusion makes it clear that the phrase “no global warming” is the equivalent of the popular phrase “no statistically significant global warming” (NSSGW).

    I understand that if the warming from a given time has a slope of 1.0 C but if the 95% error bars are +/- 1.1, then it said that the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level. However what is it called if the warming is exactly 0.000 with certain error bars as is the case with RSS over the last 16 years. Would the correct term with reference to RSS over the last 16 years be “no statistically significant global warming” or simply “no warming”?

    • Werner Brozek:

      Thank you for the penetrating question. In one’s logical inability to judge whether or not there has been statistically significant warming, the fault does not lie in the particulars of the various global temperature time series. Rather, it lies in the lack of identification by the climatological establishment of the statistical population that underlies the IPCC climate models. Contrary to what you might think, the elements of this population are not the elements of one of these time series.

  239. Reverse question for Lord Monckton:

    How many degrees warmth should we be prepared to lose in order halt global warming hysteria ?

  240. Philip Shehan says:
    December 8, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    doing so at an accelerating rate

    Of course you can also draw an upward sloping sine wave with peaks every 60 years with the same points. But NOAA is just interested in straight lines of 15 years or longer to prove or disprove certain points. If you disagree with NOAA about this, you need to take it up with them. In the meantime, some of us will feel free to point out that their 15 + years have arrived.

  241. Why does the tune, “the world turned upside down”, stick in my head so long after reading accurate reporting in the Russian press that our own free institutions will not provide?

  242. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 8, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    Reverse question for Lord Monckton:

    How many degrees warmth should we be prepared to lose in order halt global warming hysteria ?
    —————————————

    Apologies for being a bit flippant, but shouldn’t that question be asked of Jim Hansen. He’s in charge of the temperature record and since, he doesn’t seem to be ready to retire just yet, maybe he’s going to have another shot at “Global Cooling” (before they have to put him in a straightjacket).

  243. To answer the charge of “cherry picking” the dates to calculate the temperatture trend, I have a suggestion for anyone with the full data set and modest programming skills:

    For each of the following time periods: 1 year to 15 years
    … and for every month which fits in the 16-year interval
    Calculate the best-fit trend, and display the results in a histogram. You could calculate separate histograms for each window length, and then one for everything aggregated.

    You would could then observe all the possible trends based on both window length and start/end dates and the distribution of the same, and answer the charge of “cherry picking” by effectively showing the whole bowl of cherries. Anyone?

  244. To clarify my suggestion above a little – there are 13 possible ways to choose a 15-year trend in a 16-year period, with the starting month ranging from January of the first year to January of the second year. There are 25 possible 14-year trends, and 37 possible 13-year trends, and so on.

  245. I’m looking for the point where they’ll, like, call the whole ting off for 50 bucks.
    I wonder how long that would take ?

  246. Murdoch’s Australian newspaper goes with full-on puff piece from AAP:

    9 Dec: Australian: AAP: Kyoto signing good for industry: Emerson
    Dr Emerson said this gave Australian businesses the capacity to participate in global emissions trading markets and access to lowest cost abatement measures.
    “What we’re doing is ensuring that Australian industry is in there with a predictable regime and is able to tap into those international markets,” he told ABC TV on Sunday.
    “We’re doing the right thing not only by Australian industry but by the planet.”
    The 27-member European Union, Switzerland and eight other industrialised countries joined Australia in signing the extension to Kyoto, the first leg of which expires on December 31.
    They represent about 15 per cent of global emissions…
    Dr Emerson said it wasn’t as if the major countries were doing nothing on climate change at the moment.
    He noted there were at least 10 states within the US which had set up emissions trading schemes.
    “Within a year we’ll have either a carbon price or an emissions trading scheme in 50 or more national and sub-national jurisdictions covering well over a billion people,” he said.
    “That’s a pretty good start.”…

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/kyoto-signing-good-for-industry-emerson/story-e6frg6xf-1226533051979

    Fairfax Media’s Austn Fin Review carries the same AAP piece above, but at least finds
    a quote from someone who recognises how ridiculous it is, & includes some interesting extra info from Doha:

    9 Dec: Australian Financial Review: UN accord right for business and planet: Emerson
    by John KERIN with wires
    (John writes about defence, national security and foreign affairs from our Canberra bureau)
    But Climate Change Director for the Institute of Public Affairs Tim Wilson said the extension was a “dud deal’’ for Australia.
    “Kyoto has become meaningless,’’ Mr Wilson said. “Countries have continued to rig the rules so they can claim compliance and do nothing. Australia is an exception, we seem to be the only ones participating in good faith and thinking others will follow.
    “With only 15 per cent of the world’s emitters in play it is a save-face agreement for countries that think their leadership will get others to follow.”
    After several days of deadlocked talks, conference chairman Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah finally rushed through the package of deals that he termed the Doha Climate Gateway, riding roughshod over country objections as he swung the gavel in quick succession, proclaiming: “It is so decided.”
    Observers said Russia had been trying to halt the extension of Kyoto, whose first leg expires on December 31.
    Moscow objected to the passing of the deal, and noted that it retained the right to appeal the president’s action…

    http://www.afr.com/p/world/un_accord_right_for_business_and_DvQhjJdG3mrRPPB1ynnlDO

    ——————————————————————————–

  247. thisisnotgoodtogo says:
    December 8, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    I’m trying to guess what could be the earliest 30 no warming 30 yr stretch achievable using non extreme changes.

    It all depends on what happens. At the present time, RSS has 16 years of no warming. Should the next 14 years be ENSO neutral or have as many equally strong El Ninos as La Ninas, then would take another 14 years to reach 30 years of no change. However if the next 7 years alternate between neutral and La Ninas, then it would take another 7 years since on the average, for each year forward, we also go one year back. Or to put in another way, RSS has 16 years now, but should we get a La Nina very soon, then RSS could reach 17 years in 6 months from now. But should we get an El Nino soon and if that predominates, then we may never reach 30 years of no warming. I am assuming that CO2 is as important over the next 14 years as it has been over the last 16 years. And then a quiet sun could make things happen much faster under each scenario. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

  248. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    RockyRoad:

    I’m unable to decode your complaint against my argument. Please clarify it. Conveying your ideas in complete sentences and avoiding use of neologisms would help.

    No, Terry. If you can’t determine I used your logic against you, then there’s no need to address your argument. A is A, but in your case, you want A to be B, which shows it would be a complete waste of my time.

    I will say this, however, as a challenge: Let’s watch what happens for the next 20 to 30 years and see if we get any more “warming”. I’m betting there will be little or none, so that the period of “no statistically significant warming” stretches beyond 16 years into 36 years and maybe even 46 years. There’s a strong possibility there will even be measureable cooling. And by then, everybody will be laughing at people like you who believed it was CO2 that was the primary driver in “global warming”–unless, of course, your “climate scientists” come up with some startling new theory proclaiming that CO2 now causes cooling–but only when it wants to.

    That’s how “flexible” your “climate science” has become.

    • RockyRoad:

      You misundertand me. Contrary to your assertion, I am not a believer in the thesis that CO2 has been the major driver in global warming. Neither am I a believer in the thesis that CO2 has not been the major driver. I AM a believer in the thesis that the IPCC-referenced study of global warming has not had a scientific methodology. It seems to me that we agree on this point.

  249. The start date for all, “No warming since xxxx” claims is 1995. Some “skeptic” journalist got Phil Jones to admit that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995. That was a couple of years ago. If it was good enough then, its good enough now. If you use 1995 as your start date now, the warming is significant.

    The Moncktonesque technique of simply moving your start date until the trend is no longer significant is deliberately misleading and deceptive. No one who thinks about this stuff is fooled (unless they want to be), so the only ones caught are members of the general public who take the quote at face value and think, “Whew, lucky that global warming has stopped”.

    But you have to give Monckton points for chutzpa. Pretending to be a delegate from Myanmar so that he could speak is right up there with tricking Heartland into releasing their strategy documents. Well done your lordship!

  250. John Brookes says:
    December 8, 2012 at 9:48 pm
    If you use 1995 as your start date now, the warming is significant.

    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.

  251. No, brooksie-
    Monckton didn’t lie, as did gleick.
    Monckton didn’t misrepresent himself as did gleick.
    Monckton didn’t forge anything and pass it off as authentic as did gleick.
    Monckton didn’t obtain anything by fraud as did gleick.
    but Monckton isn’t the head of any ethics committee, so he can’t be accused of stupendous hypocrisy as can gleick
    and you’re welcom to take that as a high colonic.

  252. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    FrankK:

    Thanks for taking the time to reply. I’m aware of Dr. Jones’s statement. Though a doyen, in making it he erred.

    —————————————————————————————————————
    So Terry you are contending the Met Office has also “erred”.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

    So how would you describe the graphical slope if you fitted a least square line through the data shown in the above URL graph??

    • FrankK:

      The existence of your least square line implies the existence of a linear relationship between the time and the mean temperature in the underlying population. Your premise of a linear relationship is insusceptible to testing in view of the continuing lack of identification of the elements of this population by the climatological establishment.

  253. John Brookes,

    implications of those 16 years without warming are so devastating for global warming alarmism, that even Santer had to admit it.

    Q: Where Do Climate Models Fail? A: Almost Everywhere

    http://landshape.org/enm/q-where-do-climate-model-fail-a-almost-everywhere/

    Santer: Climate Models are Exaggerating Warming – We Don’t Know Why

    http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/

    The Widening Gap Between Present Global Temperature and IPCC Model Projections

    http://landshape.org/enm/the-widening-gap-between-present-global-temperature-and-ipcc-model-projections/

    Remember, it was Santer and his little focus group, who in an enourmous effort in 2007 showed that models and data with their uncertainties still overlapped. And the little remaining overlap was just possible, because they used data ending after the super El Nino and not newer data available in 2007. There were many other disturbing issues with this Santer paper and its publication in the Journal of Climatology,

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/01/question-to-international-journal-fo.html

    and McKitrick/McIntyre showed shortly after that their analysis failed with updated data.

  254. John Brookes says:
    December 8, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    The start date for all, “No warming since xxxx” claims is 1995. Some “skeptic” journalist got Phil Jones to admit that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995. That was a couple of years ago. If it was good enough then, its good enough now. If you use 1995 as your start date now, the warming is significant.

    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Dear John. If you start in 1995 until 2010 when Jones made that comment and do a least squares fit to the data it actually shows a decline. I would suggest getting a true unadjusted data set to test this for yourself.

  255. Hmm: previous post rejected.

    I didn’t actually use either of the words attributed to me, but I do concede that the post might have introduced a discordant note into what would otherwise be mostly an unabashed Monckton lovefest.

    It seems to me that the Viscount wasn’t taken seriously in Doha: nor should he have been given the quality of the arguments he presented (not to mention his stupid antics).

  256. The old no warming for 16 chestnut is disingenuous and silly. Using an El Nino year as your baseline is simply childish. to be more statistically accurate you should remove all El Nino and El nona years then graph the results. Fact is the warming trend hasn’t stopped as evident by the following graph. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#globalTemp
    People jsut want to find a way to convince themselves that it isn’t happening.

  257. Philip Shehan:

    I am replying to your post at December 8, 2012 at 3:05 pm.

    At December 8, 2012 at 1:21 am I quoted the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stating 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.”

    I asked you
    “Please note the strength of that statement:
    it says the climate models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more.”

    And I pointed out
    “The models represent the understandings of climate promoted by e.g. the IPCC.
    The more than 15 years of no discernible war ming at 95% confidence shows the models are wrong.”

    Your reply makes a spurious argument about “cherry picking”. There is no “cherry pick” in finding a period which falsifies the model. And then argues about confidence levels. It concludes by asserting the data “does not show the models are wrong”.

    Your reply is twaddle: the modellers stated an observation which would show their models are wrong. The observation has been made.
    THE MODELS ARE WRONG: live with it.

    Richard

  258. Bravo RT. Good on you to mention that there are no consensus on the topic of man made global warning. Hard to find any mention of this in MSM or for instance in other free to air channels like CCTV.

  259. Just wanted to say
    Bravo for Monckton !!!
    He never disappoints. And what he says, whenever he is allowed (more or less knowingly ) to say it, is always clear, easy to understand, and to check, and such a pleasure to listen to, with his beautiful English ! ( even for an old Spanish woman like myself )

  260. spvincent:

    I see that – having lost every argument – at December 8, 2012 at 11:47 pm you fall back on personal abuse.

    Clearly, you are a typical warmunist.

    Richard

  261. Fiona says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:58 am
    ————————

    Turning the argument around may be a fun game for some, but it’s like Trenberth insisting that the null hypothesis now needs to be reversed to that of CAGW instead of a naturally changing climate.

    So, just playing your game now, please tell the audience when activist climate scientists have ever been correct about anything, except when in their Climategate emails, when they admitted to one another that they really don’t know what’s going on and their models don’t actually correctly model much and the levels of uncertainty and lack of statistical significance in their data more or less nullify their alarmist hypotheses.

    What happens all the time, as is happening in this thread, is a sidetracking from the important issues, namely that the CAGW meme is a total fraud and many commenters just end up running down the rabbithole discussing issues that are beside that point at this juncture.

    It’s time to put an end to the widespread climate catastrophe charlatan’s fraud and prosecute those who are perpetuating this fraud. Once perp’s are being brought to justice, others may start to think twice about their continued involvement.

  262. Fiona says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:54 am
    “People jsut want to find a way to convince themselves that it isn’t happening.”

    The snow outside my window right now tells me that snow isn’t a thing of the past. Please convince me that Global Warming is happening. Remember, Global means everywhere.

  263. Good stuff, Monckton has been an amazing information resource! Well done!
    It would be helpful with a mre DETAILEd description of Steps 1 and 2. I have little backround in these matters, though the process would be extremely useful to helping educate the confused local green party, that in Sweden has Global warming as its highest point on its agenda. No surprise there…

    So, some helpful steps on WHERE specifically the data is, and the procedures to using Excel to show the graph please and thanks!

  264. Terry Oldberg said “I’d like to leave you with the additional thought that under climatological tradition, meteorological variables are temporally averaged over periods of 30 years in arriving at climatological variables. Under this tradition, the spatially averaged surface air temperature should be temporally averaged over 30 years in defining the outcomes of the events of global warming climatology”

    Ptolemy was traditional at one point in time. The notion that 30 years is long enough to overcome natural cycles is flawed. There are many longer natural cycles. The CO2 theory only requires a matter of years (a decade would be adequate) if other factors are understood. The main problem is that they are not and extending the time interval does not help at all.

  265. Oh dear. The lack of warming the past 16 years does seem to have the Warmunist trolls up in arms, tying themselves in knots in their efforts to deny it. I guess it is most inconvenient for their Warmist Belief System, which is crumbling. It must be tough for them.

  266. Philip Shehan has a point. If you “cherry pick” several date ranges, including longer ones, and constantly get a rising trend it must mean something. Compare that to picking the ultimate cherry of 1998 to present and squeezing all the juice out of it. But that was the end of that cherry. You should also be able to explain the cause of your cherry or cherries. And in the case of the overall trend there is conciderable theoretical support. But for the post 1998 trend there is only the “recovery myth” support. So with this in mind it is pretty sure that we will see more warming.in the coming decade.

  267. I see the alarmist are now trying to assert that ENSO negates the 15 year falsification.

    Nope, the whole reason the period is so long is to capture a warming trend despite what the modellers consider “noise”. Remember, the premise is a slow but steady increase in temperatures. If all the “noise” could be removed we should see the temperature increasing every year.

    The 15 years is that long precisely to encompass all the factors that can impact temperatures in the short term. This includes ENSO.

    This does not falsify CAGW itself. It simply falsifies the models. Of course, since the models are pretty much a map of the science of CAGW it does put a BIG obstacle in the path of the true believers.

  268. @FrankK says:
    December 8, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Well Terry my dear chap, Dr Phil Jones (East Anglia University) one of the doyens of climate change “research” doesn’t agree with you. He has stated on the BBC some time ago that ‘there is no statistical warming that has occurred since 1995”
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    ..but he has since changed his mind, data, whatever:
    “Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    • Erik Christensen:

      Dr. Jones’s previous conclusion that there has been no statistically significant global warming in a recent period is unproved. His present conclusion that there has been statistically significant global warming is also unproved. The two conclusions are unproved for the same reason. This is that assumptions made in locating the ends of the confidence interval lack support.

  269. This is the essential problem of the warmists: in the good old days circa 2000 they could cherry pick the latest 0.2 C per decade rise ignoring the fact that a good chunk of it was natural and write papers like this: http://epic.awi.de/4707/1/Wig2001a.pdf Basically 0.2 per decade meant that 1C existing and “pipeline” + 2C linear projection = 3C = we’re all going to die.

    Lately the rise has been about 0.1C per decade, maybe 0.13 if you add in the extra natural warming from the 80’s and 90’s or maybe 0.0 if we cherry pick a little (which we should not). So they have to resort to crap like this: http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/PapersIDAGsubtask1.3/Knutti_nature08.pdf from which sks excerpts fig 3a but leaves off fig 3b. The problem with such arguments is that they are simply intended to obscure the fact that the only remaining “evidence” for 3C sensitivity is models. Models with high sensitivity built in through input parameters.

    All the wailing about cherry picking is really because they can’t cherry pick anymore.

    • eric1skeptic:

      As the equilibrium climate sensitivity is not an observable, the notion that it exists must be regarded as an element of climatological dogma and not climatological science.

  270. Slightly off-topic but, the passing of the UK Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore shouldn’t go unmentioned. Well known not just in the UK, for presenting “The Sky at Night” for more than four decades on the BBC, he also worked with American and Soviet Space Agencies.

    I fear that the BBC will fail to do justice to him in their obituaries, so I’ll quote the man himself on a topic which is, most definitely, on-topic:

    Now for global warming. Of course we are
    going through a period of warming, but so
    far as human culpability is concerned I am a
    total sceptic and I fear we are dealing with
    political manoeuvring.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.38/pdf

  271. Fiona says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:58 am

    I also think it fascinating that nobody has been able to take up Peter Hadfields challenge to find just one time when Lord Monckton is actually right when discussing climate change.
    He obviously has an axe to grind. I’d turn that “challenge” around though. Has there ever been a time when a Warmist “scientist” (take your pick -they are all about the same anyway) has been right about anything?

  272. Erik Christensen says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:35 am

    @FrankK says:
    December 8, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Well Terry my dear chap, Dr Phil Jones (East Anglia University) one of the doyens of climate change “research” doesn’t agree with you. He has stated on the BBC some time ago that ‘there is no statistical warming that has occurred since 1995”
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    ..but he has since changed his mind, data, whatever:
    “Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    ________—–______________—-___________

    Erik,
    I don’t believe you pulled this old trick- actually, I do believe it.

    If you really want to get to the truth of things, then why not mention that Jones’ momentary period of “statistical significance” was considered anomalous? His report was meaningless within weeks of publication. Didn’t you know that? There has been no significant warming for the past 16 years.

  273. Warmist activists access revoked and apparently deported:
    http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/ignoring-planetary-peril-profound-disconnect-between-science-and-doha/. Last paragraph.

    Activists who dared unfurl an unregistered banner that read “Qatar, why host not lead,” were immediately thrown out of the convention center by U.N. security guards and had their access privileges revoked. Several news sources reported that the activists were then deported from the country.

  274. Johan says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:06 am

    “But for the post 1998 trend there is only the “recovery myth” support. So with this in mind it is pretty sure that we will see more warming.in the coming decade.”

    Because something happened in the past it will happen in the future?
    Now, not such a bad assumption. I had electricity yesterday, probably I will have it tomorrow.

    But of course, I could counter, the last 3 winters and this one look like winters from the 70ies (icy),while the winters in the 80ies and 90ies had people walk around in T shirts.

    So using your “Things tend to stay the same” argument I’d say I’ve seen all this before – so obviously the next thing that will happen is that Newsweek rises from the Dead and pronounces the prophecy of a new ice age.

    Caveat: I used anecdotal evidence here – so no Phil Jones or James Hansen had the opportunity to falsify what I saw.

  275. Britain, a country with such a long scientific tradition producing Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, James Clerk Maxwell, JJ Thomson, Lord Kelvin and now polymath Lord Monckton should hang its head in shame for accepting the bogus IPCC science without question or debate. Government scientist Lord Stern (economist) produced an extremely biased CAGW report based on bogus IPCC science which made extreme and exaggerated predictions instructing us that the science was settled – end of debate. Lord Turner (banker) heads the Government climate change panel which ensures the ridiculous EU CO2 emission reduction targets are rigorously nay slavishly adhered to.The above scientific tradition is replaced by CRU at UEA which fiddles its results to reinforce the CAGW argument. All this is due to the sad state of scientific education in this country which must be reversed.

  276. eric1skeptic says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:54 am
    Lately the rise has been about 0.1C per decade, maybe 0.13 if you add in the extra natural warming from the 80′s and 90′s or maybe 0.0 if we cherry pick a little (which we should not).
    You are mixing apples and cherries though. You are talking about climate trends. No one is saying that the last 16 years represents a trend. It simply shows that the GCMs are wrong. C02 simply can’t be the driver of climate they claim it is.

  277. This reminds me of the joke about how to get news to those who don’t want to hear it. Monck is going to have to get creative if he’s ever going to get near a mircrophone at COP-a-load conferences. Jailer goes to inmate with some news. Jailbird goes beserk everytime jailer comes near and makes such a noise that no message can get through. What to do? He likes clowns. So, jailer gets dressed up, approaches cell and presents as a clown. Jailbird simmers down when all of sudden the clown bursts into joyfull song and dance “….house burned down and your pets are all dead!!!”

  278. “… blames Monckton for the failure of COP18 to fail to reach an agreement:”

    Way to go Monckton!
    Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray!
    The Queen should Knight him.
    That would sure get Mann’s panties in a wad having only his paper Faux Nobel…

  279. Delivering news to those who don’t want to hear it can be difficult. Monckton may have to get even more creative if he’s ever going to get near a COP-A-Load-A-Thon conferences. Reminds me of the joke about the jailer with some news for a inmate who would not listen. He’d get near his cell and start to talk and the inmate would go beserk and not listen. So, what do to do? He knew the inmate liked Clowns. so, he got dressed up as a clown and presented to the inmate. The inmate simmerred down. It was just at that point that the clown burst into joyfull merry song and dance “…house burned down and your pets are all dead!!!!!!!!!”

  280. It doesn’t matter what industry you’re in, these ecobums never let the facts get in the way of a self indulgent emote-

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/eco-threat-to-house-prices/story-e6frg6z6-1225904124270

    When you’re in a particular industry you keep track of their deliberate ignorance and blind policy dogma. As the man pointed out some time ago they’re just a bunch of jangling alarm clocks that need switching off before intelligent rational folk get down to business for the day-

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/

  281. Verity Jones says:
    December 9, 2012 at 2:59 am
    Oh Fiona – do learn to count! The big El Nino year was 1997-1998.
    2012 – 16 = 1996.

    Since the conventional way is to count years inclusively from Jan-Dec Fiona is right, 1996-2012 is 17 years.

  282. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:17 am
    FrankK:
    The existence of your least square line implies the existence of a linear relationship between the time and the mean temperature in the underlying population. Your premise of a linear relationship is insusceptible to testing in view of the continuing lack of identification of the elements of this population by the climatological establishment.
    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    Terry, with the greatest respect you are reading too much in what a trend line represents. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are assuming the underlying measurements are necessarily linear. It is simple indicating in what direction, rising, falling, or no overall change the measured data is heading between the staring and end points that are selected (the trend could very well be different depending on the selection of these points).

    Take another earth science example. Measuring a bore water level that can fluctuate due to groundwater pumping in the vicinity (a decline), rainfall-recharge (a rise), evapotranspiration (a decline), barometric pressure changes (fluctuation). One can fit a least squares line to this data to determine the over trend of the water level over the time period of interest without always “identification of the elements of this population”.

    By doing this you are not attempting to model the response to these different influences, (that would require application of partial differential equations and trying to fit the inputs and outputs etc) but just determining the overall rate the water level movement over the selected period of interest. The response may well be somewhat non-linear but it is not “insusceptible to testing”. Groundwater hydrologists and engineers do this regularly.

    Based on your premise you would not be able to tell whether the overall temperature was rising, falling or fluctuating around some mean.

    You also have not answered my question whether you think the Met office also “erred” in indicating 16 years of no warming.
    ————
    And to the someone else response that Phil Jones changed his mind about his saying no statistical change in temperature. Well it doesn’t require much imagination or common sense how that came about in the closed “club” of climate change peers.

    • FrankK:

      Thanks for sharing your views. As you say, one can fit a least squares line to observational data without identifying the underlying population. Those who do so may be unaware of the role that is played by the underlying population in the methodology of a scientific investigation. Absent this population, a purportedly “scientific” investigation is pseudoscientific.

      I believe I’ve already answered your question about the Met Office.

  283. Totally wonderful, Lord Monckton. You have long been one of my heroes. Every strength to your every move and word against the liars and fraudsters we have the misfortune to be ruled by.

    I have long since wondered what sort of a bubble these people live in – seemingly cut off from the scientific truth. I wonder how many of the COP 18 ‘delegates’ had never heard or understood what the good Lord revealed?

  284. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 8, 2012 at 2:32 pm
    Gary Pearse (Dec. 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm):

    Re: The truth of Monckton’s conclusion.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. One is logically forced to disagree with those who conclude that there has been no statistically significant warming while it remains impossible to validate the premises to their argument.

    All the Mighty Monck need do to counter this critique is to preface his claim with the conditional, “Assuming, arguendo, that the data on which the warming charts are based is sound, which of course warmists do, then” . . . .

    • Roger Knights:

      Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. My critique of Lord Monckton’s argument does not question his empirical data but rather those assumptions which, together with the data, produce a confidence interval on the time rate of change of the global temperature in the selected period.. My critique is equally devastating to Monckton’s argument and to that of people who are on the other side of Monckton’s argument for I show that both arguments are unproved.

  285. Werner Brozek says:
    December 8, 2012 at 7:53 pm,

    Yes, that home made chart that Philip Shehan constantly posts is an invented fabrication. Shehan is forced to resort to such fabrications in order to maintain his false alarmist narrative.

    The Wood For Trees database shows no recent acceleration in global temperatures. None. And I have posted numerous charts from WFT and many other sources here — most of them from peer reviewed sources — and all of which which flatly contradict Shehan’s un-cited, fabricated, homemade chart, which lacks any provenance. Who ginned it up? They don’t say, but it looks like something a cartoonist would invent for propaganda. That chart is the kind of misinformation that Skeptical Science routinely invents.

    I linked to many verifiable charts above in my posts of December 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm, December 8, 2012 at 9:37 am, and December 8, 2012 at 4:10 pm [among others], all of them showing conclusively that global temperatures have not been accelerating. In fact, global temperatures have been stagnant for the past decade and a half, despite a large increase in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.

    Shehan is lying about accelerating temperatures because he is paid with the public’s money. If he told the truth — that temperatures have been flat — he would risk losing some of that public loot. So he has made his choice. But I am here to show the mendacious games he is playing.

    @Phil:

    Verity Jones says: “2012 – 16 = 1996.”

    She is correct.

  286. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Erik Christensen:

    Dr. Jones’s previous conclusion that there has been no statistically significant global warming in a recent period is unproved. His present conclusion that there has been statistically significant global warming is also unproved. The two conclusions are unproved for the same reason. This is that assumptions made in locating the ends of the confidence interval lack support.

    Well, since you are so freakin’ brilliant about what is unproved and what is not unproved, how about you tell us whether there has or has not been any statistically significant warming, and the math that you used to reach your conclusions.

    Because I’m getting very tired of you standing on the sidelines and essentially saying “wrong, wrong, wrong” to anything that anyone says. It was cute when you first did it, and I asked for an explanation, but I never got one, despite repeated requests. Now, it’s like an old comic’s schtick, it’s no longer interesting, nobody wants to hear it any more.

    Put up or go away,

    w.

    • Willis Eschenbach:

      I sense confusion on your part about the topic under discussion. In this thread, I do not address the issue of whether or not there has been statistically significant warming. I address the different issue of whether conclusions by Lord Monckton, Dr. Jones and others regarding whether there has or has not been statistically significant warming in a recent period are proved.

  287. Fiona says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:58 am
    I also think it fascinating that nobody has been able to take up Peter Hadfields challenge to find just one time when Lord Monckton is actually right when discussing climate change. He has the challenge up for a while now wiith not one successful taker. Does make you think hard about his credibility

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

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/

  288. (Dear hard working moderator – Thank You very much!!!)
    @Terry Oldberg says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Erik Christensen:

    Dr. Jones’s previous conclusion that there has been no statistically significant global warming in a recent period is unproved. His present conclusion that there has been statistically significant global warming is also unproved. The two conclusions are unproved for the same reason. This is that assumptions made in locating the ends of the confidence interval lack support.
    ——————————————————————–
    I agree! – I posted the link to show his flip-flop, I sure know a bit about Dr. Jones, I have read the cru letters, all of them – I was surely (and don’t call me…) not trying to defend a selfish man that wanted climate change to happen “regardless of the consequences”:
    ———————————————————————-
    “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
    Cheers
    Phil
    ———————————————————————–

  289. Fiona says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Nice cherry pick using the GISS only that makes up data at the poles. It is not an observation tool any more and this recent inclusion has changed that. The data change to global temperatures can’t be justified from just the Arctic made up data.

    The Arctic above 82.5N needs to be up to over 100c warmer to justify the difference between this and RSS. RSS cover the globes surface up to 82.5N, so 0.4 percent of the Earths surface is responsible for these ridiculous differences.

    FAIL.

    Using all surface and satellite combined shows a different picture.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/plot/wti/from:1993/trend/plot/wti/from:1994/trend/plot/wti/from:1995/trend/plot/wti/from:1996/trend/plot/wti/from:1997/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/trend/plot/wti/from:1999/trend/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/plot/wti/from:2001/trend/plot/wti/from:2002/trend/plot/wti/from:2003/trend/plot/wti/from:2004/trend/plot/wti/from:2005/trend

    The original link graph shown also only uses a 5-year mean period so ENSO is not removed. All this does is spread the warmth around the data and make a succession of El Nino’s during the early 2000’s look warmer than earlier.

    The graph below shows the number of negative data points reducing in the data set. This is the main contribution to warming at the atmospheric surface over recent years with reduced global low cloud albedo.

    ENSO over the years using NINO 3.4 surface temperatures ERSSTv3b show an overall warming trend.

  290. Thank you very much in the name of all normal people, to speak clearly of the no problem of the global warming

  291. ericgrimsrud said (December 7, 2012 at 10:40 am)

    “…How nice that the doormen were impressed by Monckton’s comments…”

    And if the “climate scientists” were only possessed with an open mind, they’d see the observed data of which Christopher Monckton of Brenchley speaks.

    By the way, speaking about the latest “meeting of the minds” – I didn’t see anywhere in the agreement that the world’s largest emitter of CO2 (China) had to commit to anything.

    “…1) Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol

    The Kyoto Protocol, as the only existing and binding agreement under which DEVELOPED countries commit to cutting greenhouse gases, has been amended so that it will continue as of 1 January 2013. Governments have decided that the length of the second commitment period will be 8 years…”

    China was never bound by Kyoto, so their free reign extends for another 8 years. So tell us how serious the UN is about GLOBAL warming.

    Neither is the current President. Clinton may have signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, but the Senate still hasn’t ratified it. And we’ve had a Democrat controlled Senate since about 2006.

    How’s that for commitment?

    BTW, you really need to update your posing at your website dated November 22, 2012 – the one you stated “…Since this self-imposed task caused Mr. Watts extra work and some angst in the orchestration of his website (his declaration, not mine), none of my posts appear to make it through even initial screening anymore at WUWT. If there is any skepticism at all in play at WUWT, it is clearly of the sort that only goes one way. In my book, that is nothing more than Denial…”

    Welcome back.

  292. Richard M says:

    I see the alarmist are now trying to assert that ENSO negates the 15 year falsification.

    Nope, the whole reason the period is so long is to capture a warming trend despite what the modellers consider “noise”. Remember, the premise is a slow but steady increase in temperatures. If all the “noise” could be removed we should see the temperature increasing every year.

    The 15 years is that long precisely to encompass all the factors that can impact temperatures in the short term. This includes ENSO.

    Ah…It might help to actually READ the paper that the claim is based on: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf (see page S-23). You can’t just redefine it to say what you want it to say. And, as I have noted here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/#comment-1168248 , the ENSO-adjustment issue is not the only mistake that Richard Courtney and the others citing that paper appear to be making.

  293. Crispin in Johannesburg says:

    There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1997. That is a very different situation. The warming has stopped inferring that the rise in the 1975-1997 period may have been created by other causes.

    My statement is just as correct as Lord Monckton’s. He claimed that there was no warming since 1997 because the 95% confidence interval around the trend over that time includes a zero trend. I said that the warming trend hasn’t changed from the earlier time because that 95% confidence interval around the trend over that time also includes the trend from the earlier time.

    However, probably even a better way to demonstrate how the trend doesn’t seem to have really changed is to graph the temperature record, fit a line from, say 1975 to 1997 and then simply extend that line up to the present. One will then see that the data since 1997 has continued to follow that line, a fact confirmed by fitting another line from 1975 to the present. The two linear fits will basically fall on top of each other! (Depending on the exact month you choose as the breakpoint in 1997, the second line may be either slightly steeper or slightly shallower than the first. See for example, here, where I made the breakpoint in mid 1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend That site doesn’t allow me to extend the green line beyond the fitted interval but you can see how the trends compare.)

    The illusion that “global warming has stopped” is created in large part by the super El Nino in 1998, which pushed temperatures so much higher than any previous temperatures that when using it as the start to compute trends since then, you necessarily get a shallow trend.

    As about 1/3 of all human-sourced CO2 has emitted since 1997, it is already evident that CO2 has no detectable influence on the global temperature. If it was detectable with confidence (95%) the signal would be larger than the error bars. It is not.

    This is simply a statement by you that you don’t have good intuition of how data that is the sum of a slow linear trend plus noise actually behaves. This fools a lot of people, which is why the “global warming has stopped” meme is so popular with non-scientists but not so much with real scientists, particularly those familiar with dealing with real data.

  294. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Erik Christensen:

    Dr. Jones’s previous conclusion that there has been no statistically significant global warming in a recent period is unproved. His present conclusion that there has been statistically significant global warming is also unproved. The two conclusions are unproved for the same reason. This is that assumptions made in locating the ends of the confidence interval lack support.

    “Unproved” maybe, but not disproved.

  295. Corrected version

    clipe says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Terry Oldberg says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Erik Christensen:

    Dr. Jones’s previous conclusion that there has been no statistically significant global warming in a recent period is unproved. His present conclusion that there has been statistically significant global warming is also unproved. The two conclusions are unproved for the same reason. This is that assumptions made in locating the ends of the confidence interval lack support.

    “Unproved” maybe, but not disproved.

  296. joeldshore:

    Your post at December 9, 2012 at 12:08 pm falsely asserts

    Ah…It might help to actually READ the paper that the claim is based on: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf (see page S-23). You can’t just redefine it to say what you want it to say. And, as I have noted here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/#comment-1168248 , the ENSO-adjustment issue is not the only mistake that Richard Courtney and the others citing that paper appear to be making.

    I did NOT “redefine” anything. I quoted it verbatim.

    It says

    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.

    It certainly would “help” if you were to tell the truth.

    The required period to falsify the models has been identified.
    THE MODELS ARE WRONG. Live with it.

    Compare your falsehood about my “redefining” with your saying this (December 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm) to Crispin in Johannesburg

    My statement is just as correct as Lord Monckton’s. He claimed that there was no warming since 1997 because the 95% confidence interval around the trend over that time includes a zero trend. I said that the warming trend hasn’t changed from the earlier time because that 95% confidence interval around the trend over that time also includes the trend from the earlier time.

    That is a falsehood.
    Your statement is NOT “just as correct”.
    There has been no discernible warming at 95% confidence over the last 16 years.
    There was discernible warming at 95% confidence over the previous 16 years

    Either you don’t have a clue what you are talking about or you are being disingenuous (assuming, of course, that it is not both).

    Richard

  297. 9 Dec: Daily Mail: Britain gives millions in ‘climate aid’ to tackle flatulent Colombian cows… plus £31m to Turkish wind farms and funding for talks with Kenyan ‘rain-makers’
    Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said: ‘After an Autumn Statement where people are making significant cuts, to have a £2.9billion budget for a random collection of projects which have questions hanging over them as to whether or not they are corrupt is just an extraordinary waste of money.
    ‘The Government does not exist to make charitable donations – that’s something people should do privately. We’re looking for a further £10billion of cuts and this seems to me the easiest place to start.’…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245300/Britain-gives-millions-climate-aid-tackle-flatulent-Colombian-cows–plus-31m-Turkish-wind-farms-funding-talks-Kenyan-rain-makers.html

  298. This is nice::

    “COP18 sees thousands of the kind of people who think we’re screwing up the planet by flying around the world, flying around the world in order achieve bugger all in a country, Qatar, made rich by the very fossil fuels the delegates want left in the ground. It’s like an absurdist flash mob.”
    Rob Lyons in the internet magazine Spiked.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13148/

  299. Anyone who wants a good laugh should visit joeldshore’s link above:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend

    Then, because Wood-for-Trees website allows you to do so, simply change the date value in “Series 1″ to 1965 (from 1975), and click on “Plot Graph”. Look at the graph.

    Repeat again, and change the date to 1955. Look at the graph.

    If you weren’t sure before, now you see how people like joeldshore are either stupid, or lying to you, or possibly both.

  300. 9 Dec: Daily Mail: Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore dies at 89: Broadcaster passed away peacefully at home with close friends and his cat Ptolemy

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245405/Sir-Patrick-Moore-dies-89-Broadcaster-passed-away-peacefully-home-close-friends-cat-Ptolemy.html

    9 Dec: Telegraph: Delingpole: Sir Patrick Moore, proud patriot, would never have got a job in the modern BBC
    Second, he knew too much about science – real science: in his case astronomy, which he had studied with the obsession of an autodidact, as opposed to the faux science of global warming which is the obsession of all modern TV scientists…ttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100193436/sir-patrick-moore-proud-patriot-would-never-have-got-a-job-in-the-modern-bbc/

  301. joeldshore and other CAGW enthusiasts,

    Looking at what you say is fine, cannot dispute it. But what does it say about warming and CO2. Nothing. What does it say about the IPCC credibility. Nothing.

    Your 1975 to 2012 trend shows 1.6 degC/century warming trend. We all can see that the warming for the last 16 years has decelerated and remains flat at worst. The IPCC last 2007 report indicated 3 degC warming from 2000-2100. For this to happen means some serious acceleration will have to happen. But as of 2012 it is not. Right now they appear to be 12 years in the hole with .05 degC warming trend since 2000-2012.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend

    So for their prediction to be true, they will need 3.35 deg c trend for the rest of the century.

    My question to you and the rest of the CAGW enthusiasts, what would have to happen in the next 5 years for you to DOUBT the IPCC models ability to connect any signifcant warming to CO2?

  302. Christopher Monckton,

    Your unforgivable act was unspeakably horrific. You hurt the Doha attendee’s feelings, the poor wealth redistribution seeking dears.

    Heh, heh, heh . . . . . that was great.

    John

  303. clipe says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    “Unproved” maybe, but not disproved.
    ===============
    The science (such as it was), has been corrupted by money.
    Not all, not even nearly all,… it just needs an outlet.
    The science, I mean.

  304. Philip Shehan says:
    December 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    “Well no, trend from 2008 to the present is the steepest of the lot!!!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2007/trend/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2013/trend


    Further analysis shows a very recent alarming warming…
    …followed by a rapid decline…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2010.2/trend/plot/wti/from:2010.2/to:2013/trend

    Do I get a price now?

  305. Jean Parisot says:
    December 8, 2012 at 8:05 pm
    Why does the tune, “the world turned upside down”, stick in my head so long after reading accurate reporting in the Russian press that our own free institutions will not provide?
    =================================
    This.

  306. DirkH,

    As usual, Philip Shehan is carefully avoiding the long term global warming trend, which has not accelerated. Shehan promotes the ‘accelerated warming’ lie because he is riding the climate gravy train.

    But even über alarmist Phil Jones admits that the planet has repeatedly warmed at the same rate at different times — during times when CO2 was much lower than now. It is also shown in this WFT chart. That verifiable fact destroys the AGW conjecture, by showing conclusively that CO2 has no measurable effect.

    Shehan cherry-picks very recent times because you can show anything that way. But by going back more than a century, we see that the rise in global warming remains within very clearly defined parameters, and that the natural warming has not recently accelerated.

    This chart shows a much longer term relationship between CO2 and temperature. It is clear that CO2 has no long term effect on temperature. That is why Shehan only shows the past few years: anything can be cherry-picked that way, and Shehan is the ultimate cherry-picker.

  307. @joeldshore

    “This fools a lot of people, which is why the “global warming has stopped” meme is so popular with non-scientists but not so much with real scientists, particularly those familiar with dealing with real data.”

    Good job I am not a non-scientist who doesn’t deal with real data then! Wow. I would hate to be one of those and have to face the wrath of your sharpened wit! (You do have some wits, right?)

  308. Bravo Monckton of Benchley!!!

    This comment from the RT article says it best.

    One man states the facts and in a few sentences destroys the lifetime work of 17,000 fanatics. More power to Lord Monckton

  309. Was Phil Jones correct or not about significant warming? Here are the numbers with the 95% numbers using Hadcrut4 to give him a break since Hadcrut3 does not seem to back him up for the 16 year interval.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    Start of 1995 to end 2009: 0.133 +/- 0.144. Warming for 15 years is NOT significant which DOES agree with Phil Jones.
    Start of 1995 to end 2010: 0.137 +/- 0.129. Warming for 16 years IS significant which DOES agree with Phil Jones.
    Start of 1995 to end 2011: 0.109 +/- 0.119. Warming for 17 years is NOT significant. I never read of a comment by Phil Jones about this.
    Start of 1995 to October 2012: 0.098 +/- 0.111. Warming for 18 years is NOT significant. I never read of a comment by Phil Jones about this.

  310. joeldshore says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    One will then see that the data since 1997 has continued to follow that line, a fact confirmed by fitting another line from 1975 to the present.

    Yes, this is true, but there is another way to illustrate things. What I assumed was that warming did not stop in 1997, but rather that the temperatures follow a (very poor) sine wave. So if there was a slope of 0 for 16 years, then the top of the sine wave would be after 8 years or at 2005. You could argue that a flat slope of 16 years consists of warming for 8 years and then identical cooling for 8 years. If you get the slope from 1985 to 2005 and then from 1985 to date, the latter slope is lower as shown below.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1985/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2005/trend

  311. ericgrimsrud says:
    December 7, 2012 at 10:40 am

    “How nice that the doormen were impressed by Monckton’s comments”.

    REPLY: How nice that the sneering, boorish, and angry Eric Grimsrud can’t find anything else to do except complain – Anthony

    Perfect! I can’t imagine a better post to describe what is wrong with climate science. It reeks with snobbery.

    As Dr Will Happer would explain, if you can’t convince people who have to work their butts off for a living that something is wrong with the world. . . .you either have to be stupid or you have to be preaching something pretty darned stupid.

  312. Pete Wirfs says:
    December 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm
    I believe the suggestion that the lack of atmospheric warming in the last 16 years (which I believe is a cherry pick and also doesn’t show cooling.) is proof global warming has stopped is just as silly (immature?) as when my 8 year old child tells me they don’t need to wear a coat this evening because it was warm at lunch time.
    ————————————-
    First, a question:
    Which party do you consider the ‘child’ in this discussion?
    The people saying whoa to giving major control of the planet and all of its resources to well established liars, crooks and despots based on weak evidence without even a discussion about adaptation. A scheme which allows them to control everything and we say, No!
    Or
    Those that believe our world will come to an end if we don’t end our use of fossil fuels now because CO2 is a pollutant. A gas which is absolutely proven to improve the biosphere and there is no solid evidence global warming is even bad. Have you not read the Climategate emails and the harry_read_me file showing how these scientists scheme to protect ‘the cause’.

    It sounds to me like the children are afraid of the lies Al Gore and James Hansen told them.
    I say, the earth warms because more people are active and concentrate energy in close but ever larger cities. The extra warmth increases usable land in the NH. More CO2 helps plant growth. More people need more food.
    What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t that sound like ‘Mother Nature” at work?
    cn

  313. According to Crispin of Johburg Phil Jones of the CRU and UEA is not a ‘real scientist’.
    So much for the ‘consensus’.
    You can tell when a team is losing…they start to turn on one another!

  314. Werner Brozek says:

    Yes, this is true, but there is another way to illustrate things. What I assumed was that warming did not stop in 1997, but rather that the temperatures follow a (very poor) sine wave. So if there was a slope of 0 for 16 years, then the top of the sine wave would be after 8 years or at 2005. You could argue that a flat slope of 16 years consists of warming for 8 years and then identical cooling for 8 years.

    Anything is POSSIBLE over short enough time periods in a dataset that has a slow trend plus weather noise. For example, it is also possible that the trend over the last 6 months or so is the new warming trend and we are going to start warming at a rate close to 1 C per year! However, claiming that this is the case on the basis of a fit to the last 6 months would be just fitting to noise, which is exactly what you are doing.

  315. how many days late is the Fairfax Media in Australia? SMH is seen as leftwing over here, yet they claim this article is from UK’s conservative Telegraph. it’s rubbish wherever it’s from, shortcuts what he said, makes no comment on the veracity of his statements, but would appear to have been published only to use a photo that accenuates Monckton’s eyes. how disgusting can u get?

    10 Dec: Sydney Morning Herald: from Telegraph, London: Sceptic sneaks into UN climate gathering
    RIDING through the desert, white robes billowing in the breeze, ”Monckton of Arabia” made his way towards the Gulf gathering of 7000 climate change representatives…

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sceptic-sneaks-into-un-climate-gathering-20121209-2b3z1.html

  316. Mods, on average on this topic 75% of my posts are according to ModE not showing up despite leaving my computer in good health, this is getting annoying.

    REPLY: I’ve been away for much of the weekend, so I haven’t seen what has transpired. As you know, due to your history here, you are on permanent moderation so that your comments are guaranteed review. If other mods are not allowing your posts to show up, it is likely due to them violating the WUWT policy in some way. If that annoys you, so be it. Posting comments here is a privilege, and not a right. – Anthony

  317. richardscourtney says:
    December 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    joeldshore:

    Your post at December 9, 2012 at 12:08 pm falsely asserts

    “Ah…It might help to actually READ the paper that the claim is based on: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf (see page S-23). You can’t just redefine it to say what you want it to say. And, as I have noted here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/#comment-1168248 , the ENSO-adjustment issue is not the only mistake that Richard Courtney and the others citing that paper appear to be making.”

    I did NOT “redefine” anything. I quoted it verbatim.

    Actually you did, as I have pointed out on another thread. You selectively quoted, leaving out the critical sentence which defined what being modelled! As page 23 makes clear the quotation refers only to ENSO-adjusted data but you chose to apply it to the unadjusted data. Unfortunately for your argument there has been no 15yr interval of zero trend in the ENSO-adjusted record!

    It says

    “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.”

    It certainly would “help” if you were to tell the truth.

    A good rule to live by, what the paper actually says, with your omission highlighted:

    “ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. 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.”

  318. Phil. says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:42 pm
    Mods, on average on this topic 75% of my posts are according to ModE not showing up despite leaving my computer in good health, this is getting annoying.

    REPLY: I’ve been away for much of the weekend, so I haven’t seen what has transpired. As you know, due to your history here, you are on permanent moderation so that your comments are guaranteed review. If other mods are not allowing your posts to show up, it is likely due to them violating the WUWT policy in some way. If that annoys you, so be it. Posting comments here is a privilege, and not a right. – Anthony

    Apparently not, I thought you’d like to know that the site is losing so many posts.
    Below is the response I got from a mod. earlier:
    I have also tried to correct it in other threads but for reasons best known to the Mods they disappeared?

    [Reply: Nothing in the SPAM queue. Perhaps you ought to see if they actually showed up. Otherwise, no idea. -ModE ]

  319. JShore “would be just fitting to noise, which is exactly what you are doing.”

    Whereas the climate bletheren fit to their preconceived notions….

    after their adjustments have been made to create an increased trend.

    Without the “adjustments”, there was not that much warming between 1975-1998, same with sea-level, the trend exists basically because of “adjustments”

    How much REAL warming has there really been.. well ,we may never know, because they have “LOST” the original data.
    Fortunately some remnants stil exist !!

  320. joeldshore says:
    December 9, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    However, claiming that this is the case on the basis of a fit to the last 6 months would be just fitting to noise, which is exactly what you are doing.

    Well I hope that when we reach 17 years of no warming that you will not suggest that 7 months of fitting to noise is the same as 17 years of fitting to noise. How long of a period of a slope of 0 do you think is needed before you can no longer blame noise and have to accept the fact that CO2 is not the driver that Santer and others thought it was?

  321. @richardscourtney

    I suppose you are using the criterion that whoever posts last wins the argument: in that case there’s no way I can ever win.

    Me (when my posts haven’t been censored), others here, and many articles on science websites, have explained why you cannot conclude that global warming has stopped given the data: I’ve also tried to address a few other points explaining the problems and pointed people in the direction of some relevant mainstream climate science. The responses have been a bizarre mixture of non-sequiturs, blind repetition of the original claim, segueing into irrelevant areas, complete nonsense, and they generally convey a lack of understanding of how science works. It would be an endless time sink to respond to every individual point made and I’m not going to do so.

    And when it comes to personal abuse, I see the words idiot, ecobums, disingenuous (that was the word that apparently got my post rejected), mendaciously fabricated, and various other derogatory phrases applied on this page alone to those with whom people disagree. What a double standard.

    [Reply: spvincent, as a long time moderator I can state unequivocally that no comment from anyone, you included, has ever been deleted for using the word “disingenuous”. Read the site Policy page, and maybe you will locate the reason your comment was snipped, if that in fact happened. — mod.]

  322. Isn’t it utterly fascinating the way the Warmists have got the awful habit of accusing us skeptics of their own worst traits? It may even be a deliberate strategy. For example….
    When Michael Mann was cleared by the same University authorities that cleared serial pedophile Jerry Sandusky, it was only a matter of a few weeks before the creepy guy at the Australian ABC likened CAGW skeptics to pedophiles….
    Or shortly after Nasa staff including men who walked on the moon express their skepticism…the Warmist PR, machine accuses us all of being flat earthers!
    Or best of all, the insistence that we skeptics are part of a shadowy conspiracy funded by big tobacco or some such nonsense, when it’s abundantly clear that big energy, big government big Green and big PR, have thrown billions at Global Warming, and they still can’t make it stick!

    But anyhoo…back in the day when I occasionally got posted in Warmist forums I was confronted with
    “a bizarre mixture of non-sequiturs, blind repetition of the original claim, segueing into irrelevant areas, complete nonsense, and generally a lack of understanding of how science works.”
    Of course these sites do not brook any opposition at all these days and have become echo chambers, it’s great that WUWT permits the Warmists to reveal their fundamentally flawed thinking.
    Thanks SP Vincent!

  323. typo: “the models’ methodology”.

    The implications are that CO2 doubling can produce, at most, a blip.

  324. Well it seems that 414 + posts have degenerated into a donnybrook, as to the meaning of “no statistically significant global warming.”
    Well actually, most of the argument seems to be about some temperature (anomaly) concoction of numbers purportedly derived from some set(s) of “sensors”, thermometers, tree rings, and other proxies for actual temperature measurements. So it’s really an argument about statistical mathematics. Apparently, stat maths is as dismal a discipline, as it is cracked up to be, if different stat gurus, get different answers from the exact same set(s) of raw numbers.
    But based on their conclusions, they either conclude that there has been statistically significant global warming; or there hasn’t been statistically significant global warming.
    Well we do know from Anthony’s global climate widget, that there HAS been global warming. That cyan graph goes up (global warming) and it goes down (global cooling); and it does both all the time as plotted on the widget.

    Well you see “global warming” has come to mean an up tick in the output of those statistical prestidigitations done on the numbers that comprise the various observed “data sets”.

    And apparently the gurus can’t agree even on that.

    The big problem of course is those numbers have almost nothing to do with global climate, or global warming. They are local data after all, not global; not even a valid spatial sample of the globe. You have to have valid data samples, before those statistical formulas mean anything. Even the “average” of those numbers, is corrupted by aliassing noise.
    And we have (evidently) 23 different theoretical models that are telling us loudly, that those numbers have nothing to do with global warming. If they did, we would only have one theoretical model of the global climate; not 23.

    In any case Lord Monckton simply cited Phil Jones, in his own words; that he has stated publicly; “there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 16 years”. Well there certainly hasn’t been any significant global warming; not with a global daily temperature range of more than 100 deg C, and possibly as much as 150 deg C. Certainly not enought to justify 415 + posts.

    Which is not to deny the local anecdotal reports of local coolings and local warmings, and local rain, and local drought.

  325. spvincent:

    I see that Anthony and the Moderators are having difficulties addressing falsehoods from trolls. Perhaps this is a result of a directive from ‘troll central’?

    I write to answer your disingenuous post addressed to me at December 9, 2012 at 9:27 pm.

    You say

    I suppose you are using the criterion that whoever posts last wins the argument: in that case there’s no way I can ever win.

    NO!
    The troll who posts as Phil does that, not me.

    In this thread I discovered that the troll joeldshore had posted about this thread on another thread which I had left to give “the last word” to a warmunist. And I found out what joldshore had done because he was stupid enough to link to it on this thread. But I still desisted from further involvement in that thread.

    You say

    Me (when my posts haven’t been censored), others here, and many articles on science websites, have explained why you cannot conclude that global warming has stopped given the data:

    I do not believe your posts have been censored for any reason other than your breaching site policy. WUWT is the success it is precisely because it does NOT use the censorship of opposing views which is practiced by warmunist blogs.

    The so-called ‘climate scientists’ assess ‘global warming’ as being a positive linear trend in global temperature which is discernible with 95% confidence. Hence, according to that definition, Lord Monckton was right when he said,
    There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons .”
    What he did say is important, and he did not say, “Global warming has stopped”. The phrase “global warming has stopped” is your misrepresentation.

    There has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for over 15 years. That may or may not mean “global warming has stopped” but it does mean two things
    (a) the previous global warming discernible at 95% confidence has stopped
    and
    (b) the criterion for falsifying the climate models has been reached and thus the models are known to be wrong.

    You say

    I’ve also tried to address a few other points explaining the problems and pointed people in the direction of some relevant mainstream climate science. The responses have been a bizarre mixture of non-sequiturs, blind repetition of the original claim, segueing into irrelevant areas, complete nonsense, and they generally convey a lack of understanding of how science works.

    Your assertions seem to be an example of psychological projection. I will not bother to refute all of them, but I point out that it is you who has demonstrated a “lack of understanding of how science works”.

    Science
    consists of obtaining the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking information which refutes existing understanding and amending the understanding in light of the information.
    Pseudoscience
    consists of deciding an understanding is ‘truth’ seeking information which supports it while finding excuses to ignore information which refutes it.

    In this thread you and the other trolls have been providing a ‘text book’ demonstration of pure pseudoscience.

    You say

    It would be an endless time sink to respond to every individual point made and I’m not going to do so.

    So what?
    You chose to make your posts and anybody has a right to answer them. And if your posts are cogent then onlookers will see that whatever the responses made by others.

    You say you want the ‘last word’. Perhaps the reason you and other trolls always want the ‘last word’ (and falsely accuse others of wanting it) is that you know what you say is easily refuted because it is plain wrong.

    You say

    And when it comes to personal abuse, I see the words idiot, ecobums, disingenuous (that was the word that apparently got my post rejected), mendaciously fabricated, and various other derogatory phrases applied on this page alone to those with whom people disagree. What a double standard.

    There is no “double standard”. If you have been “disingenuous” or have “mendaciously fabricated” then expect to be called on it. Onlookers can assess “derogatory phrases” for themselves.

    Some people (e.g. joeldshore and Phil) have acquired reputations for misbehaviour, misrepresentation and mendaciousness in their many posts on WUWT. ‘Regulars’ to WUWT know that so ignore and/or distrust posts from them. Whining nonsense such as your post which I am answering provides the possibility that you may damage your credibility, too.

    Richard

  326. Phil.:

    I am not copying all of your long post at December 9, 2012 at 7:27 pm although I know you will use that as a claim that I am quoting out of context (which I never do).

    You say that “on another thread” you “pointed out” what you claim is an error I made. You did not cite or link to that other thread so – on the basis of your past behaviour – I suspect it was not a relevant thread and you were trying to pretend I could not answer.

    Anyway, assuming you there made the same point as in your post I am answering, I address it here.

    You claim that I misquoted because I did not include the sentence which you (and I) bolden in this statement.

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. 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.

    I did NOT misquote anything.
    I quoted verbatim and your argument is false.

    Firstly, the boldened sentence is a ‘get out clause’. What is appropriate “adjustment”? The sentence allows post hoc adjustment to the falsification criterion and, therefore, is properly disregarded. Indeed, the model simulations do NOT “adjust” for ENSO: they do not model it!

    Secondly, ENSO is not included in the models because it is not understood. Indeed, ENSO is an emergent property of the system which the models fail to emulate. So, how does one reasonably “adjust” for something which is not understood?

    Thirdly, one reasonable way to adjust for not-understood ENSO is to interpolate over the period to be “adjusted”. Another way is to extrapolate over the period to be “adjusted”.

    If one does such an interpolation over the period 1997 to 2001 or if one extrapolates from the present back across the period from 2001 to 1997 then one still obtains no discernible rise in temperature at 95% confidence.

    In conclusion, your assertions are false.

    Richard

  327. UPDATE: The Russian TV channel “RT” aka “TV-Novosti” blames Monckton for the failure of COP18 to fail to reach an agreement:
    ————
    But I have just read that they have reached an agreement. So maybe Christopher was so annoying that it prompted them to stop stuffing about and take the final step (grin).

  328. Brian H:

    Thankyou very much indeed for your post at December 9, 2012 at 10:39 pm which links to the paper at

    http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

    It is a very interesting paper which – as you say – indicates

    This means, crucially, that a doubling of greenhouse gas forcings does not permanently increase global temperature.

    And, therefore, it explains WHY Lord Monckton’s statement concerning lack of recent warming is true.

    I note two things about the paper.

    I was amused by its saying this

    Whereas the data in NASA GISS used 15 years of satellite data, the revised data use 26 years. We note that the revised data behave differently to the original in that the ratio of revised to original decreases during 1850 to 1950 but increases subsequently. Also, surprisingly, the revised series is not cointegrated with the original.

    That is not a surprise to anybody familiar with this

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

    And its findings are a demonstration of negative feedback in the system: i.e. the climate system acts to oppose effects of any change to its inputs. This is the opposite of the assumption of positive feedback in the system; i.e. the models assume the climate system acts to enhance effects of any change to its inputs (e.g. by water vapour feedback).

    It also agrees with empirical measurements of climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration which indicate that It is probable that atmospheric CO2 concentrations cannot have a discernible effect. This is because climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration is less than 1deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    If climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, then it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected because natural variability is much, much larger. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).

    Negative feedback explains these findings.

    Richard

  329. spvincent says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    Me (when my posts haven’t been censored), others here, and many articles on science websites, have explained why you cannot conclude that global warming has stopped given the data
    Statistically, there has been no further warming for the past 16 years. That is a fact. You and your cohorts continually try to sidestep, tapdance and spin around it, but the fact remains. No, it doesn’t give us a trend, being too short a time period. It simply means your cherished GCMs are bunk, something we’ve known all along. When the same thing keeps having to be explained to you people over and over again, is it any wonder that terms such as “disingenuous” and “idiot” appear?
    I realize how difficult this must be for you. Your great Global Warming Gravy Train is being derailed. The entire Warmist Belief system is coming to an end, which must be scary for you. Buck up, though. The world of actual science, and truth is a far, far preferable one. In the end, you will thank us.

  330. The Guardian has run a piece about Doha today.
    The journalist was very sad that emissions continue to rise.
    Just for fun I pointed out that temperatures do not and have not for 16 years.
    Moderated in 2 minutes.
    I posted again asking if you can b moderated simply for mentioning the met office temperature records. Moderated and the stub vanished.

  331. I just love Lord Monckton’s puckish sense of humor.

    It would be entertaining to hear the U.N. police retelling of the tale. I wonder if they could get through telling about it without busting a gut laughing.

  332. richardscourtney said:

    I did NOT “redefine” anything. I quoted it verbatim.

    And, as Phil. has pointed out, you quote lacks the context regarding the ENSO-adjustment and, as I pointed out, you have interpreted that statement in a way that is not the most natural interpretation. The rest of your post is long on invective and short on any discussion of the point that I have raised.

    Firstly, the boldened sentence is a ‘get out clause’. What is appropriate “adjustment”? The sentence allows post hoc adjustment to the falsification criterion and, therefore, is properly disregarded.

    You can’t just disregard things that you don’t like. They clearly said that their statement applies to the ENSO-adjusted data. And, they give a reference to a paper where they discuss how such adjustments are done. So, no, they are not just making a non-falsifiable claim.

  333. spvincent says: “It seems to me that the Viscount wasn’t taken seriously in Doha: nor should he have been … (not to mention his stupid antics).”

    Asking for clarification: Your position is that Monckton’s anti-GW comments should not be taken seriously because of how he presented them (aks “stupid antics”)?

  334. The unbelievable outcome of this IPCC global warming fraud is that CO2 is labled a dangerous pollutant and billions of pounds/dollars/euros needlessly spent limiting its concentration in the atmosphere. Unbelievable because CO2 absorbs only a small fraction of the LWIR radiated from Earth and there is more than enough CO2 at 380 ppm to absorb all of this small fraction of absorbable LWIR; in fact half the concentration say 200 ppm would be enough to absorb the same amount but vegetation and plant life would start to suffer. Doubling CO2 to 750 ppm would also absorb the same amount no more no less without any effect on global warming; but of course plant life would thrive with increased yields.

  335. joeldshore:

    I am replying to your ridiculous post at December 10, 2012 at 6:19 am merely to demonstrate that I am not ignoring it.

    You dispute the true statements (at December 10, 2012 at 2:59 am) in my reply to Phil. Those true statements said

    I did NOT misquote anything.
    I quoted verbatim and your argument is false.

    Your post asserts that I “redefined” what the NOAA document said.
    A verbatim quotation is NOT a redefinition.

    You say

    And, as Phil. has pointed out, you quote lacks the context regarding the ENSO-adjustment and, as I pointed out, you have interpreted that statement in a way that is not the most natural interpretation.

    Bollocks!
    I made no “interpretation”! I accepted what the words said,.

    Your assertion about “context” is nonsense as my reply to Phil explained.

    But you assert

    You can’t just disregard things that you don’t like. They clearly said that their statement applies to the ENSO-adjusted data. And, they give a reference to a paper where they discuss how such adjustments are done. So, no, they are not just making a non-falsifiable claim.

    I did NOT say they made an unfalsifiable statement.
    And I did NOT “just disregard” anything!
    Either you did not read what I wrote or you are deliberately stating falsehoods.

    1.
    I explained that ENSO is not understood so there is no certain method to adjust for it.
    2.
    Hence, I argued that such “adjustment” is probably unfounded because it enables post hoc adjustments to the falsifiability criterion.
    3.
    But I wrote

    Thirdly, one reasonable way to adjust for not-understood ENSO is to interpolate over the period to be “adjusted”. Another way is to extrapolate over the period to be “adjusted”.

    If one does such an interpolation over the period 1997 to 2001 or if one extrapolates from the present back across the period from 2001 to 1997 then one still obtains no discernible rise in temperature at 95% confidence.

    Joel, all your posts are problematic, but the post I am answering is untrue and desperate. If it is the best you can do to Shore-up your superstitious belief in discernible AGW then I suggest you would do better to abandon the superstition.

    Richard

  336. I would really like to complete steps 1 – 4, but I can not find the data required for step 1. Can someone show how to get the data, or provide a link? Thanks

  337. richardscourtney says:
    December 10, 2012 at 2:59 am
    Phil.:

    I am not copying all of your long post at December 9, 2012 at 7:27 pm although I know you will use that as a claim that I am quoting out of context (which I never do).

    But you did here!

    You say that “on another thread” you “pointed out” what you claim is an error I made. You did not cite or link to that other thread so – on the basis of your past behaviour – I suspect it was not a relevant thread and you were trying to pretend I could not answer.

    As usual you resort to ad hominem, since I was answering you it was as relevant as your post. Actually I also addressed it earlier in this thread and linked to the other thread (the same one where Joel posted), you posted minutes later two posts below mine I’m surprised you didn’t see it.

    You claim that I misquoted because I did not include the sentence which you (and I) bolden in this statement.

    “ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. 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.”

    I did NOT misquote anything.
    I quoted verbatim and your argument is false.

    You did exactly what I said you did, you omitted the context and then used the quotation out of the authors’ context, which is a misrepresentation.

    Firstly, the boldened sentence is a ‘get out clause’. What is appropriate “adjustment”? The sentence allows post hoc adjustment to the falsification criterion and, therefore, is properly disregarded. Indeed, the model simulations do NOT “adjust” for ENSO: they do not model it!
    It’s not a ‘get out’ clause it’s the context in which the models were run, namely in the absence of ENSO, consequently they compare with ENSO adjusted data. As to what a proper adjustment, they tell you, they reference a paper describing the process.

    Secondly, ENSO is not included in the models because it is not understood. Indeed, ENSO is an emergent property of the system which the models fail to emulate. So, how does one reasonably “adjust” for something which is not understood?

    Well you could read the paper to find out. You’re not quite accurate here either, like volcanoes the effect can be quantified but the timing and magnitude can’t be predicted in advance. You could describe them using a Poisson sequence and estimate their frequency over time but not predict exactly when one will occur.

    Thirdly, one reasonable way to adjust for not-understood ENSO is to interpolate over the period to be “adjusted”. Another way is to extrapolate over the period to be “adjusted”.

    If one does such an interpolation over the period 1997 to 2001 or if one extrapolates from the present back across the period from 2001 to 1997 then one still obtains no discernible rise in temperature at 95% confidence.

    This is nonsense, especially when one ‘cherry picks’ as you do, selecting an El Niño for the start of your period and a La Niña for the end.

    In conclusion, your assertions are false.
    No they are accurate, yours are not however!

  338. richardscourtney says:
    December 10, 2012 at 10:23 am
    joeldshore:

    I am replying to your ridiculous post at December 10, 2012 at 6:19 am merely to demonstrate that I am not ignoring it.

    You dispute the true statements (at December 10, 2012 at 2:59 am) in my reply to Phil. Those true statements said

    I did NOT misquote anything.
    I quoted verbatim and your argument is false.

    Your post asserts that I “redefined” what the NOAA document said.
    A verbatim quotation is NOT a redefinition.

    It is when you deliberately apply it to a situation to which the authors explicitly say it doesn’t apply.

    You say

    And, as Phil. has pointed out, you quote lacks the context regarding the ENSO-adjustment and, as I pointed out, you have interpreted that statement in a way that is not the most natural interpretation.

    Bollocks!
    I made no “interpretation”! I accepted what the words said,.

    No you didn’t, you ignored the authors’ statement that their comment referred to ENSO-adjusted data only and then chose to apply it to data which was not adjusted. That’s not only an ‘interpretation’ it’s a patently false one, and one which you knew to be false!

  339. Phil:

    I write to inform onlookers that I have read your twaddle
    at December 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm
    and
    at December 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm.

    I gave complete answers to that untrue twaddle
    at December 10, 2012 at 2:59 am
    and
    at December 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm.

    History shows that you will blather on and on and on and … until you get the ‘last word’.

    You now have the last word so – with complete disrespect to you – I am content to allow others to assess our comments for themselves.

    Richard

  340. richardscourtney says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:43 am
    Phil:

    I write to inform onlookers that I have read your twaddle
    at December 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm
    and
    at December 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm.

    Good then there’s no need to say any more on the subject, unless of course you post your misrepresentations of the NOAA paper again in which case I’ll repost the rebuttal.

  341. I realize it was off-topic, but to me what I wrote is very important. May I at least ask that my comment gets to Lord Monckton?

    [Reply: I checked the Spam folder. No comments from you there. WordPress has dropped more comments recently. Please re-post if you have it and I will make sure it is approved. — mod.]

  342. global warming is a scam, cann anyone please explain why the Ice melted during the last Ice Age? Mammoth on hummer? or what causes the ice to melt during the last dino ice age? Dinosaurs with their factories?

    Or more important of all, what causes earth to cool down prior to the ice age?

    It is a natural cycle.

  343. Phil.:

    I write to thank you for the laugh you gave me in your hilarious post at December 11, 2012 at 9:51 am. You really are the gift that keeps on giving!

    Be happy in your delusion. But please don’t think you are fooling anybody except perhaps yourself.

    Richard

  344. THe anti-science discussed on this thread is mind boggling- fact is there is scientific concensus on man made global warming with over 99.7% of all published science on the subject in agrrement. The skeptic movement rely on slight of hand to move like minded people away from the fact that they can’t produce any science to support their claims. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html

  345. John:

    Your post at December 11, 2012 at 3:45 pm suggests you have been listening to blather of the kind spouted by Phil.

    Climate realists oppose the AGW-scare precisely because there is an immense amount of evidence which refutes it and none which supports it; e.g.
    Missing ‘hot spot’
    Missing “committed warming”
    Missing ‘Trenberth’s heat’
    Lack of Antarctic accelerated warming
    Lack of accelerated sea level rise
    No warming at 95% confidence for 16 years despite continuing increase to atmospheric CO2
    etc.

    The climategate emails reveal how the ‘Team’ have conspired to prevent publication of papers which refute AGW and/or its asserted effects. Despite that, this link list over 1,100 such papers which have been published

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Richard

  346. John,

    Thanx for your baseless assertion. But I should point out to you that the scientific consensus regarding the rise in CO2 emissions is that the increase is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    More than 30,000 degreed professionals in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, have explicitly stated that the recent rise in CO2 is “harmless” and “beneficial”. That is not anti-science, as you preposterously presume. That is a statement by tens of thousands of professionals who specialize in the hard sciences.

    I did not bother to read your Bad Astronomy link, because that blog has never had much traffic. It is written by a wacko who has very little credibility. But you can believe him if you want to. It’s a free country. Just be aware that your beliefs border on lunacy. You could not get 99.7% of any group to agree on anything. But be happy living in your bubble.

  347. LOL Then why aren’t any of these 30000 professionals actually publishing any science on this? Your reality is built out of a house of straw! If you did bother to read the link he links to National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell’s article. Between 19911-2012 there have been 13950 peer reviewed climate articles published. 24 reject global warming. You do the math. Get some of these 30000 experts to put up or shut up!

  348. John,

    Thanx for another assertion. However, there are far more than 24 peer reviewed co-signers of the OISM Petition, so your baseless assertion fails. The source you cite is simply lying. Do your own homework, and find the hundreds of peer reviewed papers authored by the tens of thousands of OISM co-signers.

    I’ll be a good guy and give you a little help: here are the names of the 31,400+ co-signers, who state that CO2 is “harmless” and “beneficial”. You could argue with them, but as an uneducated non-scientist I don’t think you would get very far.

  349. John:

    You made baseless assertions.
    I and D Böehm each gave you factual information which disproved your assertions.

    The information I gave you included a link to over 1,100 peer reviewed publications in the scientific literature which refute AGW alarm and you have replied by asking

    Then why aren’t any of these 30000 professionals actually publishing any science on this?

    The most likely explanation of your behaviour is that you are a bot.

    Richard

  350. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    “THe anti-science discussed on this thread is mind boggling- fact is there is scientific concensus on man made global warming with over 99.7% of all published science on the subject in agrrement.”

    John, if you have read the climategate emails, if you have noted no warming in 16 years, if you have bought into the whitewash investigations of CAGW scientist’s misdemeanors, then you are one of the unsalvageables. The fact that the last thing you read was the aging and debunked statement that 97% of scientists yada yada yada puts you in that category. Why don’t you dare to investigate what sceptics take issue with. We agree that the planet has warmed about 0.6C in a century but don’t accept the CO2 is, at most, a marginal part of that. Well, the following is a test to see if you are your own thinker or are an ideologue.

    -Ask yourself what caused the burial of half the northern hemisphere lands under 50 million cubic kilometres of ice resulting in sea level to drop 120 metres and then for this ice to melt with warming and sea level to rise back up again with no anthropomorphic CO2 or any other kind to initiate it.
    -Ask yourself how major multi century warm periods, as warm and warmer than now occurred in Roman times and in the Middle Ages (Middle Warming Period) when Scotland grew fine wine grapes, the Vikings colonized and farmed GREENLAND, only to be frozen out in the following Little ICe Age (LIA). Incidentally, today one can see some of these farmsteads reappearing from under the ice with the present warming period.
    – Ask yourself how in the Little Ice Age (LIA) centred on the 1700s resulted in freezing of New York Harbour, the Bosphorus in Turkey and the Thames, killing one third of Finns, mountain glaciers in Switzerland growing down into the valleys and crushing 1000 year old villages and the Vikings fleeing a.- not-so Greenland.

    All of this without appreciable CO2? John, if this is all true, are you prepared to alter your thinking on CAGW somewhat? You don’t have to be scientist to answer this question (I am a scientist by the way). And don’t take my word for it. Google it or see what even the biased Wikipedia has to say on these subjects.

  351. LOL I have a science degree but not in a climate related field so i defer to those who are true experts. Name 1 climate scientist whos has published on climate scientist who supports your fringe views. Even better name 1 reputable scientific organisation that supports them. I won’t hold my breath!

  352. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    THe anti-science discussed on this thread is mind boggling- fact is there is scientific concensus on man made global warming with over 99.7% of all published science on the subject in agrrement….
    ___________________________

    “An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

    Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true….”

    Not that long ago the consensus of learned men was the geocentric system explained the universe. When I was just starting high school, the concept of plate tectonics was still debated and the “Coming Ice Age” was making headlines. George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University alerted President Richard Nixon and the CIA conducted an investigation on this threat to the USA.

    Todays ‘Consensus’ is tomorrow’s failed conjecture in most cases in science.

    Most of the people on this blog have degrees in science/engineering or a keen interest in science. We do not take just the word of ‘authority’ we examine it.

  353. John,

    You have a degree in science?? From the lack of substance in your comments, that is doubtful. Social science, maybe.☺

    Post you CV, John. Show us.

    And there are thousands of scientists — that I linked to above — who state that CO2 is “harmless” and “beneficial”. Only a lunatic would call that a “fringe view”. As usual in the alarmist cult, if it were not for psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. You are part of the fringe.

    You are long on talk, John, and short on specifics. So post your CV, if you have one. And use the link I provided to educate yourself on the effect of harmless, beneficial CO2 [hint: there are no empirical measurements showing that AGW exists, or that it is measurable. None].

    Your assertions are just that: assertions. You fail to back them up with any testable, empirical, verifiable measurements per the scientific method. Therefore, your assertions are nothing more than baseless conjectures; opinions. That is not good enough at the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site.

  354. Gail, I have no problems with people challenging Science- but back it up by actually publishing something on it that gets reviewed properly. Read back through the comments and look at the people caught up in claims such as the scientifically unsound ‘it hasn’t warmed for 16 years!) Despite the fact that 8 of the last 10 years have been the warmest on record-cheery picking a start point on an El Nino period to try and score poinst wit hthe statistically unsound is counterproductive . The very fact that we are commenting on a Monckton topic. A man who has been shown up time and time again for misinterpreting scientists work. Why t here is a challenge out at the moment where a scientist has asaked ?monckton supporters to come up with just one example where he has been correct when discussing climate science. So far, no one has won the challenge!

  355. So I’m assuming by the silence, no one has found a reputable scientific organisation yet? Interesting! Still waiting for an expert published scientist link too. Baseless conjectures appear to lie on the side of those unwilling to link to the published peer reviewed research on the topic.

  356. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:04 pm
    Even better name 1 reputable scientific organisation that supports them.

    Better yet, ask if THE FACTS support the organizations. Do they?

    NOAA says on 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.

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

    Here is what has happened with RSS:
    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. Therefor 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

  357. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm
    . Get some of these 30000 experts to put up or shut up!
    _________________________________
    Here is just one.

    Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites…

    His Blog: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

    Or how about Dr. Nir Joseph Shaviv, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science.

    …Shaviv studied, during 1987–90, physics at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and finished his BA as best in class. During his military service (1990–93) he continued his studies 1992 and coauthored his first papers in astrophysics. In 1994 he received a Master of Science in physics and a doctorate during 1994–96. During 1996–99 he was Lee DuBridge Prize Fellow at Caltechs TAPIR (Theoretical Astrophysics Group). During 1999–2001 he was in a postdoctorate position at the university of Toronto, and 2001–6 was senior lecturer at Racah Institut of physics at University of Jerusalem…
    Wiki

    His blog is: http://www.sciencebits.com/

    Or another Physicist: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html

    Or how about seven more Physicists?

    Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg, all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm…

    You can read their direct quotes HERE

    Or how about Climotologists?

    Six Prominent Climatologists; John Christy, Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Fred Singer and Sherwood Idso, all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.

    You can read their direct quotes HERE

    There are a heck of a lot more including those who quit scientific societies because of their stance on CAGW.

  358. Where’s your CV, John? Don’t be coy, post it here.

    Here is just one of many peer reviewed skeptical scientists that reject your catastrophic AGW nonsense: Prof Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. Put your non-existent CV up against his. Scroll down, your screen is not nearly big enough to see it all, Mr Assertion.

  359. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    So I’m assuming by the silence, no one has found a reputable scientific organisation yet? Interesting! Still waiting for an expert published scientist link too. Baseless conjectures appear to lie on the side of those unwilling to link to the published peer reviewed research on the topic.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You asked for it so I suggest you start READING:
    Here are the Dr. Svensmark papers,

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/abstract

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(97)00001-1

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(99)00107-8

    http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i22/p5027_1

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5m12q6612v8570p/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u348727n87q617l3/

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0005072

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2001JD001264.shtml

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0x72u303vv6713x/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.200610651/abstract

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/abstract

    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2078/385.full

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/2765/2010/acp-10-2765-2010.html

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/3595/2012/acpd-12-3595-2012.html

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/abstract

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850212000559

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

    http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/asna.200610650

    When you finish those there are another 1100 to go.
    Oh and the Dr Feynman papers

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006JD007462.shtml

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1999/1999GL900326.shtml

    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117707001895

    And the Dr. Richard S. Lindzen papers, can’t forget him

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/y56m4429l8m17845/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m22t428187k87356/

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039%3C1189:TROCMC%3E2.0.CO;2

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071%3C0288:SCCGW%3E2.0.CO;2

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050%3C1643:DOTTWV%3E2.0.CO;2

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.fl.26.010194.002033

    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1998/98JD00125.shtml

  360. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm
    Why t here is a challenge out at the moment where a scientist has asaked ?monckton supporters to come up with just one example where he has been correct when discussing climate science. So far, no one has won the challenge!

    Are you serious? O.K. Here is just one.
    The following is a 95 minute speech by Lord Monckton given in Minnesota on October 15, 2009.

    He talks about many things, one of which is how the warming has been the same during three different periods.

    Then on February 13, 2010, Phil Jones confirms Monckton was correct.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
    Here are the trends and significances for each period:

    Period
    Length
    Trend 
    (Degrees C per decade)
    Significance
    1860-1880
    21
    0.163
    Yes
    1910-1940
    31
    0.15
    Yes
    1975-1998
    24
    0.166
    Yes
    1975-2009
    35
    0.161
    Yes
    (The formatting is better at the site I linked to.)

  361. Lindzen is on Exxon’s payroll.? I do see a conflict of interest with Lindzen here!
    How are you going with the scientific organistaion?

    Roy Spencer has been totally debunked by Temberth and Fasullo http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

    Shiraiv hasn’t published on climate nor have your 7 physicists

    David Pearce has accused Christy of going beyond the data due to his preconceived beliefs.
    Michaels is another on Exxons payroll
    Singer was responsible for holding back the tidal wave of evidence linking tobacco to cancer. Employed by the tobacco company to obfuscate and muddle the science. do you see any link here? What an ethically sound source!

    House of straw!

    How are you going with the scientific organistaion?

  362. Werner,

    I doubt that John will watch Lord Monckton teach him a lesson. But regarding Phil Jones, here are the three repeated warming periods in a graph. It is clear that the warming periods were the same — and at times when the CO2 concentration was very different.

    AGW may not be completely falsified, but it is clear that the effect of CO2 is much too small to worry about.

    Finally, I note that John the non-scientist has been reduced to making ad hominem arguments. Therefore he has lost the debate.

  363. John, you liar, you are a blinkered ass. Dr. Richard Lindzen is not “on Exxon’s payroll”, as you mendaciously claim. Dr. Lindzen was hired on a one-time contractual basis many years ago to do some statistical work, for which he was paid. Are you saying that scientists should work for nothing? Would you like for me to post just a part of Michael Mann’s payola, which adds up to millions of dollars? Ask, and I will post it here.

    Did you look at Dr. Lindzen’s CV? He has more than 200 peer reviewed climate papers to his credit that debunk your catastrophic AGW nonsense. And all you can do is criticize him for accepting pay for work done. Despicable.

    Your ad hominem accusation is all you have left to argue, because you lack the scientific facts necessary to support your argument. You are a typical anti-science troll who makes baseless assertions, then changes the subject when called on them. Scientific skeptics have won the science debate using empirical facts and observations: the planet itself is responding just as skeptics said it would. It is not heating up as the alarmist clique incessantly predicted.

    You’re a loser, John. Face it.

  364. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Lindzen is on Exxon’s payroll.?
    _____________________________
    Lindzen is a Professor at MIT!

    And if you want to throw that sort of stone I have a dump truck load.
    Maurice Strong: Chair of the 1972 First Earth Summit and Kyoto

    …Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada. This corporation is currently selling nuclear reactors to Argentina and Chile…. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/061.html

    Then there is Strong’s life long ties to oil: At age 29, he became president of Power Corporation, he has served as president of energy companies such as Petro-Canada and Ontario Hydro, and on the board of industrial giant Toyota. In 1981 he had moved on to Denver oil promoter AZL Resources
    He is a huge political donor, not just in Canada, but in the USA to both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    Strong sits on boards with the Rockefellers, Mikhail Gorbachev and chairs private meetings of CEOs, including Bill Gates. He hobnobs with the world’s royalty, with dictators and despots. He does business deals with people like arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi,

    Strong had a history as a conman and swindler long before his involvement with Obama, Gore and the Chicago Climate Exchange Strong has also been caught up in a series of U.N. scandals and conflicts of interest. not to mentions several insider trading scams such as the AZL Resources Lawsuit, the food for oil scandal and the Molten Metal Inc swindle involving Al Gore, tax payer money, lawsuits and a House Committee investigation

    Then there is Good old Al Gore

    Excerpt from The Buying Of The President 2000

    Today we released the results of an 18-month investigation of the major presidential candidates in the 2000 election with a particular focus on their personal and campaign ties to various economic interests with business before the government. The Buying of the President 2000 published by Avon, has been produced by 24 researchers, writers and editors…

    This mutually beneficial relationship between a politician and his patrons is seldom acknowledged or discussed publicly….

    For example, in the Democratic Party, Vice President Al Gore has a long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum that has been enormously beneficial to the company. Occidental’s late chairman, the controversial Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore’s father, Senator Albert Gore, Senior, quote, “in my back pocket”, unquote. When the elder Gore left the Senate in 1970, Hammer hired him for $500,000 a year. Personally and professionally the vice president has profited from Occidental largess. To this day he still draws $20,000 a year from a land deal in Tennessee brokered between his father and Hammer. The total amount is more than $300,000. The personal relationship between young Gore and Hammer was very close throughout the 1980’s, including trips on Hammer’s private jet and constant campaign contributions.

    For most of the 20th century, oil companies have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hills field in Bakersfield, California. Despite his public reputation as a staunch environmentalist, Gore recommended that the president approve giving oil companies access to this publicly owned land. It is land that the U.S. Navy has held as emergency reserves since 1912. In October, 1997, the Energy Department announced that the government would sell 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve to Occidental….

  365. Moderator, I have posted three times in the last half hour Are they gone?

    [Reply: I found some in the Spam folder & posted them. Also, WordPress has been losing posts lately. — mod.]

    [PS: I rescued your post with all the organizations on it and approved it. But now I don’t see it. %&#!*& WordPress! Sorry about that. — mod.]

  366. Liar?? Check your facts Lindzen is paid by the Cato Institute to write articles. Exxon is a major contributor to the Cato Group. Hardly a huge leap!

    Still waiting on that reputable scientific organisation that would certainly help your views be accepted as mainstream rather than fringe.

  367. That was the first set of stones

    The Climate Research Unit was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies (Shell and BP) and the last I looked that hadn’t been removed from their Wikipedia page (yet):

    Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.

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

    And the icing on the cake is that when Pachauri was first being pushed to the top spot at the IPCC Tom Wigley and Phil Jones was after his guts because he was being pushed by GW Bush who after all has ties to Big Oil, but somehow in the passing years he has no problem with now.

    Phil,
    I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.
    If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt

    Watson of course was an employee of the World Bank when he was IPCC chair and David Rockefeller (Standard Oil) generally vets the World Bank Chairs. Several are from his Chase bank.

    Later on ENRON got into the act.

    Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room…. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.

    In fact, this case was not entirely uncommon in that the entire enterprise was Paul’s idea to begin with. Which left me as the guy on the street corner muttering about this evil company cooking up money-making charades, to nothing but rolled eyes until the, ah, unpleasantness and the opportunity it afforded to take a few gratuitous swings at George W. Bush. Buy me a beer and I will regale you with tales of reporters from Newsweek and the Washington Post desperately seeking assistance to spin, respectively, Enron as having urged Bush away from the Kyoto agenda as opposed to having crafted it, and Enron’s global warming activism as its one redeeming feature.

    The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.

    Enron then engaged green groups to scare people toward accepting those policies. That is what is known as a Baptist and bootlegger coalition. I sat in on such meetings. Disgraceful….

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/15/lessons-from-the-global-warming-industry/

  368. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    Werner, this is embarrassing. Cherry picking time periods that suit isn’t scienmce. 

    Well, there is cherry picking and there is cherry picking. (Unfortunately WFT seems to be down now, but December 1996 is about a year before the El Nino really made itself felt.) It was NOAA that made the statement about the 15 years, not me. And while ‘noise’ like La Ninas and El Ninos do greatly affect short term slopes such as 7 to 10 years, if they still affect times like 16 years, then perhaps it is time to conclude CO2 is just not the driver it was assumed to be a decade ago.
    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” –
John Maynard Keynes

  369. John,

    The planet shows you are wrong. No global warming for a decade and a half. You’re a loser, John. Face it.

    Every ad-hom you launch against reputable skeptical scientists can be doubled and squared agains your disreputable alarmist scam artists. I notice you didn’t ask me to post Michael Mann’s outside loot. Ask, and I will. I can show conclusively that while Dr. Lindzen is paid for genuine work, Michael Mann is not.

    Finally, CO2 makes no measurable difference to global temperatures. Which destroys the catastrophic AGW conjecture:

    Note that the rising global warming trend is not accelerating [the WFT site is down, or I would post several more examples]. The long term rising trend is the same, whether CO2 is low or high. Thus, CO2 makes no measurable difference.

    See here, the rising trend has not accelerated despite the 40% rise in harmless, beneficial CO2. The rising global warming trend remains within its long term parameters. Conclusion: CO2 makes no measurable difference.

    Run along now to your thinly-trafficked alarmist echo chambers. They’ll eat up your nonsense. And maybe you can pick up some new talking points that we can debunk just as easily.

  370. And don’t forget our good buddy Ged Davis. He was the vice president of global business environment for Shell International.

    InterAcademy Council
    Annex A. Study Panel Biographies

    Ged DAVIS has a background in economics and engineering from London and Stanford universities. He joined the Royal Dutch/Shell in 1972 and stayed with that company for 30 years. During his time at Shell, he held positions predominantly in scenario planning, strategy and finance, including Head of Planning (Europe), Head of Energy (Group Planning), Head of Group Investor Relations, Head of Scenario Processes and Applications, Head of the Socio-Politics and Technology Team (Group Planning), and lastly as the company’s Vice-President for Global Business Environment and Head of the Scenarios Team. For the last three years, he has been [Managing Director of the World Economic Forum, responsible for global research, scenario projects, and the design of the annual Forum meeting at Davos. During the late 1990s, he served as Director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Scenarios and as Facilitator and Lead Author of the IPCC’s Emission Scenarios. Currently, he is Co-President of the Global Energy Assessment with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); a Director of Low Carbon Accelerator Limited; a Governor of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa; and a Member of the INDEX Design Awards Jury.

    http://iac.maxasp2.diamax.com/CMS/Reports/11840/11935.aspx?PrinterFriendly=true

    Now what were you saying about Lindsen and his one time consulting gig???

  371. We will try again
    John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    So I’m assuming by the silence, no one has found a reputable scientific organisation yet? Interesting! Still waiting for an expert published scientist link too. Baseless conjectures appear to lie on the side of those unwilling to link to the published peer reviewed research on the topic.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You asked for it so I suggest you start READING:
    Here are the Dr. Svensmark papers,

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/abstract

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(97)00001-1

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(99)00107-8

    http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i22/p5027_1

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5m12q6612v8570p/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u348727n87q617l3/

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0005072

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2001JD001264.shtml

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0x72u303vv6713x/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.200610651/abstract

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/abstract

    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2078/385.full

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038429.shtml

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/2765/2010/acp-10-2765-2010.html

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/3595/2012/acpd-12-3595-2012.html

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/abstract

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850212000559

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

    http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/asna.200610650

    When you finish those there are another 1100 to go.
    Oh and the Dr Feynman papers

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006JD007462.shtml

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1999/1999GL900326.shtml

    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0273117707001895

    And the Dr. Richard S. Lindzen papers, can’t forget him

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/y56m4429l8m17845/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/m22t428187k87356/

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039%3C1189:TROCMC%3E2.0.CO;2

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071%3C0288:SCCGW%3E2.0.CO;2

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050%3C1643:DOTTWV%3E2.0.CO;2

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.fl.26.010194.002033

    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1998/98JD00125.shtml

  372. If you are concerned over the effect remove the years from the data and plot the rest. It will make interesting viewing. Fact is Werner, 8 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record! Makes Lindzen look a bit silly when in 2004 he claimed it would be significantly colder in 20 years time. Of course when James Annan tried to make a bet with him he quickly backpeddled and asked for odds of 50/1! LOL

  373. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Lindzen is on Exxon’s payroll.? I do see a conflict of interest with Lindzen here!

    Michaels is another on Exxons payroll

    Gosh, and they made so much too! Lindzen is accused of making $10,000 or so some years back, nothing since then. Although Michaels has acknowledged receiving money from a variety of energy-related companies, I find no evidence that he has ever even been accused of being on Exxon’s payroll, check your Exxonsecrets.

    Meanwhile, the CRU at UEA has taken big bucks from Shell and BP. Heck, Shell and BP funded the creation of the Climate Research Unit, do you disregard their scientists as well? And one of the main funders of the infestation of climate alarmists at Stanford University is … wait for it …

    Exxon.

    And after giving oh, ten grand to Lindzen, how much did Exxon give climate scientists at Stanford, home of Stephen Schneider and Paul Ehrlich and the good folks over at the Global Climate and Energy Project?

    Almost a QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS!!

    Nor is that the biggest player. BP gave a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to UC Berkeley to develop plant-based fuels … funny how you haven’t mentioned either of those grants totaling three-quarters of a billion dollars, but you’ve got your knickers in a righteous twist about $10,000 going to Lindzen. My friend, your priorities are upside-down. Read the numbers, you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Before you complain about the $10,000 mote in Lindzen’s eye, consider the $235,000,000 beam in Stanford’s eye. Or as you would say:

    Stanford is on Exxon’s payroll.? I do see a conflict of interest with Stanford here!

    So you can take your pissy complaints about Exxon giving ten grand to Lindzen ten years ago and gently place them up into the darker reaches of your anti-alimentary canal. Funding overwhelmingly goes to believers in AGW, not skeptics. If you want to disregard people who are funded by oil companies, start with the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford and the University of California/British Petroleum project and the Shell funding of the Climategate clowns over at CRU.

    When and if you come back and bitch to us about oil companies funding Stanford’s climate scientists and CRU’s climate scientists, when and if you start complaining that you don’t believe Stanford scientists’ results because they are funded by big oil, on that day I’ll believe you actually care about just who it is that Exxon funds, rather than being just another anonymous random internet popup armed with half a fact and a brain to match.

    w.

    … Sheesh! $10,000 to Lindzen, while rabid AGW supporters are getting FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE MONEY, and you think the $10K to Lindzen is worth complaining about? Go out and purchase a clue, my friend, it’s not even worth mentioning …

  374. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Werner, this is embarrassing. Cherry picking time periods that suit isn’t scienmce. why not look at the entire period 1860-now. This might help http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#globalTemp

    NASA temperatures might help? NASA temperatures?? Shirley Ujest. Those are the temperatures that get adjusted (upwards) about every three to six months by our favorite ex-con, Jimmy Hansen. At present, they claim the warmest year was 2005 … riiiiight. Funny how they can change the past like that.

    But I can see why you say are embarrassed, John. I’d be embarrassed too if I recommended that any serious scientist use James Hansen’s personally adjusted temperature dataset, featuring his special warming sauce, as you have just done …

    w.

  375. Werner Brozek says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” – John Maynard Keynes
    _______________________________
    What John does is move the goal posts.

    First it was . Get some of these 30000 experts to put up or shut up!

    Then it was why aren’t any of these 30000 professionals actually publishing any science on this?

    And then we switched to How are you going with the scientific organistaion?
    How about Heartland John? It holds a yearly climate conference.

    And when you do give him the information the people are “debunked”

    John is not fit to polish the shoes of the people he is bad mouthing. link

  376. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    If you are concerned over the effect remove the years from the data and plot the rest. It will make interesting viewing. Fact is Werner, 8 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record! …
    ________________________________
    And you just proved you can not think logically.

    If I have a series that represents the amount per hour I earned each year: $1, $2, $4 $5 $6 $7 $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9

    Has my salary continued to increase in the last fifteen years or has it stated the same?

    The key is as Dr. Gerald Roe pointed the RATE OF CHANGE and not the absolute value that matters.

    If the average temperature for consecutive years was was 35C, 33C, 32C, 30C, 28C, 27C, 25C, 24C, 23C, 22C I really do not care if those were five out of the ten warmest years I would be concerned about that drop in temperature!

    That is why 16 years of no statistical change is significant. The RATE of change has done something different.

  377. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Fact is Werner, 8 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record!

    We are not disputing that. Note the title of this article has the words “lack of warming”. Being ‘warm’ and ‘warming’ are two entirely different things. Warming is the rate of change of temperature, of which there has been none on RSS for 16 years. Do not confuse velocity with displacement; nor acceleration with velocity; nor warming with being warm.

  378. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    …Shiraiv hasn’t published on climate….
    ____________________________________
    OH???
    That is not what HE says!

    The oceans as a calorimeter
    By Nir Shaviv, Sun, 2009-04-12 21:48
    I few months ago, I had a paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Since its repercussions are particularly interesting for the general public, I decided to write about it….

    http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

    If you bothered to look at the link you would have seen that Shaviv lists his Personal Research but instead you just tossed stones.

    I guess that is all you are capable of since you have no science.

  379. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    … Fact is Werner, 8 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record!

    Fact is John, in a generally warming climate as we have seen over the last three centuries, it would be surprising if we didn’t find that the recent years are the warmest … see Update 13 here for details on how often it happens. It was true in a number of years around 1945, for example. In a warming dataset we’d be fools if we didn’t expect the most recent years to be among the warmest. And it has done so many times.

    Note that the condition you specify (8 out of the last 10 years in the top ten) occurs or is even exceeded no less than 19 times in the historical record … so it is not uncommon in the least.

    I’m not sure what you think that demonstrates. All it means to me is that the globe has generally been warming … but we knew that. It means nothing about whether we are at a plateau, whether statistically the warming has ceased, or even whether, like in 1945, the large number of “warmest 10″ years will be followed by a decline in temperature like we saw 1945-1975.

    And finally, it means less than nothing regarding whether and how much humans might be affecting the climate.

    All the best,

    w.

  380. John says:

    “Why not 30 years? Or larger?”

    LOL! As always, the alarmist claque moves the goal posts, LOLOL!

    And still waiting for John to ask me to post Mann’s payola…

  381. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    Why choose that 16 year starting point then Gail?
    ________________________________
    I went with NOAA

    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

  382. John says:
    December 11, 2012 at 7:35 pm
    This might help.

    “It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.”

    Below is a summary as to what has happened with HadCRUT3 this year. Note the last sentence in bold in particular.

    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.

  383. Gail Combs (Dec. 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm):

    Your analogy between a global temperature time series and your salary time series is misleading. After fluctuating, the salary becomes constant. After fluctuating, the global temperature does not become constant. It is the population mean which, by conjecture, becomes constant. The population mean is, however, a meaningless concept in view of the continuing absence of identification of this population.

  384. Terry Oldberg:

    I understand your point in your post at December 11, 2012 at 9:08 pm but I think it is misplaced and Gail’s analogy is appropriate. You and Gail are explaining different issues so- in context – she is right and you are wrong. I explain this as follows

    Your post says in total

    Gail Combs (Dec. 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm):
    Your analogy between a global temperature time series and your salary time series is misleading. After fluctuating, the salary becomes constant. After fluctuating, the global temperature does not become constant. It is the population mean which, by conjecture, becomes constant. The population mean is, however, a meaningless concept in view of the continuing absence of identification of this population.

    I understand your point. The global temperature is a compilation of temperatures measured at different places (actually several different compilations – e.g. HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, etc. – each obtained by a different team). About a third of those places show cooling so a determination of a change to the trend of the global temperature requires an understanding of the variations to the individual trends of the measurement sites (i.e. the population). This requirement is because none of the measurement sites shows a consistent trend. And, therefore, an apparent change to the trend of the global temperature could be an artefact of natural variations in the trends of the individual measurement sites.

    Whilst correct, that need to identify the behaviour(s) of the population is not relevant in this case.

    It is argued that the global temperature is being driven up by increased radiative forcing. If true, then the effect of the increased radiative forcing is to reduce the possibilities of no change to global temperature or of falling global temperatures. The reduced possibilities result from reduced probability of the natural variations of individual measurement sites having negative trends or reduced positive trends.

    Therefore, there is no need to identify a population. There is only need to observe if the reduced possibility of no change to global temperature has occurred.

    If you insist on adoption of a mathematical analysis to observe if the reduced possibility is statistically significant then ‘drunkard’s walk’ or ‘Monte Carlo’ analysis is appropriate because the assessment is deviation from a trend in a time series.

    But Gail’s analogy does not attempt to address that important issue.

    John said the hottest years were recent and he claimed this is an indication that global warming is still happening. Gail provided an analogy which showed his claim is false. At December 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm she wrote

    If I have a series that represents the amount per hour I earned each year: $1, $2, $4 $5 $6 $7 $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9, $9

    Has my salary continued to increase in the last fifteen years or has it stated the same?

    The key is as Dr. Gerald Roe pointed the RATE OF CHANGE and not the absolute value that matters.

    If the average temperature for consecutive years was was 35C, 33C, 32C, 30C, 28C, 27C, 25C, 24C, 23C, 22C I really do not care if those were five out of the ten warmest years I would be concerned about that drop in temperature!

    That is why 16 years of no statistical change is significant. The RATE of change has done something different.

    She is right to say “The RATE of change has done something different” because it has.

    You are saying it cannot be known if the RATE of change has done something SIGNIFICANTLY different.

    OK. In mathematical terms you are right. The rate of change could have reduced to zero as an artefact of random variation of the population.

    However, it is being claimed that the dominant cause of variations to the population is increased radiative forcing from increased GHG concentrations. So, in reality you are wrong because the possibility of such an alteration to the rate of change should have reduced to zero if that claim were true.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      When you say “therefore, there is no need to identify a population” it sounds as though you may not grasp the import of the lack of a population for the methodology of an inquiry. This is that the referenced methodology is not and cannot be scientific.

      By the way, for the inquiry into global warming the elements of a global temperature time series are neither the population nor a sample that is drawn from this population. The elements of this time series have the wrong properties. There is no population and this makes of the inquiry scientific nonsense.

  385. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 12, 2012 at 7:37 am

    richardscourtney:

    When you say “therefore, there is no need to identify a population” it sounds as though you may not grasp the import of the lack of a population for the methodology of an inquiry. This is that the referenced methodology is not and cannot be scientific.

    By the way, for the inquiry into global warming the elements of a global temperature time series are neither the population nor a sample that is drawn from this population. The elements of this time series have the wrong properties. There is no population and this makes of the inquiry scientific nonsense.

    Terry, you keep making the statement that the global temperature dataset is not “a population” and is also not “a sample drawn from a population”.

    I have the feeling that I may regret asking this, as I have asked before and gotten no workable answer, but what in the world are you talking about?

    Give us a definition and an example of “a population”, “a sample from a population”, and whatever it is that is a collection of objects that is not either of those things. (In any case, what do you call a group that is neither a population nor a sample? … is there some term like “a murder of crows” or “a gaggle of geese” for this non-population deal?)

    Also, some kind of citation to one other person making your claim would be useful. I ask in part because there are a lot of good statisticians who have looked at climate, and I’ve never heard a single one make the claims that you make … how come you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness?

    Finally, if you want to get any traction with your theory, please keep it short, simple, and sweet, I have no interest in following you round the mulberry bush …

    w.

    • Willis Eschenbach:

      It sounds as though you wish to communicate about some statistical ideas. To communicate clearly we would need to share an accurate and unambiguous terminology. By the term “non-population deal” I assume you mean the idea which, among researchers, is called a “time-series.” The hadcrut3 is an example of a time series. Is it OK with you if in future communications we strike “non-population deal” and replace it with “time series”?

  386. Willis: (and Richard, for that matter …)

    What then, is the “statistical population” of 23 models, all running hundreds of pseudo-random finite-element analysis using approximations and back-fitted aerosol levels?

    If I have a sample of 100,000 comparable pieces of steel that I’ve measured under identical conditions with calibrated tooling over some period of time, I can reliably give you mean, average, max/min/trends (over time), standard deviations, and probability of what the sizes and shapes of the next 10,000 will be – all else being the same as what influences the previous trends

    If I have a sample of 10,000 pieces over time, I can do the same. My data is less accurate, std deviations are larger, but I can still give you predictable results.

    If I have a sample of 1000 – or a sample of 100 – I can “almost” give you the same: With ever less accuracy, and ever larger standard deviations.

    But if I have a program running calculations (supposedly) using “scientific” values for each constant and each thermal coefficient (mass, heat capacity, specific gravity, etc) then … What is the “standard deviation” of a program running the same equation 23,000 times?

    What is the “95% accuracy” (known values within 3 standard deviations is of course deliberately implied by the CAGW theists) of a program creating results from what amounts to massive runs from a random number generator times an increasing constant (Co2 concentration) with respect to time?

    Crudely put, and of course the finite element analysis results I use are more complicated than this, but what is the standard deviation of the 100,000th run of a calculator running (1+2+3+4+5)/15 = x

  387. Terry Oldberg, Willis Eschenbach and RACookPE1978:

    In this single post I am replying to your posts at December 12, 2012 at 7:37 am, December 12, 2012 at 9:12 am and December 12, 2012 at 10:01 am, respectively.

    I intend no insult or offence to any of you by this single post which is intended to avoid a disjointed response.

    Terry, in your post at December 11, 2012 at 9:08 pm you wrote to Gail Combs saying

    The population mean is, however, a meaningless concept in view of the continuing absence of identification of this population.

    I attempted to resolve the disagreement between you and Gail in my post at December 12, 2012 at 3:52 am.

    As part of that attempt, I explained what I understood you meant by a “population”. That explanation said

    I understand your point. The global temperature is a compilation of temperatures measured at different places (actually several different compilations – e.g. HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, etc. – each obtained by a different team). About a third of those places show cooling so a determination of a change to the trend of the global temperature requires an understanding of the variations to the individual trends of the measurement sites (i.e. the population). This requirement is because none of the measurement sites shows a consistent trend. And, therefore, an apparent change to the trend of the global temperature could be an artefact of natural variations in the trends of the individual measurement sites.

    You have replied saying

    By the way, for the inquiry into global warming the elements of a global temperature time series are neither the population nor a sample that is drawn from this population. The elements of this time series have the wrong properties. There is no population and this makes of the inquiry scientific nonsense.

    Frankly, I am bamboozled by that response.
    In attempt to resolve your disagreement with Gail, I discussed the “population” which I understood to exist and which you said has an “absence of identification”. Your reply to me says, “There is no population”.

    Which is it?
    (a) There is a population that is not identified.
    Or
    (b) There is no population.

    You have made both statements to me.
    And I am very grateful to Willis for his request that you expand on your answer to my question. Thankyou, Willis.

    Terry, I look forward to your clear answer with interest.

    RACookPE1978, you pose a good question but it is a third issue.
    Gail raised one.
    Terry raised another.
    And you have raised a third.

    You ask

    What then, is the “statistical population” of 23 models, all running hundreds of pseudo-random finite-element analysis using approximations and back-fitted aerosol levels?

    and

    What is the “95% accuracy” (known values within 3 standard deviations is of course deliberately implied by the CAGW theists) of a program creating results from what amounts to massive runs from a random number generator times an increasing constant (Co2 concentration) with respect to time?

    I answer that the statistical population of the model runs is the results of all the runs, and that total population has 23 sub-sets with one sub-set for each of the 23 models.

    There is a 95% confidence which can be obtained for the mean of the results (i.e. the population). This confidence says that only one in twenty of the results will occur outside the range of the confidence limit. Please note that the confidence limit applies to the model results and nothing else.

    However, if none of the “hundreds” of runs provides an indication 16 years without a trend greater than zero at 95% confidence then the model study effectively “rules out” the models indicating such a period.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      Thanks for giving me the opportunity for clarification of my remarks. As I use the term “population,” one of these is a complete set of statistically independent events. Each event is describable by a pair of states; one of these states is an example of a “condition” while the other is an example of an “outcome.” An example of a condition is “cloudy.” An example of an outcome is “rain in the next 24 hours.”

      At the time a prediction is made by the associated model, the condition is observed. Rather than being observed, the outcome is “inferred.”

      Though being inferred at the time of a prediction, the outcome is “observable” at a later time. A “sample” is a subset of the events of a population in which the outcome has been observed.

      No population underlies the climate models of AR4, so far as I’ve been able to determine in a diligent search.

  388. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    Willis Eschenbach:

    It sounds as though you wish to communicate about some statistical ideas. To communicate clearly we would need to share an accurate and unambiguous terminology. By the term “non-population deal” I assume you mean the idea which, among researchers, is called a “time-series.” The hadcrut3 is an example of a time series. Is it OK with you if in future communications we strike “non-population deal” and replace it with “time series”?

    Well, not exactly.

    You discuss certain groups of things as a “statistical population”. I don’t know what that means. You haven’t given examples of the kinds of things that are not a “statistical population”. That’s what I meant by some kind of non-population deal. Some group of objects that do not form a statistical population.

    It sounds from the above that one of the things that in your opinion is not a statistical population is a time series. So let me ask a more focused question to start with. Can a time series be a statistical population in your world view?

    Thanks,

    w.

  389. Willis Eschenbach:

    For my definition of “population,” please see my response to richardscourtney on Dec. 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm. Is it OK with you if we define “population” (aka “statistical population”) in this way?

  390. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Willis Eschenbach:

    For my definition of “population,” please see my response to richardscourtney on Dec. 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm. Is it OK with you if we define “population” (aka “statistical population”) in this way?

    Before we get to that, could you please answer the question I asked above, viz:

    Can a time series be a statistical population in your world view?

    An example is worth a hundred theories to me.

    Best regards,

    w.

    • Willis Eschenbach:

      Before proceeding, I’d like to pin you down on the meaning of key words and phrases. If we can agree on these, we are close to a joint determination of whether or not global warming climatology has an underlying statistical population. If we can’t agree there is the prospect of going around your metaphorical mulberry bush indefinitely.

  391. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 12, 2012 at 8:25 pm
    ================
    As it seems your intent is to muddle things up, you have done a workmanlike job.
    Unfortunately for you, Willis is having none of it.
    But please continue, I’m enjoying the repartee.

  392. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 12, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    u.k. (us)

    In what way do you claim that I have tried to muddle things up?
    ==============
    ===================
    If things were not “muddled”, why would you start your comment to Willis, like this:

    “Before proceeding,..”
    ——-
    Why, wouldn’t one just proceed to lay out their argument, without qualification, if it could withstand scrutiny.

    Cus nobody is nearly there yet ?
    At this point, the more we know the less we know.

  393. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 12, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    Willis Eschenbach:

    Before proceeding, I’d like to pin you down on the meaning of key words and phrases. If we can agree on these, we are close to a joint determination of whether or not global warming climatology has an underlying statistical population. If we can’t agree there is the prospect of going around your metaphorical mulberry bush indefinitely.

    Answer the question or don’t answer, Terry. I truly don’t care. I said above I might regret asking you the question. I’m starting to regret it already.

    If you want to get any traction, answer the question. If you just want people to point and laugh, don’t answer.

    Heck, Terry, I’ll go you one better. The question was, can a time series be a statistical population in your worldview?

    But since you don’t seem to want to answer that question, how about this one:

    Can 27 oranges and 16 apples in a bowl be a statistical population in your worldview?

    But I’d prefer an answer to the first question, since it relates directly to our discussion.

    These are serious questions, Terry. I’m trying to understand what you call a population, and more importantly, what you say is not a population. You refuse to give examples. Doesn’t look good.

    Your choice,

    w.

  394. Terry Oldberg:

    In my post at December 12, 2012 at 11:25 am I asked you

    In attempt to resolve your disagreement with Gail, I discussed the “population” which I understood to exist and which you said has an “absence of identification”. Your reply to me says, “There is no population”.

    Which is it?
    (a) There is a population that is not identified.
    Or
    (b) There is no population.

    You have made both statements to me.

    You reply to me in your post at December 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm which says in total

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity for clarification of my remarks. As I use the term “population,” one of these is a complete set of statistically independent events. Each event is describable by a pair of states; one of these states is an example of a “condition” while the other is an example of an “outcome.” An example of a condition is “cloudy.” An example of an outcome is “rain in the next 24 hours.”

    At the time a prediction is made by the associated model, the condition is observed. Rather than being observed, the outcome is “inferred.”

    Though being inferred at the time of a prediction, the outcome is “observable” at a later time. A “sample” is a subset of the events of a population in which the outcome has been observed.

    No population underlies the climate models of AR4, so far as I’ve been able to determine in a diligent search.

    That reply does not answer my question. It changes the subject.
    It says
    1.
    You define ‘population’ as “a complete set of statistically independent events”.
    and
    2.
    You say, “No population underlies the climate models of AR4″.

    We were discussing statistical significance of variations to trends in time series.
    Please answer my question.

    I repeat, it is about global temperature time series and is:
    “Which is it?
    (a) There is a population that is not identified.
    Or
    (b) There is no population.”

    Richard

  395. Willis Eschenbach says, December 12, 2012 at 11:37 pm:
    “[Terry]. I truly don’t care. I said above I might regret asking you the question. I’m starting to regret it already. If you want to get any traction, answer the question. If you just want people to point and laugh, don’t answer.”

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

    Willis, I think I can help you, but we need to start with the scientific definition of “global temperature” and then we can look into the calculations of the “global temperature”, underlying population etc. and decide, whether they are correct or not. It is also important to understand, that the type of definition like “I calculate something what I call “global temperature” and this is “global temperature” per definition” is not really a definition.

    So, please, give us the established scientific definition of “global temperature” with a reference to the source.

    P.S. I suggest I do not build stink bombs like “people laugh” into your comments, just to keep the discussion clean.

  396. richardscourtney:

    I mistook the topic that you wished me to address. The answer is (b). It is because there is no population that the assumptions of independence, linearity and normality cannot be supported.

  397. Greg House:

    At December 13, 2012 at 7:54 am you ask Willis

    So, please, give us the established scientific definition of “global temperature” with a reference to the source.

    I can give you two alternative definitions based on different understandings of ‘mean global temperature’. These different understandings are explained and investigated in the draft paper which is Appendix B of the item at

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

    The link is to my Submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry (i.e. whitewash) into ‘climategate’. The submission mentions Willis by name as the finder of the email from me which is the subject of the Submission.

    The paper which is attached in draft form as Appendix B of the Submission provides two definitions of mean global temperature (MGT) and explains them, saying

    (i) MGT is a physical parameter that – at least in principle – can be measured;
    or
    (ii) MGT is a ‘statistic'; i.e. an indicator derived from physical measurements.

    These two understandings derive from alternative considerations of the nature of MGT:

    1. If the MGT is assumed to be the mean temperature of the volume of air near the Earth’s surface over a period of time, then MGT is a physical parameter indicated by the thermometers (mostly) at weather stations that is calculated using the method of mixtures (assuming unity volume, specific heat, density etc).

    Alternatively:

    2. If the thermometers (mostly) at weather stations are each considered to indicate the air temperature at each measurement site and time, then MGT is a statistic that is computed as being an average of the total number of thermometer indications.

    The “source” of these definitions is myself and it was agreed by 18 signatories to the paper. But the paper was blocked from publication by nefarious method as the Submission explains.

    I am willing to accept either definition – or another definition if adequately justified – for the purpose of this discussion.

    Richard

  398. richardscourtney says, December 13, 2012 at 9:01 am: “The “source” of these definitions is myself…”
    ======================================================

    Well, thank you for your “private” definition, Richard, but I asked Willis to present “the established scientific definition of “global temperature” with a reference to the source”. You are welcome, of course, to do the same.

    I hope you understand that it does not make much sense to discuss “private” definitions, anyway not on this thread.

  399. Greg House:

    If you don’t like the definitions I provided then state your own.

    Importantly, state why you don’t like my definitions
    (that it was me who provided them doesn’t cut it).

    This discussion was between Terry Oldberg and myself.
    Willis joined in with useful comment.
    RACookPE1978 asked some questions which I answered.
    u.k.(us) has requested that individuals address questions from others.
    You asked a question which I answered.
    The discussion continues as an attempt to understand what Terry is trying to say.

    If terms need to be agreed to understand what Terry is trying to say then
    (a) Terry needs to say what he means by the terms he uses
    and
    (b) others need to state what they understand those terms to be.

    We can then resolve any disagreements about those terms so we can grasp what Terry is trying to say.

    What nobody needs is you – or anybody else – trying to add more confusion.

    Richard

  400. richardscourtney says, December 13, 2012 at 10:48 am: “Greg House:
    If you don’t like the definitions I provided then state your own.
    Importantly, state why you don’t like my definitions” […] You asked a question which I answered.

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

    Richard, again, as I told you, at the moment I am not interested in discussing any “private” or “personal” definitions of yours or any other person’s.

    I am interested in getting THE definition, I mean, the established scientific definition of “global temperature”. I doubt that your “private” definition is THE one.

    If you are not familiar with THE one, no problem, let us see then, what established scientific definition climate scientist Willis Eschenbach comes up with. Or any other honourable climate scientist, including our beloved Christopher Monckton, Roy Spencer and many others who possibly read this blog.

    Then we will look into the issue of statistical calculations of this “global temperature”, underlying population etc.

  401. Greg House:

    I am replying to your post at December 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm.

    The conversation is an attempt to assist Terry to explain his argument because several of us fail to understand it. To that end, I wrote two definitions which I accept and I said
    “I am willing to accept either definition – or another definition if adequately justified – for the purpose of this discussion.”

    You say
    “I am interested in getting THE definition, I mean, the established scientific definition of “global temperature”. I doubt that your “private” definition is THE one.”

    Your interest is noted.
    If you find what you want then please feel free to tell us because I am sure we would like to hear it. Until then, please stop disrupting the conversation.

    Richard

  402. After I originally left a comment I appear to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments
    are added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I receive four emails
    with the exact same comment. There has to be an easy method you are able to remove me from that
    service? Thanks!

  403. richardscourtney:

    Upon review of your post of Dec. 12, 2012 at 11:25 am, I find that the elements of your “population” are measurement sites. In contrast, the elements of my “population” are events. In this way, we have been inadvertently guilty of the fallacy known as “equivocation.”

    Equivocation is a product of ambiguity of reference by terms in the language of an argument and may be alleviated through disambiguation. To this end I propose that going forward we reference your definition of “population” by “population-c” and my definition of population as “population-o.” A population-c exists but not, so far as I’ve been able to determine, a population-o.

    I describe a population-o with a degree of detail in my post of December 12, 2012 at 6:18 pm. If you wish clarification, I’ll be happy to supply same.

  404. richardscourtney says, December 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm: “The conversation is an attempt to assist Terry to explain his argument because several of us fail to understand it.”
    ========================================================

    I guess, Terry’s argumentation is based on an assumption about what climate scientists mean when they say “global temperature”.

    This assumption should be cleared/confirmed/proven wrong first, then we will see, whether that thing about underlying population is right or not.

    That is why we need the established scientific definition of “global temperature first.

    Anyone?

  405. Terry Oldberg says, December 13, 2012 at 6:19 pm: “Greg:
    Why don’t you give us the definition?”

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

    Terry, why don’t you give us the definition?

    OK, let me share this with you. I have a very bad feeling about this “global temperature” thing, in the direction that the whole sort of calculations lack a scientific basis. I am not sure yet, that is why I asked. I have a bad feeling that warmists, sorry, climate scientists just CALL what they somehow derive more or less one way or another from some local data a “global temperature”. And that they can not account for this “global” word.

    I hope you understand the difference. E.g. anyone can call his cat “King of the USA”, but the cat, you know, is not in fact the King of the USA.

    But let us not go too far with our speculations, let us let climate scientists give us the correct established scientific definition of “global temperature first.

    • Greg:

      My take is that the opinion of the “scientists” on the definition of the “global temperature” is irrelevant. The issue of prime importance is of the definition of the events in the population-o that underlies that climate model which is relied upon in making public policy on CO2 emissions; see my recent message to Richard Courtney for the definition of “population-o.” The manner in which we define the outcomes of these events is of vital interest to the people of the world. To make these outcomes a function of temperatures over the oceans and in the arctic where very few people live strikes me as absurd.

  406. Terry Oldberg says, December 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm: “Greg:
    My take is that the opinion of the “scientists” on the definition of the “global temperature” is irrelevant. The issue of prime importance is of the definition of the events in the population-o that underlies that climate model which is relied upon in making public policy on CO2 emissions;…”

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

    Good luck with that.

    By the way, how high would you estimate the percentage of policy makers and journalists, who are capable of understanding what “events in the population-o” etc. means?

    Please, choose the right number: 0.000001%; 0,0000001%; 0.00000000001% (lol).

    • Greg House (December 13, 2012 at 7:49 pm):

      My guess is that the percentage of policy makers and journalists, who are capable of understanding what “events in the population-o” etc. means is vanishingly small. This is a daunting challenge.

  407. Greg House says:
    December 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    I am interested in getting THE definition, I mean, the established scientific definition of “global temperature”. I doubt that your “private” definition is THE one.

    See “The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature“. There is no “the” definition of how to calculate global temperature.

    w.

  408. <i<Willis Eschenbach says, December 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm: "There is no “the” definition of how to calculate global temperature."
    =====================================================

    Willis, in my understanding, these 2 things: a)”global temperature” and b)how the global temperature can be calculated correctly are 2 different things.

    Therefore your “a definition of how to calculate global temperature” is an absurd formulation to me, and I did not asked you anything about this absurd thing.

    What I did asked you about was the established scientific definition of “global temperature”. Note, I did not ask you anything about the calculations with all those interesting things like “extracting large-area temperature” etc. (yet). Let us deal with this second issue later.

    Now we have hopefully clarified the question and I am looking forward to your clear scientific answer.

    I hope you do understand the importance of the issue of the established scientific definition of “global temperature”. Because, if warmists just CALL what they somehow derive more or less one way or another from some local data a “global temperature” and if they can not really account for this “global” word, then the whole “global warming” thing is a pure fiction. Then we do not even need to discuss “population-o” and many other secondary things.

    You know what political warmists are going to do with us, if they gain enough power, don’t you? So, let us focus on the primary things then.

  409. Terry Oldberg says:
    December 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Greg House (December 13, 2012 at 7:49 pm):

    My guess is that the percentage of policy makers and journalists, who are capable of understanding what “events in the population-o” etc. means is vanishingly small. This is a daunting challenge.

    Terry, since you have refused to answer my repeated questions about your secret population categorization methods, both on this thread and elsewhere, it is no wonder the number of people who understand your ramblings are “vanishingly small”.

    I’ve been trying to understand them myself, but you keep refusing to answer a bozo-simple question.

    If you are not planning to answer the question, please let us know so we can point and laugh.

    If you are going to answer the question, on the other hand, you should do so posthaste, delaying answering an important question while posting other trivial stuff is not good for your reputation.

    w.

    • Willis Eschenbach:

      You ask “Can a time series be a statistical population”? A short answer is that a time series is not a population but rather is a kind of sample. In the context of attempts at controlling the climate through regulation of CO2 emissions, this kind of sample is non-pertinent I elaborate below.

      As Richard Courtney and I just found out, “population” is a polysemic word, that is, a word with several meanings. When a polysemic word is used in the context of an argument, there is the danger of reaching a false conclusion. For this reason, I shall elaborate my answer by reference to a population-o. The term “population-o” provides for a partial disambiguation of the polysemic term “population.”

      A population-o is a time sequence of statistically independent events. Each of these events is describable by a pair of states. Conventionally, one of these states is called the “outcome” of the associated event while the other is called the “condition.”

      The idea of a population-o supports the idea of a conditional prediction or “predictive inference.” That it supports this idea ties the idea of a population-o to logic. Logic is the science of the rules by which correct inferences may be discriminated from incorrect ones.

      At the time a prediction is made by a model, the condition is observed. At the same time, the outcome is unobserved but observable. At this time, the outcome is “inferred” from the observed condition. Later, after the outcome becomes observable, this outcome can be observed.

      An event in which the outcome as well as the condition have been observed is called an “observed event.” A collection of observed events is called a “sample.” A sample is a subset of a population-o in which each of the outcomes has been observed.

      A mutually exclusive collectively exhaustive set of conditions is an example of a state-space. The term “condition” implies that this state-space contains two or more states. To answer your question, though, I must reference a state-space of similar characteristics that contains but a single state. In information theory, it can be shown that knowledge of this state provides one with no information about the outcome. It follows that from an information theoretic point of view this state-space can be neglected. By this line of reasoning, I arrive at the description of a population-o whose elements are describable by unobserved but observable outcomes. A sample from this population is a set of outcomes. For example, it is the set {heads, tails, tails} of outcomes in a sequence of three coin flips.

      A time-series is a sample from a population-o with the characteristic that is described in the previous paragraph. In the circumstance that the entire population-o is sampled, the relationship between the elements of the sample and the elements of the population is one-to-one.

      You should understand that in attempts at controlling the climate through regulations on CO2 emissions, the pertinent type of sample is not a time-series but rather is a set of events in which each event is describable by a condition as well as an outcome. That the observed condition supplies information about the unobserved outcome is required if the climate is to be controlled.

  410. Terry Oldberg:

    I write to say that I support all that Willis says in his post at December 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm.

    He has repeatedly asked you a simple question; i.e.

    can a time series be a statistical population in your worldview?

    And I have repeatedly asked you another simple question; i.e.

    Which is it?
    (a) There is a population that is not identified.
    Or
    (b) There is no population.

    You have made both statements to me.

    Your post addressed to me at December 13, 2012 at 4:05 pm does not answer my question but it does add to my confusion.

    Please answer the simple questions.

    Richard

  411. Terry Oldberg:

    At December 14, 2012 at 9:05 am you attempt to provide an answer to the question from Willis Eschenbach but not the question from me. Although that post does not mention my question, I write in response to it because it leaves me more puzzled than before I read it.

    For example, its concluding paragraph says

    You should understand that in attempts at controlling the climate through regulations on CO2 emissions, the pertinent type of sample is not a time-series but rather is a set of events in which each event is describable by a condition as well as an outcome. That the observed condition supplies information about the unobserved outcome is required if the climate is to be controlled.

    I completely fail to understand the meaning or the relevance of that.

    What is
    “a set of events in which each event is describable by a condition as well as an outcome”
    if it is not
    “a time series” such as a global temperature (i.e. an outcome)
    Which is “describable by a condition” (i.e. rising atmospheric CO2 equivalent)?

    I intend no offence, but I find your writings inscrutable. Every time I think I have understood your meaning you say you mean something else (which I also don’t understand).

    Please try to provide simple, straightforward answers to the simple, straightforward questions posed by Willis and me.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      The content of your remarks leaves me unsure of how to provide you with the information that you desire. However, I’ll give this project a shot.

      You seem to have the idea that a time-series is a population-o. This idea is incorrect. A time-series is a time-sequence of observed outcomes. For example, it is the time-sequence {heads, tails, tails…}.. A population-o is a set of statistically independent events. For example, it is the set {coin flip #31, coin flip #62…}. In this example you should be able to see that a time-series differs from a population-o.

      A flipped coin is describable by an element in the state-space {heads, tails}. For future reference, let us designate this state-space by the symbol O.

      A notable feature of a flip of a fair coin is that information about the outcome is completely lacking in advance of the flip. In view of the lack of information, it is impossible for one to control the outcome. If the United Nations were to launch an investigation of coin flipping with the intent of regulating the outcomes of flips of fair coins, this intent would be sure to go unrealized.

      Suppose, however, that the outcome could be controlled through the agency of a device consisting of a sensor of which side was up, electromagnetic brake and associated circuitry. The circuitry would allow the operator of the device to dial in the desired outcome and produce this outcome by operating the brake so as to stop the tumbling at the appropriate instant.

      The dialed in outcome is a kind of “condition.” In my example, the condition has two values; one of these is “heads” and the other is “tails.” In this example, knowing the condition of an event provides the operator of the device with perfect information about the outcome thus making the outcome controllable.

      Let the state-space containing the conditions be designated by C. The information that one gains about the state in O from knowing the state in C is the output from the mathematical function which in information theory is called the “mutual information.” If you wish, you can look up the formula for this function on the Web and prove to yourself that if C contains only a single state, the mutual information is nil. As the mutual information is nil, the outcome is not controllable.

      Regarding your call for simple straightforward answers from me, it sounds as though you are parroting a Willis Eschenbach attempt at bullying me. What’s up with that?

  412. Terry, thank you for your reply. IF I understand it, you are saying that a time series is a sample of a population-o. Therefore, any time series is not, and cannot be, a population-o.

    Now, again IF I understand you, you keep saying that in climate science the problem is that there is no population-o.

    Finally, If I understand you, you are saying that the lack of said population-o means we can’t do statistical analysis on the sample represented by the time series.

    OK. The parts I don’t understand are:

    1. If a time series, say temperatures that I take every day in my backyard Stephenson Screen, is a sample of a population, then … how can there be no population?

    2. Why can’t I do statistical analyses on the temperatures that I have taken in my backyard?

    Thanks again for your answers. In this case, PLEASE give the elevator speech, not the half-hour version, of your answer.

    Regards,

    w.

    • Willis Eschenbach:

      Thanks for staying in touch. I didn’t mean to say that a time-series IS a sample from a population-o but rather to say that a time-series CAN BE a sample from a population-o. Thus, it is possible for there to be a time-series without the associated population-o.

      If the population-o does not exist, then one cannot logically or scientifically generalize from the observed events in the time-series to the non-existent unobserved events in the remainder of the population-o. In claiming that there was no statistically significant warming, Phil Jones and his followers were guilty of this kind of generalization.

  413. Willis Eschenbach says, December 14, 2012 at 3:57 pm: “Terry, […] If a time series, say temperatures that I take every day in my backyard Stephenson Screen, is a sample of a population, then … how can there be no population?”
    =======================================================

    Willis, you seem to agree that your local time series are a sample rather than a population, this is very good. Now, will you, please, tell us, what exactly the population is? (Remember, we are talking about “global temperature”). Because, otherwise it would be funny and even somehow unscientific to talk about a sample without identifying the population first, right?

    By the way, Terry said earlier on this thread: “Unfortunately, climatologists have yet to identify the statistical population that underlies their inquiry into global warming.” Do you agree with that?

  414. Terry Oldberg:

    I am replying to your post addressed to me at December 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm.

    Clearly, I am failing to understand (almost?) everything you are trying to say. So, I will give this one last try by going back to where this started. We can then progress from there.

    I remind that my question – which I have repeatedly stated – to you is:
    Which is it?
    (a) There is a population that is not identified.
    Or
    (b) There is no population.

    You have made both statements to me.
    Please give me a single word answer (i.e. Yes or No) to each of my statements (a) and (b).

    Hopefully, this reboot will enable a more productive discussion.

    Richard

  415. Terry Oldberg:

    Thankyou for your post at December 15, 2012 at 10:38 am which (at last) answers my question.

    I understand your answer to be that “There is no population”.

    OK. In hope that I can grasp what you are saying, I ask another question.

    If there is no population then why have you repeatedly raised the issue of “population-0” in your posts to me?

    To be clear as to the meaning of my question I will split it into parts.

    If there is no population then how can there be a relevant “population-0”?
    And if “population-0” has no relevance then why introduce it?

    Thanking you in anticipation.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:
      I’m unsure of what is meant by the first of your two questions, for it employs the polysemic term “population.” If I disambiguate the language of this question be striking “population” and replacing it by “population-o,” it translates to “If there is no population-o then how can there be a relevant ‘population-o’?” but the absence of something is not opposed to its relevancy and thus the question does not make sense.

  416. Terry Oldberg:

    re your post at December 15, 2012 at 11:57 am.

    I give up. I have genuinely, honestly and with great effort tried to understand what you say to me. And I have failed. There is nothing more I can do to grasp what you are trying to say.

    Indeed, I understand your post which I am answering to be a masterpiece in obscurantism.

    I offer some sincere advice in hope that you will use it to your advantage: it is this.

    Your argument will not be accepted by others until you understand your argument sufficiently for you to explain it to them.

    Richard

    • richardscourtney:

      As my argument is based in logic and mathematical statistics, I have reason to believe it would be understood and accepted by people who are versed in these disciplines. Among the members of this group is the statistician with whom I discussed the logical shortcomings of the Phil Jones/Richard Courtney derivation of the confidence bounds on the time rate of change of the global temperature while we hiked together last week. Having already thought about the logical shortcomings of linear regression analysis, he understood my argument instantly and agreed with this argument. In developing commercially successful methods for optical character recognition, he avoided the use of all parametric methods of model building, including regression analysis. A shortcoming of the parametric methods is that in assuming a parametric form the model builder fabricates information. That the Phil Jones/Richard Courtney argument fabricates information is a fact that you are evidently perennially incapable of understanding.

  417. Terry Oldberg:

    re your post at December 16, 2012 at 8:41 am

    I repeat,
    your argument will not be accepted by others until you understand your argument sufficiently for you to explain it to them.

    And I add that you compound your problem by giving unjustifiable insults to those who try to understand what you intend by your words which – frankly – are illogical and self-contradictory gibberish.

    Richard

Comments are closed.