Monckton: Of meteorology and morality

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

To those of us who have dared to question on scientific and economic grounds the official story on global warming, it is a continuing surprise that there is so little concern about whether or not that story is objectively true among the many who have swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker.

For the true-believers, the Party Line is socially convenient, politically expedient, and financially profitable. Above all, it is the Party Line. For those who think as herds or hives, it is safe. It is a grimy security blanket. It is the dismal safety in numbers that is the hallmark of the unreasoning mob.

But is it true? The herd and the hive do not care. Or, rather, they do care. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?” They are offended, shocked, outraged. They vent their venom and their spleen and their fury on those of us who ask, however politely, “But is it true?”

Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.

They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.

The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.

Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? What you get is the global warming scare.

As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.

Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.

“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What We’re Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus!”

And so, round and round, ad nauseam, ad ignorantiam, ad infinitum.

Every one of those exclamatory, declamatory statements about the climate is in substance untrue. Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities and government bodies. For instance, the notion that there is a 1 in 10 chance the world will end by 2100 is the fundamentally fatuous assumption in Lord Stern’s 2006 report on climate economics, written by a team at the U.K. Treasury for the then Socialist Government, which got the answer it wanted but did not get the truth, for it did not want the truth.

Previously, you could count on getting nothing but the truth from the men in white coats with leaky Biros in the front pocket. Now, particularly if the subject is global warming, you can count on getting little but profitable nonsense from your friendly local university science lab. They make the profits: you get the nonsense.

The central reason why what Professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” is damaging to civilization arises not from the staggering cost, soon to be $1 billion a day worldwide. Not from the direct threat to the West posed by the avowedly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian policies of the UN, the IPCC, and the costly alphabet-soup of unelected busybody agencies of predatory government that live off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity. Not from the dire environmental damage caused by windmills and other equally medieval measures intended to make non-existent global warming go away.

The damage caused by the Great Lie arises from the fact that just about the entire global governing class has found it expedient or convenient or profitable to adopt the Great Lie, to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on, regardless of whether anything that it says on the subject of the climate has any truth in it whatsoever.

The fundamental principle upon which Aristotle built the art and science of Logic is that every individual truth is consistent with every other individual truth. The truth is a seamless robe. Religion – or at any rate the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe (practising but not perfect) – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.

Science, too – or at any rate the classical scientific method adumbrated by Thales of Miletus and Al-Haytham and brought to fruition by Newton, Huxley, Einstein, and Popper – was also rooted in the understanding that there is only one truth, only one physical law, and that, therefore, every truth unearthed by the diligence of the curious and hard-working empiricist or theoretician must, if it be truly true, be consistent at every point and in every particular with every truth that had ever been discovered before, and with every truth yet to be discovered.

It is in the understanding of that central principle of the remarkable oneness and self-consistency of all truth that men of true religion and of true science ought to have become united. For there is an awesome beauty in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Keats put it, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all.”

The beauty of the truth is sullied, the seamless robe rent in sunder, if not merely a few individual scientists but the entire classe politique not merely of a single nation but of the planet advantages itself, enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.

The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie. Those scientists who have been caught out trampling the truth, and those universities in which it has become near-universally agreed that the best thing to keep the cash flowing is to say nothing about the Great Lie, are by their actions or inactions repudiating the very justification and raison-d’être of science: to seek the truth, to find it, to expound it, to expand it, and so to bring us all closer to answering the greatest of all questions: how came we and all around us to be here?

We who are not only men of science but also men of religion believe that the Answer to that question lay 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem. The very human face of the very Divine was “perfectly God and perfectly Man”, as the Council of Chalcedon beautifully put it.

We cannot prove that a Nazarene made the Universe, or that any Divine agency takes the slightest interest in whether we tell the truth. But, for as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we are free to believe it. And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.

Science, though, is not a matter of belief (unless you belong to Greenpeace or some other Marxist front organization masquerading as an environmental group). It is a matter of disciplined observation, careful theoretical deduction, and cautious expression of results. The true scientist does not say, “I believe”: but he ought, if there is any curiosity and awe in his soul, to say “I wonder …”. Those two words are the foundation of all genuine scientific enquiry.

Yet the global warming scare has shown how very dangerous is science without morality. The scientist, who takes no one’s word for anything (nullius in verba), does not accept a priori that there is any objectively valuable moral code. He does not necessarily consider himself under any moral obligation either to seek the truth or, once he has found it, to speak it.

Science, therefore, in too carelessly or callously rejecting any value in religion and in the great code of morality in which men of religion believe and which at least they try however stumblingly to follow, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

Yea, truth faileth (Isaiah, 59:15). The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.

That being so, we should no longer consider ourselves as laboring under any obligation, moral or other, to pay any particular heed to scientists seeking to meddle in politics unless and until they have shown themselves once more willing to be what al-Haytham said they should be: seekers after truth.

Two hundred and forty-six feet of sea-level rise, Dr. Hansen? Oh, come off it!

A merry Christmas an’ a roarin’ Hogmanay to one and all.

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

607 Responses to Monckton: Of meteorology and morality

  1. Bob Weber says:

    Outdid yourself with a moving tribute – very honorable sir.

  2. John Tillman says:

    Truth beautifully expressed.

    Truth told to power will eventually triumph. The truth shall make men and women free & the long-suffering subjects of misgovernment shall overcome.

    And in case you were wondering: “inspissate”, from the Latin for “to thicken”, hence to thicken, congeal or condense, as from evaporation.

  3. tallbloke says:

    “The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.”

    Jerome Ravetz came to a similar if more secular conclusion:

    “The way I see it now (which I certainly don’t say is True) is that there is a connection between truth and integrity. This might be cast as attempting ‘the truth as best as I can achieve it’, or, more fundamentally, ‘being true to myself’.”
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/jerome-ravetz-pns-truth-and-science/

    There is of course a link between the integrity of the secular and the morality of the religious. Science is an area in which diligent and honest atheists and believers can work together towards the generation of useful knowledge and in the pursuit of truth.

    Merry Christmas and a cool Yule to one and all.

  4. Bill says:

    May the Good Lord bless you and yours.
    You are a beacon of truth in a thick fog of self serving lies and wicked deceptions

  5. ED, Mr. Jones says:

    Heretic!

  6. jorgekafkazar says:

    Amen.

  7. Brent Walker says:

    A wonderful Christmas present Lord Monckton. I wish this could be printed in every newspaper in every country.
    Very warm Christmas greetings to all.

  8. Kelvin says:

    Thankyou and Merry Christ’s mass to you sir.
    P.S. Please inform Sue Wynne-Boult, Phil Banks & Hyde Quick, US Attorneys-at-Law that their definition of Happy Holidays may offend half the globe. Celebration of ‘Winter’ solstice indeed!
    Yours
    Kelvin Kubala
    New Zealand

  9. troe says:

    That is the thing isn’t it. Not the particulars of this case but the corruption it exposes in our foundation. That is why we fight.

    Thank you for putting it so well.

    Merry Christmas to all of you

  10. Doug Huffman says:

    Merry Christmas to all, and to all a God Jul! Thank you Lord.

  11. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    ‘What is Truth,asked jesting Pilate, and did not stay for an answer.’

  12. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, thank you for such a cogent commentary on the intellectual divide that separates us from our deluded fellow humans. This article is an instant classic!

  13. The power of the messenger of false information is diminishing. Brainwashing masterminds of a hundred years ago never envisioned invention of the internet and power of crowd sourcing.

    People now instinctively know not to trust the corporate owners of old news media. They know they’re purposefully deceiving people for their own greedy gain. Virtually no one goes to TV news channels for information anymore because they know they’ve been lied to constantly by them. Why give the enemy any more of your money when free true crowd sourced information is available at a moments notice on the internet?

    Monckton points out what has become a silly brainwashing tactic, shutting down the conversation to maintain the mind control gains. That tact is now so transparent it isn’t working anymore and just helps to shine a bright light on the enemy and useful idiots.

  14. Mike Jonas says:

    “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” – Stephen Schneider

    “The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.”
    – Edmund Burke

  15. Rick says:

    Just as Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, we live in a world that worships the ‘created’ rather than the Creator.
    Merry Christmas everyone.

  16. Kirk c says:

    One should never compare political truth and religious truth in the same context as scientific truth. The definition of “Truth” has been hijacked. In politics it means “as far as I’m concerned I’m speaking The truth as I recall it perhaps to be”. In religion, “I believe this is the truth as far as I have been told, but I really have no way to back it up”. Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone .

    As a denier myself, I normally enjoy Christopher Monckton’s shenanigans but in my opinion, the call to truth and biblical objective morality detracts from his credibility.

  17. Gunga Din says:

    To not attempt to live by a standard greater than yourself opens the door to “the end justifies the means” mentality.
    A few verses from Proverbs,
    Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. ( KJV)
    Pro 12:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits. (KJV)
    Pro 21:22 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. ( KJV)
    I know that some will object to “the LORD” part of these verses. Sorry, but that is the Truth.
    A “Moral Compass” won’t work if you don’t know which way is North.

  18. Peter Miller says:

    Eloquent and relevant, also sad but true.

  19. Doug Huffman says:

    Mike Jonas says: December 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm ““The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

    Speaking of integrity; Edmund Burke wrote “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” (Thoughts on the Present Discontents, 1886) (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2173/2173-h/2173-h.htm accessed 24 December 2013)

    There is little integrity in grabbing a quote from out of context unread.

  20. Tim Collins says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with your excellent commentary of the nonsense of AGW,

    But I find your correlation with the preposterous re-telling of much older fairy tales contained in the King James or your own religions version of “the new testament” at odds with any concept of logic or reason.

    As for the violent and wrathful dissertation known as the old testament – I prefer George and Ira Gershwin’s musical commentary on those absurd fairy tales, “it ain’t necessarily so”.

    As for enlightenment, Buddha the teacher and philosopher told it succinctly and without malice or the need to cower before a mythical, revengeful solitary or triumvirate set of heavenly figures – after all, isn’t that precisely what enlightenment means?

    All the best for a happy and joyous festive season whether or not you accept it is a patently obvious plagiarism of much older celebrations.

    It has become a time where even the hardest cynic can enjoy a few days of respite from a world that is increasingly more ignorant, greedy, slothful and complicit or worse, perpetrating in terrible acts against their fellow man. Peace and goodwill to all.

  21. Area Man says:

    Another well-written post, but please don’t refer to such activities as “profitable” or the spoils of such activities “profits”.

    To do so besmirches those noble folks working hard to create genuine profits and thus power the economic engine that leads to improved quality of life for all.

  22. Area Man says:

    A better description might be “lucrative”. As anyone who has run a company knows, it’s not easy to make a profit and those who are able to do so are worthy of respect.

  23. Gunga Din says:

    (“Anthony”. MOD ALERT! Snip if you see fit. No offense taken if you do.)

    The best gift I can give is the best I know about the greatest gift ever given and what it meant.
    “Go North, young man! Go North!” (OK, not an exact quote.)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/12/zeke-mosher-and-rohde-and-the-new-best-dataset/#comment-1502986

  24. Tobias Smit says:

    @ Lord Moncton, A sincere thanks for simple but eloquent article I am a partial lapsed Catholic but the reasons I left the Church at that time was exactly what you wrote about in the Church during those 1960′s.
    I (hopefully) still live within the tenants of truth and morality, I totally agree with you how you described the current morality on this planet and it’s leaders, it is spot on.
    Sir I wish you an incredibly MERRY CHRISTMAS, a great 2014 and keep your sanity flowing out to us, Thank you. Tobias Smit and family.

  25. FrankK says:

    Tim Collins says:
    December 24, 2013 at 12:55 pm
    I agree wholeheartedly with your excellent commentary of the nonsense of AGW,

    But I find your correlation with the preposterous re-telling of much older fairy tales contained in the King James or your own religions version of “the new testament” at odds with any concept of logic or reason.

    As for the violent and wrathful dissertation known as the old testament – I prefer George and Ira Gershwin’s musical commentary on those absurd fairy tales, “it ain’t necessarily so”.

    As for enlightenment, Buddha the teacher and philosopher told it succinctly and without malice or the need to cower before a mythical, revengeful solitary or triumvirate set of heavenly figures – after all, isn’t that precisely what enlightenment means?

    All the best for a happy and joyous festive season whether or not you accept it is a patently obvious plagiarism of much older celebrations.

    It has become a time where even the hardest cynic can enjoy a few days of respite from a world that is increasingly more ignorant, greedy, slothful and complicit or worse, perpetrating in terrible acts against their fellow man. Peace and goodwill to all.
    —————————————————————————————
    +1

    But Me Lud you do have and extraordinary ability as a wordsmith
    Best regards for the season and I look forward for your contributions in 2014.

  26. Gail Combs says:

    Thank you and a Merry Christmas from an Agnostic (me) and an Atheist (my husband)

    Honesty and Integrity are not the sole province of the Judeo-Christian religions but of civilized men and women because without honesty and integrity all you have is raiders, parasites and their prey whom they eventually will destroy.

  27. CEH says:

    Merry Christmas everyone.

  28. Curious George says:

    Peace and goodwill to all. No exceptions.

  29. bobl says:

    Morality is at the core of the problem. The replacement of the love of ones fellow man with the concept that the collective, the hive, is more important than the individual. Even worst is the emergence of a hatred for ones own species, in a lower species of course such thinkers would not last long. The dog that attacks its own pack is dooming itself to extinction, natural selection at work. Ironically, it’s christian morals that gives these misanthropic views oxygen in the first place, a tolerance exploited for gain by the misanthropists.

    Frankly I find it odd that it is the so-called progressives that want us to regress back to the stone age, and it is the so-called conservatives that want to progress our science and technology for the betterment of all. I will forthwith be calling “progessives” regressives. The hive (collectivist) mentality is so caustic, so deleterious because it aims for a collective mediocrity, a race to the lowest common denominator. Only individualism, individual responsibility individual excellence and competition results in real progress. Consensus by its very nature exposes the collectivist mediocrity of “The team” and produced by decree “right answers”

    Collectivism, and the mediocrity of the lowest common denominator is why Communism fails, even China has had to embrace capitalism, and individualism in order to challenge the west.

    PS, the mediocrity of the group pervades our thinking, as anyone who has ever been subjected to 360 degree aseessment in business can attest. The aim of 360 degree evaluation is not to promote excellece… it can’t, its aim is to minimise divergence, to herd a group to a mediocratic centroid. I refuse to do 360 degree assessments on this basis. Excellence loves disagreement and argument and arms length dealings, Mediocrity loves agreement, consensus, and group hugs.

    Merry Christmas, Lord M, Anthony and blog readers. May 2014 bring good things to each and every one of you.

    Bob

  30. Roger Dewhurst says:

    Sadly Lord Monckton morality is not the property of religious belief. Others, without religious belief, can come to a morality essentially that of the major religions simply on rational grounds. Quite simply an educated rational person can accept that the ten commandments, or most of them anyway, should form the basis of the way we behave to others.

  31. Bruce Cobb says:

    Perhaps Mann and his ilk need to be paid a visit from the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, in order for them to fully comprehend the horrors they are creating for science, and for mankind.
    In the words of Tiny Tim “God bless us, every one!”

  32. Kohl says:

    Lord Monckton makes a point with which I disagree, although the general thrust of the article towards truth in science and so on is entirely apposite in these times when ‘spin’ and the product of spin (bullshit?) is almost universal.
    He says: “For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.”
    But the pursuit of true knowledge is the whole and sole quest of science. So, whilst science can be wrong, it is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral.
    Of course, the morality or otherwise of an individual scientist’s actions in dealing with science is most certainly a proper subject for examination. If s/he ‘cooks the books’ or knowingly promulgates false theories or carries out experiments upon subjects which would be unethical or makes false accusations against other scientists or seeks to mislead a gullible public with false information or …… oh wait. Yes, with the exception of carrying out experiments which are unethical because they affect the subject in a harmful manner, that appears to be precisely what some have done isn’t it!
    However, I think that it is not the pursuit of science per se which is moral or immoral, rather it is the manner in which it is dealt with by the scientist or observer which is the proper subject of ethical enquiries.
    In that regard it seems that there are many who might be well and truly found guilty of pursuing an immoral quest.

  33. albertalad says:

    This makes the boys on Wall Street blush they never came up with so beautiful a scam. The wolves of “science” have the best of all possible scams – stupid people. You can’t lose and the money keeps flowing – what’s not to like if you’re in on the scam? Can anyone think of a more perfect money making scheme? The models don’t have to make sense, and this is where stupid journalists get their cut pushing the scheme, just add stupid people and there you have it, the perfect scam. Add governments who get to blame everything on global warming – they’re not responsible for anything, throw in the UN and it automatically turns into a self perpetuating money making machine.

  34. brianawford says:

    Dear Lord Monckton,

    What a masterful essay in scope and span.
    For a while now I have been thinking of writing something vaguely similar on the lines of the practices of the medieval church .Its groupthink on matters like transubstantiation ,the sale of indulgences, purgatory….and what Luther and the reformation achieved in the face of the establishment of the time.

    In Kent where I live ,and all over England and parts of Scotland there were Marian persecutions with numerous martyrs burnt at the stake until the truth asserted itself during the Enlightenment. This to the advantage of religion generally.

    I am sure there are other historical precedents that may be even more powerful; perhaps the idiocy of the Easter Island establishment in sculpting their amazing but useless stone heads. The wind turbines of their day?

    You have given me much food for thought !

    With all good wishes for Christmas and the New Year -please keep up your excellent posts.

  35. M Courtney says:

    Kirk c says at December 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone.

    Not the point. That leads to a far too restrictive definition of knowledge.

    Many things that are observable once or twice only, or vaguely by inference from direct observation, or even just by deviating from the purely theoretical expectation (Bayesian statistics) – are reasonable to accept as true.
    That is that the evidence is plausible but not necessarily verifiable by everyone.

    The virtue of this article is that it discusses the various forms of truth and why we should use them… trust them.

    Could debasement of the scientific method, such as clinging to failed AGW models after the “pause” of 15 years, have occurred without the loss of a fixed, shared morality?

    In my opinion: No.

  36. M Courtney says:

    Although Lord Monckton’s implied association of socialism with immorality is questionable to say the least.

  37. Santa says:

    Merry Christmas Christopher!

  38. normalnew says:

    My christmas present to all. An amazing map of the ever growing antarctica. I call ths art.

    http://i.imgur.com/3q97srO.jpg

    Merry whatever :)

  39. andud says:

    I guess normal posting rules re religion have been suspended for the day. You lost me with the bit about Jesus creating the Universe about 2000 years ago.

  40. I disagree with the premise of your arguments. I agree Science is about objective truth. It is a scaffold built from interlocking chains of demonstrable evidence, and whenever a link in the chain is broken everything after that link becomes addled and has to be reconsidered. So to tamper with the evidence, or method by which that evidence is being assembled, is bordering on an act of evil. Science is a good thing for humanity, it is important that we treat it with reverence.

    But not all truth is built on objective truth. Science knows what a bird is, it is a provable fact worked out through the study of genealogical evidence. A bird is a scientific fact that is backed up with objective truth through a chain of fossil records and DNA analysis. But the word bird existed before science. Before the age of science and Darwin a bird was not an objective thing, it was a concept. It was a plastic concept made up by a brain that interpreted the world for the benefit of survival of living things. The bodies of nature were not built like aeroplanes, they were not assembled by a God that drew up plans, they were assembled through the workings of a different sort of truth. Our bodies and brains are the product of extreme plasticity of design for adaption to ever-varying and changing circumstances.

    Aeroplanes are built for a specific function – to fly. Birds fly, but they fly with adapted limbs that once were fins, sometimes birds transform their wings into becoming flippers for swimming when evolution demands. So when a scientist builds a wing for an aeroplane it is a fixed idea, for a fixed purpose, but this sort of fixation, which is assembled from notions of objective truth does not apply to nature. Because Nature’s truth is always plastic. A wing is a flipper when nature wants it to be a flipper.

    When the monks looked at bees they said they were the smallest of birds. For scientists this is a lie, because it goes against objective truth of what a bird is in the language of science, but for the monks it was truth. An an Ostrich was not a bird because it did not have wings and did not fly, a bee was a bird because it did fly. If the monk woke up another day in another frame of mind he would have said a bee is not a bird because it has six legs, and an ostrich is a bird because it has a beak. The monk was not being untruthful.

    I am not making a silly point. I am putting it to you that objective truth is very useful way of looking at the world, and an excellent way to make machines, but it is not the only way. Sometimes using plastic truth provides us with another way of thinking that is rewarding and life enhancing and vital to our survival. Plasticity truth produced life, it produced consciousness and all the things we value most.

    I think we have to separate these two concepts of plastic and objective truth. They mix badly, and the way the AGW crowd have tortured objective truth for political ends and personal gain is to my mind a crime against humanity, in that thought I agree.

  41. Eric Worrall says:

    People who wholeheartedly embrace religion can be moral, but they can also be profoundly immoral.

    Immoral people of faith who are immoral find excuses for their immorality, they perform great acts of piety, they start religious wars, to convince themselves that all the “good” they are doing somehow balances all the evil they know in their hearts they have committed. Many of the most brutal tyrants had committed their brutality in the name of religion.

    So to suggest that the values of Religion can make somebody behave in a moral way is not supported by the evidence.

    The evidence instead supports the idea that a good person will behave in a moral manner regardless of their religions views. And that a bad person, even if they truly believe in God, and have strong religious convictions, will perform mental limbo, will find ways to twist their faith into paths which allow full expression of their immorality.

  42. Richard Barraclough says:

    I agree with one or two others that continued references to a mythical being of your choice don’t have too much place in a science blog. Many of us atheists manage to make a good attempt at respecting our fellow human beings, and all the behaviour which that entails, while at the same time appreciating the truths which come from science. There are plenty of examples from many centuries back until the present day of despicable behaviour in the name of religion – and, of course, plenty of examples which have nothing to do with religion. People can behave in a civilised way, or not, regardless of which religion they follow.

  43. Gotten? Gotten? Aaaaaarrrrggghhhh!

  44. Mr Lynn says:

    Monckton: “For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.”

    If I read him correctly, what Monckton is saying is that, since the quest for Truth is the sole aim and raison d’etre of Science, any deviation from that quest perpetrates a falsehood, which is inherently immoral. Now whence the standard of Morality? Clearly it is a priori, which cannot be proved or disproved, but if accepted must be taken as axiomatic. The Warmists by sullying and perverting the scientific quest for Truth have either violated the moral foundation of Science, or abandoned any moral standard altogether.

    For Monckton the source of the moral standard is the Christian religion. For others it may be a different tradition, or an innate faculty like Conscience. For some, perhaps too many these days, there is no such standard. That may account for the ease with which they will depart from the hard quest for Truth in favor of venal and self-serving pursuits and misguided causes, too often in the name of ‘saving’ Mankind or the Planet.

    /Mr Lynn

  45. Janice Moore says:

    A powerfully stated, lucid, and timely description of the way things are. Well done!
    And a very merry Christmas, to you, too (and to ALL of you!), Lord Monckton. Thank you (and to your wife, Juliet, also) for sharing that spectacularly beautiful image, a perfect metaphor for “truth,” of F(z) = z² + c {z ranging from 0 to ∞, but limited to 250K iterations}.

    Yes, indeed, Christianity may be disbelieved in, but it has never been falsified.

    With gratitude for all you have done for truth and for the Truth,

    Your sister in Christ (who, like you, is not perfect, just forgiven!),

    Janice

    P.S. The starvation and deaths directly caused by socialism as proven in objective experiments around the world (e.g., U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, …) have proven it to be, indeed, “ev1l.” Of course, “one death is a tragedy; millions of deaths are mere statistics” — (Envirostalinism’s grand old man quoted from memory, only). Very ev1l, indeed. And all the more so due to its wolf-in-sheep’s clothing disguise that fools even some of the best of us.

  46. albertkallal says:

    Science cannot prove itself. The VERY concept of truth is that of a self-evident truth in which all Math’s and science is based on. And you need a society with a significant portion of those in research with such integrity. The Christians of Europe rejected pantheism (so no God in grass and no wind God and no Moon god). If you have a wind god then why would you study why the wind blows? You will not!!

    So the combination of honesty and that the truth MATTERS resulted in science rising out of Christian Europe (we were walking on the moon when most cultures were still cooking their dinners with Camel dug).

    As society heads to less morality then so does the ability of that society to have good science.

    And science cannot explain itself. There is no science experiment that can prove 2 + 2 = 4.
    Without a society based on codes of honesty and integrity, then you WILL not have science rise up like it did in the western cultures of Europe. And the state of science today is a HUGE mess. If the people involved don’t have honesty and believe in the truth, then how can you have any science??

    Dr. Craig in this short video explains this concept that science cannot not prove science!

    Watch as Dr. Craig absolute roasts and pawns Atkins

  47. Steven Mosher says:

    misquoting Keats and misunderstanding his romantic philosophy.

    coal in your sock monktopus

  48. Martin A says:

    John K. Sutherland says:
    December 24, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    Gotten? Gotten? Aaaaaarrrrggghhhh!

    I assume you were not brought up in North America where this usage, once standard in England, is still in normal use.

  49. Cheshirered says:

    Terrific piece, Lord Monckton. Not for the first time and I’m sure nor will it be the last.
    Merry Christmas everyone.

  50. Peter Crawford says:

    Hey Moncko, can a Welsh atheist commoner wish you a Merry Christmas and a kiss on the lips?

    Not with tongues

    MERRY CRIMBO AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR.

  51. Paul767 says:

    Merry Christmas to all!

    A good dissertation my lord, my only quibble is the fact that a morality based on reason is possible, not one handed down from a mythical or mystical being.

    The socialists tell us that self-sacrifice (Altruism) is the moral way to live. You must sacrifice yourself for your fellow man, Since you are evil (selfish) they must force you to sacrifice yourself.

    I don’t believe in human sacrifices, particularly the sacrifice of the productive to the non-productive! Are you listening M. Courtney?

    Only one person in the history of the world has postulated a moral code which is based on reason and reality: Ayn Rand. I paraphrase: Human Joy is the ultimate goal of each individual. The required VALUES for attaining that goal = Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem. The VIRTUES required to attain those values = Independence, Rationality, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness and Pride.

    The primary virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride are tied down to Reality by her PHILOSOPHY. By the nature of existence and consciousness; each one of her stated virtues, required for human life, are connected to reality.

    Reason is our means of survival. Rationality is the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and guide to action. Rationality requires a person to do his own thinking (Independence) and stay true to it in action (Integrity). It requires Honesty – the refusal to fake reality – because the unreal does not exist and can be of no value. It requires Justice – the moral evaluation of others – because rational, productive people are good for us, while irrational parasites are worthless or dangerous.

    Survival requires an all-encompassing purposefulness, with all of one’s other purposes integrated to a central productive purpose. Productiveness is the application of reason to the creation of the products and services necessary for survival. To define and achieve rational purposes, a person must be certain of his competence and worth – he must achieve self-esteem. This requires the virtue of Pride – a commitment to living up to the highest rational standards. Thus Rand calls pride “moral ambitiousness.” It is, in effect, productiveness applied to character: “as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul”

    Take the oath: “I swear, by my life and my love for it, that I will never be a slave to another man, nor allow another man to be a slave to me”!

    Merry Christmas to all!
    (I acknowledge the existence of who the holiday is for, no sweat) Peace and Joy to ALL mankind and a Happy New Year!

    Paul R.

  52. Max Hugoson says:

    Paul R. – You bring me to my sad, but serious question…When to the “Greenies” actually decide they have the right to a Jihad??? That’s REALLY scary!

  53. RoHa says:

    “The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality?”

    Yes, since religion is not necessary for morality. (It frequently seems that religion is detrimental to morality.) However, science cannot function properly in the absence of morality.

    (And “gotten”? I expected British English from Lord Monckton.)

  54. K-Bob says:

    Steven Mosher = The Grinch
    Maybe someday his heart will grow.

  55. Rhoda R says:

    Thank you Lord Monckton. Merry Christmas to you and to every one writing, moderating and reading this site.

  56. K-Bob says:

    I agree with the argument that liberals toe the party line and claim that AGW is real because the democratic party said so. But we are also victims of conservatives (Republicans) who do just the opposite. They make ludicrous claims that only give the warmers reason to make the claims that “Deniers” are stupid people who don’t understand science. Thank you Lord Monckton for helping to shine the light for those of us who follow the science and see the truth.

  57. LKMiller (aka treegyn1) says:

    Merry Christmas to all on WUWT, especially Anthony Watts

  58. Reg Nelson says:

    K-Bob says:
    December 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    Steven Mosher = The Grinch
    Maybe someday his heart will grow.
    —–

    As we speak, The Mosh is on his sled, dressed as Santie Claus, heading down to Whoville to take every last incandescent bulb from the Who’s Christmas trees, including Cindy-Lou Who, who is barely more than two.

    Happy Holidays to all (including the Mosh)!

  59. pochas says:

    Lord Moncton, you have made a eloquent statement on the morality necessary for the pursuit of science, and you have shown how that morality transcends reason and connects with the realm of religion.

  60. Pat Frank says:

    Agree with the general view, but too much of florid phrasing and bombast for me. To my mind, the great conundrum of the social condition confronting us is how all of the institutions of science were swept away by AGW alarm. A diagnosis of “expedient or convenient or profitable” is far too facile, I think.

    One can only just understand the NAS under Ralph Cicerone going along with alarm, as he published on the idea prior to Jim Hansen’s 1988 testimony. But that understanding requres one to presume that Dr. Cicerone put his inner fears ahead of his scientific integrity. As an atmospheric scientist, Dr. Cicerone must have been aware of Fritz Möller’s 1963 warning that only a complete theory of climate could substantiate a dangerous AGW effect. No such theory was then in hand, nor is now. And so Dr. Cicerone must have proceeded to manipulate the NAS knowing that his fears had no scientific basis. And then one must further assume that inner hierarchy of the NAS followed his lead without protest. After all, what scientist actually employed by the NAS (as opposed to being a member of the NAS) has ever spoken out, protested, or resigned over the official and scientifically insupportable position on AGW officially taken by the NAS?

    But more than that, in the US we have the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics, both of which have a profound responsibility to the integrity of science, and each of which has with both arms embraced the alarm and made it official policy. I’ve read the internal APS report of the Kleppner committee, and it is shamefully uncritical.

    The surrender of scientific institutions to the AGW idea demands a studied, complete, and careful explanation. These institutions are composed of individuals, all of whom must have either likewise surrendered to the idea, or surrendered to the internal politics of AGW-as-party-line. Either case is accompanied by a surrender of scientific integrity to politics.

    How did that happen at all, much less so globally and so quickly? How does politics attain such power? The group of scientists pushing AGW alarm were at first a small fraction of the community. How did they sweep all before them? In their private meetings, they must express astonishment at their incredible success.

  61. Konrad says:

    There is a world of difference between morals and ethics. Morals just require feelings, for ethics you have to think.

    Many naughty boys and girls, believers and sceptics alike, may be hoping for a visit from Santa Claus. Santa is a somewhat political character, making moral judgements, weighing naughty and nice in the balance.

    But while many would like a visit from Santa, who would allow “there will be warming, just far less than we thought”, Santa may not be coming. While politics may have motivated many, the battle ground was science. This requires a visit from both the Krampus and Sankt-Nikolaus, and Krampus only carries the list of who’s been naughty.

    1.2C for a doubling of CO2?

    Have you been naughty Christopher?

    “there will be warming, just far less than we thought”, may be good politics but it is poor science. After all it is not just the magnitude of the effect in error but the very sign. There may be no path back to reason through morals.

    Those that hide from the sting of the Krampus’ birch (or bristlecone as the case may be) may miss a visit from Sankt-Nikolaus. He may be carrying more than sugar cookies. He may be carrying the future of science and reason, and that is sure to take away the sting of the birch ;-)

  62. A.D. Everard says:

    Beautifully written. Very true. Should be repeated again and again – I hope your words spread far. A Very Merry Christmas to you, Christopher Monckton, and a Very Merry Christmas to Anthony, to the mods, and to you all.

  63. Warren says:

    So if we are to accept Lord Moncktons position on AGW, shouldn’t we ask Where is his peer reviewed scientific rebuttal? Several studies, including those by Dr James Powell and Naomi Orestes, have shown about a 99% consensus on AGW. Can we consider Monckton serious, or responsible, to engage in armchair criticism without engaging in the true scientific debate in scientific journals?

  64. thingadonta says:

    Well, I’m not a fan of the idea of an Essene -trained revolutionary in ancient Judea having much relevance to the modern world, but I agree that in the absence of a strong moral code people seem more prone to pursue political agendas at the expense of others.

    Richard Pipes, the scholar of communism, believes that the rise of two of the 20th century’s greatest evils-Nazism and Communism- can be attributed partly to the idea that developed within the scientific revolution that man does not have a soul. In the absence of a religious or moral compass, what stops people from believing that other people are expendable for the sake of a political cause?

    I’m still working on the idea of whether one can have a sufficiently humane morality in the absence of what we call traditional religion (such as the declaration of human rights, which is a pretty good start), but I agree that there is a danger to humanity without such a code.

  65. jones says:

    Peter Crawford says:
    December 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Hey Moncko, can a Welsh atheist commoner wish you a Merry Christmas and a kiss on the lips?

    Not with tongues

    .

    No tongues?….You ain’t no Welshman then……

  66. Graeme Hoose says:

    What a joy it is to encounter your clever alliterations:

    somehow snuck sneakily
    assent to assertions
    parroted the Party Line
    fundamentally fatuous
    to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on
    (and in the title too, I notice)

    A joyous Christmas to you and an equally good new year.

  67. Reg Nelson says:

    @ Warren — You might have a point, unfortunately Climategate exposed the complete corruption of the peer review process. You’re flogging a dead horse. Read the Climategate emails an educate yourself on seedy underbelly of Climate Science.

    Have an open mind and Happy New Year!

  68. James Abbott says:

    Another convoluted tirade weaving fantastic imagery from the noble Lord – sent down from his high tower in the land of Nid.
    But its Christmas – best time of the year for some nuts.

  69. Chad Wozniak says:

    All I can say is – wow.

    Lord Monckton, again you demonstrate that your nobility is not merely in your bloodline. So very well said.

    I am not a religious believer, but certainly for many, TRADITIONAL religion provides a basis for a moral compass that I would never question, and you are absolutely right to connect that moral compass to scientific integrity.

    But there are other bases besides religion – there are the golden rule, the agreement to disagree, the rule to do no harm, and the support of well-being – for a moral compass. Lying violates all of these four basic rules: it treats another as one would not be treated, it disrespects another’s right to believe, it willfully does tangible, concrete harm to another, and it diminishes another’s well-being.

    On the other hand, we have the new religions – Marxism, environmentalism and global warming – which explicitly eschew morality (except to abuse it as a method of manipulating uninformed people). In these new religions, the doctrine is everything; there is no concept of truth or falsity, fact or illusion. To the ideologue, these concepts are irrelevant – to him or her, there are no such things. There is only what is, according to their doctrine.

  70. Warren says:

    Thanks Reg. But that leaves the only basis for an anti-AGW position as a Worldwide Conspiracy of scientists who have corrupted the scientific process…an assertion that I assume you uniquely apply to climate scientists. That seems a slim reed, to put it mildly.

  71. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?”

    That’s the title of a 1995 book by Aaron Wildavsky that is still very relevant. Its subtitle is, “A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues.” Chapter 11 is a 35-page look at global warming theory; it’s measured and skeptical. Here’s its book description on Amazon:

    We’ve eaten Alar with our apples and PCBs with our fish, drunk arsenic with our water, breathed asbestos in our schools. Someone sounded the alarm, someone else said we were safe, and both had science on their side. Whom are we to trust? How are we to know? Amid this chaos of questions and conflicting information, Aaron Wildavsky arrives with just what the beleaguered citizen needs: a clear, fair, and factual look at how the rival claims of environmentalists and industrialists work, what they mean, and where to start sorting them out.

    Working with his students at a risk analysis center, Wildavsky examined all the evidence behind the charges and countercharges in several controversial cases involving environmental health and public safety. Here he lays out these cases in terms an average citizen can understand, weighs the merits of the claims of various parties, and offers reasoned judgments on the government’s response. From Love Canal to Times Beach, from DDT to Agent Orange, acid rain, and global warming, from saccharin to asbestos, nuclear waste, and radon, Wildavsky shows how we can achieve an informed understanding of the contentious environmental issues that confront us daily. The book supports the conclusion Wildavsky reached himself, both as a citizen committed to the welfare of the earth and its inhabitants, and as a social scientist concerned with how public policy is made: though it is bad to be harmed, it is worse to be harmed in the name of health.

  72. Pops says:

    “Others, without religious belief, can come to a morality essentially that of the major religions simply on rational grounds.”

    Well, of course they can. God is nothing if not rational. He gave us moral law to ensure that we would get it, as not all are clever enough to arrive at the proper destination through reason alone. (It’s not really a good excuse for dismissing God.)

  73. Konrad says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm
    James Abbott says:
    December 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    —————————————————
    Say guys, checked the decorative lights on the tree? No lose wires?

    St. Nick moves with the times. This year it may not be a lump of coal, it could be a litre of shale gas ;-)

  74. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Warren -
    For your information, the REAL divide between AGW believers and skeptics is represented, on the one hand, by the 75 out of 77 polled, carefully cherry-picked, who support AGW according to der Fuehrer (that’s the source of his “97 percent” lie); and on the other, by the 31,000+ degreed practicing scientists who signed a statement, the Oregon Petition, saying that there is no discernible effect of either human activity or carbon dioxide on climate. That’s about a 450 to 1 majority who REJECT the AGW hypothesis. But in any case, if der Fuehrer were correct about his percentages, he is still committing a basic logical fallacy, taught in freshman philosophy courses – the argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority (which, when this is resorted to, you can be just about dead certain that the authority is wrong).

    You are a perfect example of the sort of ideologue I referred to in my last post here who recognizes not truth or falsity, not fact or illusion, but only doctrine – and a false doctrine, as that.

  75. Hoser says:

    Authoritarian government must affirm at all times in all ways it is the only legitimate authority. Consequently, logic, education, knowledge, experience, etc., do not matter. If you get the stamp of approval from government, you are known as an authority until you go astray, and then woe unto you.

    Climate is the focus here. Other examples of authoritarianism include: Armed government thugs taking children from parents who wish to exercise what once were called parental rights (in accordance with the unratified Convention on the Rights of the Child. Schools not educating, but instead teaching propaganda according to state and federal standards (Common Core being the latest perversion) for the same reasons. The loss of any real property rights, because of the expansive ‘stakeholder’ concept of UN Agenda 21. Mismanagement of forests leading to excessive catastrophic wildfires (human hands off, very bad science), because of the Yellowstone to Yukon policy in the UN Biodiversity treaty. National health care in which a government official instead of a doctor will decide what treatment, if any, you receive. Attacks on your first amendment rights through abuse of the concepts of “hate speech”, and “separation of Church and State”. Attacks on the 2nd amendment, amounting to only government authorities should have the right to defend themselves. And soon we can expect the right to education turning into students being told what they can study, and a right to work being turned into being told what job you will do, each decision handed down by government.

    You see, it’s much worse than we thought.

    When a buffoon like Albert Gore, Jr. can ever be considered an authority on anything, you know authentic scientists’ days are numbered. At least nobody takes Prince Charles seriously. Score some points for the UK.

  76. maltesertoo says:

    Monotheism gave us Sunday off. The old politicians thinking that they’re God gave us Saturday off. Now the new politicians are making sure that we all get the rest of the week off, by making us all unemployed through expensive energy that the investors/employers cannot afford.
    A HAPPY CHRIST-MAS TO ALL.
    Great dissertation Sir. It’s saved on the cloud.

  77. steven mosher says:

    It an essay about truth the monktopus not only misquotes Keats, but he gets the meaning exactly backwards. I find that ironic. Further the point of science is not “truth” in its religious or philosophical sense. It’s far more pragmatic than that. The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.

  78. pat says:

    merry christmas anthony & family (many thanx), lord monckton, other guest bloggers, mods & fellow commenters:

    23 Dec: Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial: Global warming on ice
    The arrogance required to boldly predict anything that could happen on this planet — whether it’s in five years, 20 years, 100 years or more — is laughable.
    The alarmism is less about “preventing” climate change than it is about raising gobs of money, which countless groups then use to push their agenda: to ratchet back first-world economies and living standards by making energy much more expensive and much less available.
    Sure, there’s climate change. We like to call it “weather.” Enough with the hysteria. Stay cool, Mr. Claus.
    http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-global-warming-ice

    hysteria?

    23 Dec: InTheCapital: Anthony Sodd: This Is What DC Will Look Like If Sea Levels Rise [PHOTOS]
    If global warming continues unabated and every glacier in Antarctica and Greenland were to melt, it would raise the global sea levels by as much as 80 meters — about 260 feet higher than today’s sea level. Without context, those numbers don’t mean much. Luckily, a deep-sea biologist named Andrew Thaler created some illustrations of what some of America’s largest cities would look like under various climate change scenarios…
    At any rate, given the lack of headway we have made in curbing climate change you may want to invest in swimming lessons or a house in Kansas City. Stay dry and enjoy the city before it’s rechristened as “Atlantis.”
    http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2013/12/23/this-is-what-dc-will-look-like-if-sea-levels-rise-photos/#ss__97586_1_5__ss

    perfect fodder for the MSM:

    20 Dec: The Weather Channel: Andrew Thaler’s ‘Drown Your Town’ Webpage Projects Sea Level Rise Hundreds Of Years From Now (PHOTOS)
    Today, #DrownYourTown has been tweeted millions of times from more than 100 countries, and Thaler still receives daily requests (which he answers) at the site he set up to collect them all, drownyourtown.tumblr.com…
    http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/drownyourtown-sea-level-rise-your-city-20131219

    AUDIO: National Geographic: December 15, 2013: Paddling Through The World’s Biggest Rapids, Swimming in the World’s Coldest Oceans and More
    Posted by Justin O’Neill in NG Weekend Radio Show on December 17, 2013.
    If all of the world’s ice melted instantly, a flood of water would cause the seas around the world to raise by 262 feet, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Wanting to know what that would look like, marine biologist Andrew Thaler used Google Earth to increase the ocean depth and flooded several major global cities that live along the oceans. “Drown Your Town” became popular online in his social media and science blog. He tells Boyd about how sea level rise will become a more pressing concern in future generations, and is already having an impact on cities around the world.
    http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/17/december-15-2013-paddling-through-the-worlds-biggest-rapids-swimming-in-the-worlds-coldest-oceans-and-more/

  79. Reg Nelson says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    Thanks Reg. But that leaves the only basis for an anti-AGW position as a Worldwide Conspiracy of scientists who have corrupted the scientific process…an assertion that I assume you uniquely apply to climate scientists. That seems a slim reed, to put it mildly.
    —-

    No Strawman., it doesn’t. That not what I asserted.

    You claimed Monckton lacked credibility because he wasn’t published in peer reviewed journal. I responded by pointing out that the peer review process has been corrupted by politics and funding — something that was clearly demonstrated, in their own words, by Jones et al.

    I never claimed it was conspiracy (as you assert). I only pointed out that the peer review process is meaningless now. Look at BEST, over a year after making his PR tour, Mueller (sp?) was forced to publish his work, in a “peer reviewed”, pay-for-play Indian start up website.

    If you don’t agree with Monckton, fine, then debate him on the facts. Can you?

  80. maltesertoo says:

    You make me proud to be a Catholic, Sir.

  81. Warren says:

    Chad: No, my 99% refers to multiple peer reviewed counts of tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers that support AGW, not to a poll of scientists. I contend that Reason requires consideration of the scientists, facts, and papers that pass peer review. If demonization is your tool of choice, I don’t see how you win the argument.

  82. James Abbott says:

    Thanks Konrad
    All the tree lights working fine thanks.
    The Noble Lord M certainly brings some festive cheer – I like this one best:-
    “The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie”
    What is he on about ? Space-time ? Energy density ? Curtains ?
    Clearly The Great and Noble Lord M likes to sound grand with his faux Shakespearean prose.
    But actually read what he is saying and its just a disjointed diatribe against climate science written by someone with extreme prejudice.

  83. Hlaford says:

    Brilliant.

    Merry Christmas to all.

  84. Warren says:

    Reg: Five independent studies concluded that the Climategate Controversy was without foundation…and that there was no substance to the claims against the Scientists. It made good fodder for the antiAGW folks, but that’s all. Do you really dismiss the near unanimous conclusions of thousands of scientists worldwide working on the problem, and the 99% of peer reviewed papers that support AGW? If so, there’s no amount of scientific reasoning that will convince you.

  85. Reg Nelson says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm
    Chad: No, my 99% refers to multiple peer reviewed counts of tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers that support AGW, not to a poll of scientists.

    And guess what, every one of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers was wrong. As Monckton pointed out over and over in his easy.

    Name one of James Hansen’s (our any other AGW scientist’s) “peer reviewed” predictions that have proven to be correct. You can’t.

    Why do you still believe in this?

  86. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    Can we consider Monckton serious, or responsible, to engage in armchair criticism without engaging in the true scientific debate in scientific journals?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    And the Warren went unto the skeptics and said
    What is written in the Journal shall be the Truth
    And if it not be written in the Journal,
    Then no Truth shall it be

    All you’re missing from the narrative Warren is the claim that only you understand what is written in the journal and the rest of us should listen while you explain it to us. Ooops, I mean, we should pay you money to study the Journal and explain it to us. Got it.

  87. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    If so, there’s no amount of scientific reasoning that will convince you.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Huh. How about testing your hypothesis. All I’ve seen so far is huffing and puffing, there hasn’t been a single smidge of science presented by you in any of your comments. If you are so certain, by all means, explain the science.

  88. Warren says:

    So Monckton ASSERTED every paper was wrong. Assertion is not proof. In my book he still qualifies as an armchair critic with no scientific standing until he publishes and his work survives the scientific scrutiny of his peers. Until then, he earns the title of Eloquent Blowhard.

  89. Khwarizmi says:

    It is an essay about truth, period, followed by a capital letter at the start of a new sentence, Mosher.
    Google tells me the line comes from Ode on a Grecian Urn – so it isn’t a misquote:
    http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html

  90. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    So Monckton ASSERTED every paper was wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Did he? Could you please quote the exact words in his essay above where he said what you claim?

  91. Richard D says:

    The conflation of science with religion is fallacious and no less nauseating as the conflation of science with extreme green beliefs.

  92. James Abbott says:

    Lets see, faced with an issue of potential global significance, who do we believe:

    Thousands of qualified climate scientists working away for decades in their fleld, whose published work is peer reviewed

    or

    One scientifically unqualified person whose work has never been published as peer reviewed and who not only claims to understand climate science better than the climate scientists but also claims to have developed a means of curing Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.

    That’s a tough one.

  93. Kirk c says:

    Apparently the religion whip has been locked in the tool shed for this evening.

    … “The virtue of this article is that it discusses the various forms of truth and why we should use them… trust them.”

    My point being there are no”various forms of the truth”. Only one truth.. If you can’t confirm it you can’t claim it.

    ……”Could debasement of the scientific method, such as clinging to failed AGW models after the “pause” of 15 years, have occurred without the loss of a fixed, shared morality
    In my opinion: No.”

    There is no “fixed /shared” morality. Morality is an ever changing state that evolves as society progresses and is totally defined by the society in which it finds itself. The fact that AGW is still being pressed forward as “legitimate” is a political issue – not a moral one.

    Any average person can weigh the facts as presented and arrive at a conclusion, independent ( hopefully) of the religious dogma (imagined truths) they may carry with them.

    Science is about measurable testable fact. That is it!

    Have a wonderfully magical evening everyone. (No sarc)

  94. H.R. says:

    Hoser says:
    December 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512334

    The bad news is, you’re an optimist, Hoser. I wish it was as rosy a picture as you have painted.
    .
    .
    .
    Merry Christmas, Lord Monckton. Thank you.
    .
    .
    .
    Merry Christmas Anthony and The Mods (Doo-wop, doo-waaahh).

  95. RoHa says:

    @Pops
    “It’s not really a good excuse for dismissing God.”

    We don’t need an excuse for dismissing God. We need a good reason for believing in God. And so far no-one has provided one.

  96. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer: I’m responding to the comment that Monckton proved every peer reviewed paper was wrong. I disagree with that comment. Until his rebuttals survive peer review, they only qualify as assertions in my book, or at best, proposals.

  97. RoHa says:

    @Warren
    “Reason requires consideration of the scientists, facts, and papers that pass peer review.”

    Wrong. Reason requires consideration of the facts.

  98. Richard D says:

    “faced with an issue of potential global significance…………..”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    All based on the predictions of models. They are wrong. All of them. It is indisputable that global warming is not occurring as predicted by the models.

    It’s also indisputable that a billion plus people live in extreme fuel poverty, whose lives would be vastly improved with access to energy for electricity to provide light, warmth, clean water, etc. that liberal elites take for granted.

    Rather than stabilize these populations with energy and development, extreme greens like ex president of the World Wildlife Fund Prince Philip dream of reincarnation as a killer virus. Sick….

  99. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    Davidmhoffer: I’m responding to the comment that Monckton proved every peer reviewed paper was wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Then quote the comment you are responding to. We cannot read your mind. It is simply a matter of cut and past as I have done above. It is also a matter of common courtesy. I’m sure you are capable of that much?

    I’m still waiting for you to cease huffing and puffing about what you claim other people say and to explain the science. Can you?

  100. Warren says:

    James Abbott: a little snarky at the end, but generally well put. Unfortunately the scientific near consensus is not matched by a consensus among voters, who seem unlikely to accept policy measures until we (or more accurately, our grandchildren) reach the point ( or temperature) of deep regret.

  101. Robert_G says:

    Lord Monckton,
    Thanks for the link to your really beautiful Christmas and New Year “card.”
    Best wishes to you and all of WUWT’s readers

  102. Richard D says:

    Wrong. Reason requires consideration of the facts.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Exactly, much peer review (and dissertations) is crap, so no wonder even Nobel winning scientists, for medicine no less, are calling for boycotts of elite science journals.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-12-nobel-scientist-boycott-science-journals.html

  103. Richard D says:

    until we (or more accurately, our grandchildren) reach the point ( or temperature) of deep regret.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Predictions solely based on models – all of which are indisputably wrong, so your fallacious arguments based solely on appeals to authority and/or emotion are laughable………..

  104. Colin Porter says:

    We are greatly indebted for the wisdom of the great Lord’s annual Christmas message.

    Yet I feel that others will be even more indebted and will use it to question the judgment, not only of the great Lord Monckton, but all those associated with him in the sceptic movement. They will ignore the fact that many on the other side are also believers and especially the vast majority of politicians for whom it is a prerequisite to believe in God and also in the Greater Global Warming.

    It should surely be an anathema for any one arguing from logic and documented facts to be at the same time accepting a superstitious doctrinal dogma formulated from between 4000 and 1400 years ago because of man’s inadequacies to understand powerful natural processes and to have an overriding need to exalt a super deity fashioned in his own image and with his own moral code to enable him to comprehend the infinity of space and time and creation.

    I find it difficult to understand that in all things secular, we can make logical valued judgments, but in the matter of religion, we are happy to accept at face value the consensus view of the intellectual elite who produced this model of man, life and the universe all those years ago with less evidence even than the modern religion of Climate Change. Surely a person who is capable of arguing on the minutia of climate sensitivity, (but who may even be almost as far from actuality in this respect as the warmist hierarchy), should be able to argue the nonsensicality of for example, religious food rules of Judo-Christian-Islamic religions formulated before the advent of the modern refrigerator, or the need for the same religions to have mechanisms to flagellate, or otherwise abuse themselves and go on guilt trips and abstentions, all in the name of worshipping this great mystical ethereal deity.

    These days, I would rather not make such arguments, preferring instead to let people live in blissful ignorance if it makes them happier. But there can be no place for religion in the Global Warming debate, especially from such a prominent ambassador as Lord Monckton.

  105. troe says:

    Yes yes we know. Youse guys only do that good peer reviewed science. I challenge you to explain the glacier melt by 2035 scare in the spm. Lets hear it.

  106. NikFromNYC says:

    Steve Mosher of the MOSTEMP reproduction of Hansen’s GISTEMP would prefer to debate Keats this week, as Steve Goddard and crew have dug up more *deleted* NASA data and plotted the Orwellian data disfigurement, cumulatively, over time:
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/killing-off-the-dust-bowl/

    Hey Steve Mosher, why aren’t you over there, defending this radical reversal of trends in the US temperature record, or don’t you debate matters of faith subjected to reason?

  107. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer: in reg Nelson’s post at 5:38 pm today, he said (I paraphrase, because I’m on an ipad and can’t cut and paste). “And guess what, every one of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers was wrong, as Monckton pointed out in his essay”.
    Also, your request for me to provide my scientific reasoning for AGW is welcome, but there’s not time or space on a web forum for anyone to do it justice. There are many excellent science books, but if you want a top notch explanation, I recommend a series of 12 half hour lectures by Physics Professor Wolfson of Middlebury College, published on DVD by the Teaching Company. For $20 you get clear explanations, many good charts, and a small book with recommended reading and references, and summary points.
    My last point is that AGW is not one question, it’s several. 1st, is the Earth warming? On this point, the data is so irrefutable, that a prominent skeptical scientist, named mueller in believe, publically recanted his skepticism after participating in a Berkeley study funded by the Koch Brothers and Bill Gates. 2nd, is man the cause? The lab data on the properties of co2 is well documented and quantified. So is the amount of carbon that man has put in the atmosphere during the Industrial Age, and stll climbing. So the physics supports the co2 temperature correlation. And 3rd, how much will the earth warm as more co2 is added. This is the prediction of modelling…2- 4.5 C by 2100, depending on the economic and fossil fuel mixes assumed. And about double that over polar regions, and northern land masses., or as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit. And 4th, So What? That’s when the complexities of predicting the effects come in. Sea level increases, extreme weather events, species migration, precipitation effects, drought, are all in the mix.
    There’s not space here for more, so I recommend the many science publications for details. Meanwhile, for those of us who are not Climate Scientists, I urge us to pay attention to mr Abbot’s challenge as to whom to believe.

  108. Richard D says:

    The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yep, and worse belief based on faith violates the second law of thermodynamics.

  109. Bill Adams says:

    I’ve been a professional writer and editor for nearly forty years without having even seen the word “inspissate.” I guess it’s my Christmas present. Thanks!

  110. troe says:

    Warren. Answer the challenge. How did that make it into the summary for policy makers?

    BTW enjoyed your work in ” There’s Something About Mary”

  111. ED, Mr. Jones says:

    Mosher says: “The truth of science is contingent.”

    It appears to have become ‘contingent’ upon the agenda of the Scientist, and the needs of Political Correctness.

    If religious belief gets Fatuous Twit Humans to consider that there is something ‘out there’ more significant than themselves, it would be a good thing.

    It would be hilarious(!) if some future Carbon-Hygenic, Quasi-Industrial/Agrarian/Plutocracy were to be wiped out by a well-aimed Asteroid.

  112. William McClenney says:

    “……..how came we and all around us to be here?”

    Well, climate, actually!

    “An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.”

    state Trauth et al in Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 399–411.

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396841_Trends_rhythms_and_events_in_Plio-Pleistocene_African_climate/file/9c96051a83a42b7ed0.pdf

    As it turns out, “maximum climate variability on high moisture levels” gins up the larger braincases in the genus Homo!

    I found your discussion on religion and science intriguing. As always, you have provided much food for thought and research.

    I thank you for that and wish you a very Merry Christmas. It has been many a happy year to ponder your thoughts, I wish you another :-)

    William

  113. Warren says:

    Troe: if your asking about davidmhoffers challenge, see my recent post. Re your other comment about the movie, if you’re relying upon demonization ( or snark) to win your arguments, the rest of us have little to fear.

  114. ED, Mr. Jones says:

    James Abbott says:
    December 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    “Lets see, faced with an issue of potential global significance, who do we believe:(?)”

    Follow the money – it will lead you to the Con-men (and their “Thousands” of hangers-on).

    Common sense is more common than you may have thought.

  115. troe says:

    So no answer is the answer then. An admited fabrication made it into the gold standard of climate science and you refuse to address this fact head on. Read Monckton again Warren. He is writing about you.

  116. Ulric Lyons says:

    “The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.”

    They could be gaslighting victims, they would want to pass it on for reinforcement, a contemporary leaven of the Pharisees if you like. They sure as hell don’t know what they are up to, so best to forgive them really ;)

  117. Richard D says:

    And 3rd, how much will the earth warm as more co2 is added.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    None, apparently for the last 17 years, a fact I attribute to natural climate variability dwarfing what little effect CO2 exudes on atmospheric temperature. In fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations should be expected to rise after increases in temperature, e.g. Henrys Law.

  118. Ed_B says:

    “James Abbott says:
    Lets see, faced with an issue of potential global significance, who do we believe:”

    I trust the data the most. So far, the data says that we cannot prove ANY unusual warming due to our CO2. Meanwhile, there is irrefutable evidence of higher crop yields, faster forest growth, etc.

    I suspect we will get 0.4C or so of warming with a doubling of CO2. The earths ability to dissipate to the poles any extra heat from the CO2 is so efficient that the amount of warming will be a fraction of the theoretical amount.

    Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all!

  119. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Excuses. I’m on an iPad and can’t cut and paste. Whine, whine, whine. How hard is it to type the name of the person you are responding to and the time of their comment. Look, just like I did above, without any cutting and pasting.

    As for the rest of your diatribe, your tinker toy DVD really isn’t worth my time. I’ve read AR3, AR4, AR5 and many of the papers they reference as well. Have you? As for the lab experiments you reference, I’ve read quite a few. I can explain the greenhouse effect that they measure, and how they measure it. Can you? I can explain the limitations of lab experiments in terms of simulating the atmospheric air column. Can you?

    As for your anecdotal story about a scientist who changed his mind, I suggest you read carefully the views he actually expressed before he claimed to have changed his mind, and I can advise you that there are many who have changed their mind in the opposite direction. Does my citing Lovelock negate your cite of Mueller?

    No it doesn’t, because I don’t make up my mind based on what you tell me other people think. Stick around Warren, participate in a few threads where specific papers are being discussed. See if you can keep up.

  120. Janice says:

    Lord Monckton, thank you for following the lead of Sir Isaac Newton. He was also known for his profound understanding of both science and religion. As Sir Isaac Newton wrote “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Lord Monckton, thank you for letting us stand on your shoulders from time to time, as the view from there is quite astounding.

  121. Reg Nelson says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    Davidmhoffer: in reg Nelson’s post at 5:38 pm today, he said (I paraphrase, because I’m on an ipad and can’t cut and paste). “And guess what, every one of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers was wrong, as Monckton pointed out in his essay”.

    Warren, I repeat,: name one prediction\projection\model by Climate Scientists that what right, or even remotely accurate over the past twenty years.

    It can’t be that hard can it? Out of tens of thousands of “peer reviewed” papers, random chance says at least one of them must be correct.

    Just one. I beg you.

  122. Warren says:

    Richard: yes, Co2 is given off by the oceans as temp rises…if you read the science, you’ll find that co2 is thus both a cause of temp rise, and a result of temp rise. This is the commonly found phenomenon of positive feedback, seen elsewhere in both engineering and science. As a result, atmospheric temperature increases due to co2 emissions from fossil fuels are larger than they would be otherwise.

    Actually, the oceans have taken up a larger portion of the temp rise from co2 emissions, while the atmosphere is warming more slowly so far in the 21st century. To understand anthropogenic climate change, one has to consider time periods of at least 25 years to see trend lines within the yearly variability, and to consider that the warming includes both oceans and atmosphere.

  123. dbstealey says:

    Warren says:

    “1st, is the Earth warming? On this point, the data is so irrefutable…”

    Despite Warren’s false assertion, the data is irrefutable that the Earth is not warming, and has not warmed for many years.

    Next, Warren asserts:

    “2nd, is man the cause?”

    There is no verifiable evidence that human activity is the cause of any global warming. Warren is not capable of posting any testable scientific evidence showing measurable global warming due to human activity. His conjecture is based entirely on assertion, not on any measured evidence showing that mankind causes X degree of warming, per unit of CO2 produced. The alarmist scare is all based on such assertions and conjectures — not on any verifiable, testable measurements.

    Next, Warren asserts:

    “3rd, how much will the earth warm as more co2 is added. This is the prediction of modelling…2- 4.5 C by 2100…”

    As usual, Warren once again falsely asserts, based on vague ‘models’. But the Real World refutes Warren’s True Belief: despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global temperatures have not risen, as predicted incessantly by the alarmist crowd. Empirical scientific observations prove conclusively that Warren’s assertions are flat wrong.

    Warren is free to post his own empirical observations, but he chooses not to. Instead, Warren chooses to make false assertions, based on the debunked conjecture that catastrophic AGW will result from rising “carbon”. But Planet Earth demonstrates that is not happening.

    If Warren were honest, he would now admit that he and the rest of the climate alarmist crowd have been proven wrong by the ultimate Authority: our own planet. But such basic honesty seems to be scarce among the alarmist crowd.

  124. Richard D says:

    Stick around “OP”, participate in a few threads where specific papers are being discussed. See if you can keep up.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Good advice. This isn’t the Guardian or Huffington post,

    I tripped across criticism of the policymakers summary that some of you may have seen.

    Pierre Darriulat. 50 years in particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. Former Director of Research at CERN.

    “The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case”. …………and …….”When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message”

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360

  125. Warren says:

    Reg Nelson: any science publication or peer reviewed paper dealing with your question will illustrate the main point…that the models duplicate the rise in earths temperature seen in the 20th and 21st century (not year by year, as I explain in my last post, but trend lines) and also predict relatively flat temperature trends when the CO2 emissions from human activity are excluded. Sorry to disappoint you, but if you don’t believe that, check the Wolfson lectures I recommended earlier, or other sources.

  126. Warren says:

    Dbstealy: what is your source? Mine is from scientific papers. You can check any of them for this info. I’m afraid you are deeply uninformed

  127. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    Reg Nelson: any science publication or peer reviewed paper dealing with your question will illustrate the main point…that the models duplicate the rise in earths temperature seen in the 20th and 21st century (not year by year, as I explain in my last post, but trend lines)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. As I expected, you have not read the AR reports. Else you would not say something so foolish.

  128. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    Dbstealy: what is your source? Mine is from scientific papers. You can check any of them for this info. I’m afraid you are deeply uninformed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Confronted with facts, unable to discuss them or the science, Warren retreats into argument from authority.

  129. Warren says:

    I don’t what you mean by AR, but you can see the modelling results I cited in Wolfsons lectures, or in other science books. Are you reading the 0.2% of papers that dispute something about AGW, or the 99.8% that support it?

  130. acementhead says:

    Ah the Catholic Church. The wonderful, truth-seeking Catholic Church. Would that be the same Catholic Church that burnt Giordano Bruno to death just over four hundred years ago?

    For the benefit of the great mass of people here, the vast majority of whom have never heard of Bruno, I’m sure

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

    Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in scientific matters will leave out all mention of god and church and religion.

    Religion: Applied ignorance.

  131. Warren says:

    Dbstealy: Youre the one that made unsubstantiated assertions. Let’s see your science sources.

  132. David L. Hagen says:

    Thanks for a colourful Christmas gift from a Lord of vivid exposition. May you wax even more eloquent in defense of the Truth and the poor.

  133. Richard D says:

    Warren says: December 24, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    Richard: yes, Co2 is given off by the oceans as temp rises…if you read the science, you’ll find that co2 is thus both a cause of temp rise, and a result of temp rise. This is the commonly found phenomenon of positive feedback, seen elsewhere in both engineering and science.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Fail. Not supported by data. As you allude to science, recall that all positive feedback systems at least in biology exist within larger negative feedback systems. I suspect equilibrium laws govern the atmosphere and climate, e.g. Le Chatelier’s principle
    =============================================
    As a result, atmospheric temperature increases due to co2 emissions from fossil fuels are larger than they would be otherwise.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Fail, not supported by data and indistinguishable from natural climate variation.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Actually, the oceans have taken up a larger portion of the temp rise from co2 emissions, while the atmosphere is warming more slowly so far in the 21st century.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wishful thinking and mere assertion on your part. BTW, temps are falling this century.
    _____________________________________________________
    To understand anthropogenic climate change, one has to consider time periods of at least 25 years to see trend lines within the yearly variability, and to consider that the warming includes both oceans and atmosphere.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Who says??? I imagine when that threshold is met the goal posts will be moved again

  134. Looks like they’re getting ready to drop a geo-engineering bombshell on us. Will we buy it from them?
    Volume 121, Issue 3, December 2013
    Special Issue: Geoengineering Research and its Limitations
    http://link.springer.com/journal/10584/121/3/page/1

  135. troe says:

    Billions of dollars, pounds, euros, and yen yielding 10, 000 papers all predicated on ‘ if what isn’t happening were happening I think the following would happen’

    It’s the old Russian joke about stealing wheelborrows. The facts or truth of the science are what we are arguing while the smart fellows are rolling out the gate with a new wheelborrow everday.

    In response to climategate The Chairman of the House Science Commitee said “we need more research”

  136. dbstealey says:

    Warren says:

    “…what is your source?”

    My sources are very easy to see: just look at the address bar of the links, and you will see sites such as Wood For Trees — which is a database of empirical observations from GISS, HadCRUT, etc., and which are accepted by all sides of the debate. Only you seem to question them.

    On the other hand, you do not provide any empirical observations yourself; only [always-inaccurate] computer models, and Pal-Reviewed papers <–[arguments from corrupt authorities].

    When we look at empirical [real world] observations – versus your models and papers – we see that the climate alarmist case has been thoroughly debunked. As stated above: make your arguments based on the real world.

    But you will not, for the simple reason that the real world falsifies your belief system. Your "carbon" scare is complete nonsense. But don't take my word for it, listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling you.

    So, who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or Warren?

    Because they cannot both be right.

  137. john robertson says:

    Nice bit of writing, Merry Christmas .
    Warren, are you real? Or are you a joke made up to reinforce Monckton’s point?
    Those bitching about the religious component, read the article again.
    God, Gods or The Universe, whatever you call it changes very little, the fact we barely comprehend the immediate environs we live in, could offer humility to our thinking.
    There is a whole lot more.
    Lying, choosing to mislead for gain, are acts that undermine human interactions,destroying trust. A global fad of falsehood, threatens civilization as we know it.
    How can we expect trade, which requires trust, to function in a world of lies?
    That former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said it best.
    Proudly proclaiming her choice to deceive for a good cause.
    If you have no social values, what is “good’?

  138. Warren says:

    Richard: all of what I reported can be found in Science Magazine or in other peer reviewed articles. The article on warming of the oceans vs warming of the atmosphere was published this year, and peer reviewed. Unless you’re personally measuring the oceans temperature averaged over the Earth, as well as the Atmosphere over the earth, you would need to read the science papers to make conclusions. Are you doing either?

  139. Richard D says:

    Because they cannot both be right.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Exactly. On the one hand we have the models. They are wrong. Every one of them. Why? Simple human error, confirmation bias, rent seeking, malfeasance and fraud, ………..On the other hand we have reality – the data.

  140. Max Hugoson says:

    Warren = Troll…that simple. Isn’t there a bridge to return to?

  141. Steve says:

    The idea, expressed by several commenters, that morality is not dependent on religion can be argued. To get to morality, meaning and purpose must exist. Meaning and purpose require a sufficient reference point (a hammer has purpose only in the hands of a user). If the universe is totally explainable as a natural system and human beings are nothing more than complex machines, then free will is an illusion, and without free will there can be no meaning or purpose or morality. How can one fight one’s brain chemistry if it makes one lie, cheat, or steal? Similarly, how can there be virtue in altruism if altruistic acts originate solely from brain chemistry? Those who think science provides all the answers should ponder these questions carefully. Philosophers have been thinking about them for thousands of years and have not derived a foundation for meaning or purpose on the basis of science and/or logic. Simply stating, I have meaning and purpose because I think I do, doesn’t count. As a Christian I can say that I have meaning and purpose because the creator of the universe says that I do. Read Francis Schaeffer’s, “How should we then live?” if you aren’t afraid to expose yourself to the logic that led a philosopher to traditional Christianity. Then there is also the case of Anthony Flew, a life-long atheist philosopher, who decided in his later years, based solely on reason, that it was likely God does exist. To quote a phrase that is well known in science, absence of (physical) evidence is not evidence of absence (of God). There is nothing unscientific about faith and naturalism leads only to nihilism.

  142. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm
    I don’t what you mean by AR, but you can see the modelling results I cited in Wolfsons lectures, or in other science books. Are you reading the 0.2% of papers that dispute something about AGW, or the 99.8% that support it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. I’m going to help you out Warren in the hopes that you learn to think for yourself.

    The AR reports are the official state of climate science as summarized by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for short. The first report was called AR1, the second AR2 and so on. AR5 is the most recent. This is the official literature which supposedly represents the consensus position of the world’s climate scientists. You can read all of their reports here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    I suggest that you do. WG1 is the section that deals with the science. I urge you to read it and understand it. It is the actual science, not a marketing gimmick like your precious DVD.

    Once you read the actual reports, you will learn that the models are NOT in fact accurate at all. Oh, they do a fine job of reproducing the past, but none of the predictions that they made in previous reports have come true. Every last model prediction, all 22 models, and all the predictions from all the models, have failed. This isn’t some random paper from 0.2% of the scientists, this is the exact science as published by the 99% that you claim support your position.

    Here’s an excellent article that goes into depth as to what the models predicted, with the graphs taken directly from the science published by the supposed 99% that you are so certain say what you think they say:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-how-the-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/

    Note carefully the changes that were made to what the scientists presented. Note that these changes were made not by the scientists, but by politicians. Even with all the spin that the politicians managed to put on it, the fact that the models have over estimated warming by a considerable margin is readily apparent. In fact, the very scientists (most notable Hansen and Santer) who claim to represent the consensus, argued that the models would have to be thrown out if they were wrong for a period of 10 years. They then revised that to 15 years. Then they revised it to 17 years. It has now been 17 years and they are mumbling something about perhaps as much as 30 years.

    Read and learn my friend. Learn what the scientists ACTUALLY say instead of relying on what other people claim they say. Learn what the models ACTUALLY predicted and what the observational data ACTUALLY is. Stick around. Read some articles. Ask some questions. Learn.

  143. dbstealey says:

    Warren says:

    “I don’t what you mean by AR…”

    “AR” refers to the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, noob. Obviously, you are just parroting misinformation you just picked up on one of the alarmist echo chambers.

    Warren says: “Youre the one that made unsubstantiated assertions. Let’s see your science sources.”

    Look again, newbie. I posted my sources, all of them. And other folks here have asked you questions that you ignore.

    Why do you ignore them?

    Because you are incapable of posting an answer that would back up your assertions with empirical [real world] data.

    You think I’m wrong? Then post your data showing runaway global warming. Or post your measurements showing the degree of global warming due testably and verifiably to human emissions.

    In fact, you can’t — because there are no such measurements. All you have are false assertions, and conjectures; speculation and opinion.

    But science is based on measurement. We have provided empirical mesurements backing our skeptical view. But you have poisted nothing in the way of real world measurements.

    That is why you have lost the debate.

  144. Richard D says:

    Warren says: December 24, 2013 at 8:20 pm
    Richard: all of what I reported can be found in Science Magazine or in other peer reviewed articles. The article on warming of the oceans vs warming of the atmosphere was published this year, and peer reviewed. Unless you’re personally measuring the oceans temperature averaged over the Earth, as well as the Atmosphere over the earth, you would need to read the science papers to make conclusions. Are you doing either?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Dear Warren. What I do is based on rigorous peer review, government and insurance oversight, as well as professional standards of conduct. Any moderately educated person in basic science and statistics will conclude that much of what passes as climate science is akin to most psychology and virtually all sociology……..junk science. Engineers and geologists? Good luck convincing them.

  145. Reg Nelson says:

    Me:
    Reg Nelson says:

    Warren, I repeat,: name one prediction\projection\model by Climate Scientists that what right, or even remotely accurate over the past twenty years.

    It can’t be that hard can it? Out of tens of thousands of “peer reviewed” papers, random chance says at least one of them must be correct.

    Just one. I beg you.

    —-

    You:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    Reg Nelson: any science publication or peer reviewed paper dealing with your question will illustrate the main point…that the models duplicate the rise in earths temperature seen in the 20th and 21st century (not year by year, as I explain in my last post, but trend lines) and also predict relatively flat temperature trends when the CO2 emissions from human activity are excluded. Sorry to disappoint you, but if you don’t believe that, check the Wolfson lectures I recommended earlier, or other sources.

    LOL

    What main point?

    You ignore the main point. Again, name one model that has predicted the climate over the last twenty years with any degree of accuracy. You cannot. I know that. Do you?

    Why would any sane rational, reasonable person put any trust in any of this?

    Again, please prove me wrong.

  146. rogerknights says:

    Here are quotations on truth from Mencken:

    The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.

    I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
    ………………….
    I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant

    The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.

    The curse of man, and the cause of nearly all his woe, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.

    It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.

    The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…

    Platitude [aka settled science]: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true.

    No one ever heard of the truth being enforced by law. Whenever the secular arm is called in to sustain an idea, whether new or old, it is always a bad idea, and not infrequently it is downright idiotic.

    The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few dogmas have ever faced it and survived.

    Truth – Something somehow discreditable to someone.

    How does so much [false news] get into the American newspapers, even the good ones? Is it because journalists, as a class, are habitual liars, and prefer what is not true to what is true? I don’t think it is. Rather, it is because journalists are, in the main, extremely stupid, sentimental and credulous fellows — because nothing is easier than to fool them — because the majority of them lack the sharp intelligence that the proper discharge of their duties demands.

    The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.

    What is not true, as everyone knows, is always immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than what is true. Truth has a harshness that alarms them, and an air of finality that collides with their incurable romanticism.

    Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. In whole departments of human inquiry it seems to me quite unlikely that the truth ever will be discovered.

    ================ OTHER RELEVANT QUOTES

    The public, with its mob yearning to be instructed, edified and pulled by the nose, demands certainties; it must be told definitely and a bit raucously that this is true and that is false. But there are no certainties.

    The cynics are right nine times out of ten.

    Every contribution to human progress on record has been made by some individual who differed sharply from the general, and was thus, almost ipso facto, superior to the general.

    “I am, indeed, against all proselyters, whether they be on my side or on some other side. . . . Their lofty pretensions are all tosh. The thing they yearn for is the satisfaction of making someone unhappy: that yearning is almost as universal among them as thirst is in dry Congressmen.”

    Nature abhors a moron.

    [It is a delusion] that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will cease thereby to be a moron …

    “A professor must have a theory as a dog must have fleas.”

    The professor must be an obscurantist or he is nothing; he has a special and unmatchable talent for dullness, his central aim is not to expose the truth clearly, but to exhibit his profundity, his esotericity – in brief to stagger sophomores and other professors.

    The plain fact is that education is itself a form of propaganda – a deliberate scheme to outfit the pupil, not with the capacity to weigh ideas, but with a simple appetite for gulping ideas ready-made. The aim is to make ‘good’ citizens, which is to say, docile and uninquisitive citizens.

    And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps.

    Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.

    A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.

    The older I get the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology.

    Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice.

    It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.

    The business of a man of science in this world is not to speculate and dogmatize, but to demonstrate. To be sure, he sometimes needs the aid of hypothesis, but hypothesis, at best, is only a pragmatic stop-gap, made use of transiently because all the necessary facts are not yet known. The appearance of a new one in contempt of it destroys it instantly. At its most plausible and useful it simply represents an attempt to push common sense an inch or two over the borders of the known. At its worst it is only idle speculation, and no more respectable than the soaring of metaphysicians.

    Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.

    Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops. Why is the so-called science of sociology, as ardent young college professors expound it, such an imbecility? Why is a large part of economics? Why does politics always elude the classifiers and theorizers? Why do fashions in metaphysics change almost as often as fashions in women’s hats? Simply because the unknowable casts its black shadows across all these fields—simply because the professors attempt to label and pigeon-hole phenomena that are as elusive and intangible as the way of a man with a maid.

    For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

    The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.

    Of a piece with the absurd pedagogical demand for so-called constructive criticism is the doctrine that an iconoclast is a hollow and evil fellow unless he can prove his case. Why, indeed, should he prove it? Is he judge, jury, prosecuting officer, hangman? He proves enough, indeed, when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing—that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts.

  147. R Taylor says:

    Yes, democracy (Greek for rule by the herd) is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We are fortunate to live in a time where people of intelligence and integrity have some means to discuss widely the complexities of truth.

  148. Mark Bofill says:

    Enjoyed your post as usual, lord Monckton.

    Merry Christmas all!

  149. troe says:

    Off I go. Warren why is it impossible for you to admit to a little healthy skepticism when confronted with a known fraud? If you had it would have added force to your arguments. Very smart people question their own assumptions on this site daily.

    That you can’t do the same should trouble you. Adios for now.

  150. OssQssh says:

    Monckton: Of meteorology and morality
    Posted on December 24, 2013 by Guest Blogger
    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    “They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.”

    _______________________________________

    I feel for their loss. I do indeed feel for their loss, and I was quickly over it and back in reality……

    Video not redacted!

  151. Warren says:

    It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments, or in some cases, simple physics. And some resort to demonization when they don’t like what they hear from those that do accept the Scientific near-consensus. To all skeptics, my question is: of all other near consensus-science issues….relativity, plate tectonics, evolution…do you single out AGW for derision, and if so why? Is it a rational skepticism? Or is it dislike for the implications? I hope for most it’s the former, in which case PUBLISH so the world can benefit from your insight. (So far, almost no skeptics have) If it’s the latter, and you don’t want to see a carbon tax, I ask you to consider that your asking mankind to adapt rather than mitigate. And maybe that’s the discussion that should be conducted on this forum instead.

  152. dbstealey says:

    Reg Nelson says:

    “Warren, I repeat: name one prediction\projection\model by Climate Scientists that what right, or even remotely accurate over the past twenty years.”

    Warren, not one GCM [computer climate model] was able to predict the halt to global warming over the past 17+ years. Not one!

    When someone/something is 100% WRONG, isn’t it time for someone like you to re-assess?

    Or are you so pig-headed that you blindly follow people who are always wrong??

  153. Warren says:

    Reg: reread my posting, and listen to Wolfsons lecture. The models as a group show the rise in temp , and when the co2 emissions from human activity are omitted from the models, they show no temp rise. It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly. Sorry.

  154. Richard D says:

    There is nothing unscientific about faith ………..
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I recommend that you go study the second law of thermodynamics and it’s implications for belief not grounded in reality.

  155. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments, or in some cases, simple physics.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Would this be the IPCC reports that just a few minutes ago you didn’t know the name of? Stick around Warren. Read the actual reports. Find out what they actually say. They simply don’t say what you claim they do, and if you had read and understood them, you would know that. We’re not skeptics because we are not conversant with the science and have not read the reports. We’re skeptics because we ARE conversant in the science, and we HAVE read the reports. You can become conversant in the issues, or not. I’m inviting you to stick around and pay attention to the wealth of knowledge that is available in this forum. You may be surprised at how many PhD scientists hang out here from both sides of the debate, and if you pay attention, you’ll learn a lot from both.

    Or you can continue in your fantasy world where you already know all the answers and stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la la when someone points you to the actual facts. Up to you. Stick around. You may be surprised.

  156. dbstealey says:

    Warren says:

    “To all skeptics, my question is…”

    Yet, you run and hide out from anwering any questions yourself.

    The reason is clear: you are incapable of supporting your belief system by posting verifiable, testable measurements showing the degree of warming caused per unit of human emissions.

    You cannot, because there are no such measurements. There are only false assertions, and baseless conjectures. Those are found in abundance in pal reviewed papers, and in computer models.

    But there are NO real world, empirical measurements or observations that support your climate alarmist conjecture. None at all. ALL such measurements support the view of scientific skeptics, who point out that what is being observed today has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a greater degree — and during times when CO2 emissions were much lower.

    And that, of course, deconstructs the entire global warming scare.

    ALL of your arguments amount to hand-waving, nothing more. You have not posted one empirical fact or measurement. Unless/until you do, you lose the debate.

  157. Reg Nelson says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
    It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments

    Warren, the IPCC Assessments have all been wrong, horribly wrong.

    Why should we accept then?

    You will not, or cannot answer a direct question. Why should I accept your viewpoint?

    You’re welcome to expound on your your views, but at every opportunity refuse.

    Unlike most AGW sites, WUWT is a place for open and honest debate.

    Engage us, we’re open minded people. Are you?

  158. Janice says:

    Warren, why do we single out AGW for derision, as opposed to relativity, plate tectonics, or evolution? I suppose it is because nobody advocating relativity, plate tectonics, or evolution is asking for unwholesome amounts of money to study them, advocating that we destroy the entire economy of the world to try and mitigate them, or restraining certain liberties and freedoms to supposedly prevent ourselves from being wiped out by them. In addition, I don’t see anyone getting rich, or gaining power and fame from relativity, plate tectonics or evolution. I, personally, feel that it is unnecessary to even know anything about science to single out AGW for derision, because the monetary corruption and misuse of power to push the AGW agenda is so blatant, that probably anyone with a grade-school education could see it, once the facts about the money and power grabbing is presented to them. I don’t need peer reviews to recognize blatant and outright lies and deception. I just need a little common sense, and the experiences of the last six decades of people trying to use fear and ignorance to influence ordinary people into supporting stupid ideas.

  159. Richard D says:

    It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments, or in some cases, simple physics.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Skeptics don’t deny that CO2 causes some warming. The question is how much. In case you missed the memo, the models are all wrong. Apparently some of hose feedbacks you alluded to are negative, hmmm?

  160. dbstealey says:

    Warren says:

    ” It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly.”

    NAME ONE (1) GCM that predicted that global warming would stop seventeen years ago.

    Name one, Warren. Just one will do.

    Otherwise, your pal Wolfson is a climate charlatan and a liar.

  161. Michael in Sydney says:

    “…relativity, plate tectonics, evolution…”

    Hi Warren

    I do single CAGW out; not for derision, but for a skeptical attitude. No one has ever asked me to pay more taxes or change my lifestyle for relativity, plate tectonics and evolution and no one has ever said that relativity, plate tectonics or evolution should be believed due to a precautionary principle. These theories were to believed because they were backed up with observational data, not just a 90% (now apparently 95%) chance of being true. It is also the CA in CAGW that I am skeptical about.

  162. Mark Bofill says:

    Warren,

    It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly. Sorry.

    Many of the models and particularly the multi-model ensemble mean used by the IPCC are right on the hairy edge of being invalidated now. Lucia Liljegren at her blog the Blackboard frequently revisits and updates on this topic. Come visit there, you’ll learn more than you ever wanted to know about how the models are doing.

  163. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly. Sorry.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    You’ve been directed to the actual predictions published by the IPCC, and the actual observational results published by the IPCC. Yet still you persist in making a claim that the IPCC does not.

  164. Bob Weber says:

    Warren you might be able to save me from denial – I’m finally seeing the light. You’re just a few steps away from convincing me completely. Can you give me a few links or site a few papers I can review that cover exactly how small atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes cause extreme weather events and climate change? I don’t want any statements or opinions based on percentages of scientists who think one thing or another as your proof either, just a direct cause and effect relationship will do, one that can be tested and measured. How much downwelling LWR from carbon dioxide does it take to initiate a tornado, a hurricane, typhoon or any other weather event that is claimed to be caused by CAGW? I want to know how you link CAGW to Typhoon Haiyan as so many of your fellow faith-based true believers do. Did a blob of CO2 burp out of China and cause that typhoon? If no one can tell me how and why that happens, I am afraid I might slip back into denial. You have my salvation in your hands.

    Gotta go – Santa’s here…

  165. Richard D says:

    davidmhoffer says: December 24, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Yet still you persist in making a claim that the IPCC does not.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Unfortunately most of what you hear in the MSM is not even supported by the discredited IPCC. It’s science by press release by pressure groups.

  166. _Jim says:

    acementhead says December 24, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Ah the Catholic Church. The wonderful, truth-seeking Catholic Church. Would that be the same Catholic Church that burnt Giordano Bruno to death just over four hundred years ago?

    I would not be terribly surprised if there were not more to it than that (like most ‘events’, tragedies, history, etc) … call me, um, skeptical? And really, is apolitical (cough), atheist WIki the best source on this?

    .
    .
    . . A Merry Christmas to all WUWTers and lurkers alike!

    .

  167. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century, but I should have said they do not predict regional or local conditions, nor specific temperatures in a given year, or even within a decade. The IPCC has put Bayesian error bands on their modelling. And that, combined with the range of economic and emission scenarios used by the IPCC in their modeling, yields the IPCC estimated range of projected temp rise by 2100. I, and I suspect you, cannot judge whether the IPCCs error range is accurate or not, but to say that the modelling is useless or invalidates AGW is not valid. It doesn’t invalidate that a) earths avg temp has risen about .65c in the 20th century (that’s just measurement), or that b) it’s due to human activity (that’s physics), or that c) the earth will continue to be incrementally warmer as we add co2 to the carbon cycle via fossil fuel burning, et al.

    Btw, you are not alone in questioning the models. No less than Freeman Dyson, the noted physicist, disputes their value entirely.

    What I know and have confidence in, are a) b) and c) above. One can ask “what if the earths temp only rises 2 degrees by 2100.. We will have wasted human efforts to forestall AGW” . I think a far more critical question is ” what if the models are right” or what if the models understate?” And the natural follow-on: ” Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?” I don’t view that as alarmist, but rather as prudent.

  168. Richard D says:

    Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You’re joking right?

  169. J.H. says:

    A fine article. A truer word has not been said Lord Monckton. :)

    ….. and a merry Christmas to one and all.

  170. climateace says:

    An entertaining blog post, as ever, from Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, mathmatician, birther, self-confessed inventor of a cure for the AIDS epidemic and, of course, Nobel Prize winner for his contribution to climatology. But wait, there’s more:

    ‘UKIP’s CV for Monckton claims that his methods have produced cures for multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes, as well as reducing the viral load of an HIV patient,…’*

    Monckton is surely doing good for humaity and for that we should all be suitably grateful.

    There is not a skerrick of science in the Jesus stories – no scientific method, no hypotheses to be tested, no models, no CO2, no cosmic rays, no fossil fuels, no radiation from the sun, no periodic oscillations – only the miracle of endless wine if you attend the right wedding, heaven – if you follow the rules – and eternal damnation, if you do not. There is considerable scope for debate about the historical validity and reliability of the gospels, but there is no scope at all for the science in the gospels because there isn’t any.

    Maybe Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, should stick to math, climatology and the health sciences?

    Conflating science and religion is, in and of itself, bad science, uncontestably bad logic and, beyond that, a matter of faith, also known as a combination of hope, imagination and emotion over mind and matter.

    I trust that all WUWT readers enjoy time with their families over the festive season and also enjoy a 2014 safe from extreme weather events, record temperatures – cold or hot, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, typhoons, and floods.

    If you happen to be a farmer, may your kith and kin be healthy, your kine be fat, and your granaries full.

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Views_on_AIDS

  171. Warren says:

    Bob weber: great questions. First, it is false that any one extreme weather event can be linked to anthropogenic Climate Change. The Media makes this linkage because it makes for good ratings, but it’s baloney, and the Climate Scientists will say it is baloney as well. I will be glad to provide some links that explain how TRENDS in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events over many years CAN be caused by warmer atmospheric and ocean temps (not caused directly by CO2), and that there is indeed a loose correlation between the documented rise in avg global temperatures and trend lines in these events. but it’s now 1 am here, and I’m ready for bed. So I’ll work on this over the next couple of days for you. Check back later..I won’t forget.

  172. Warren says:

    Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.

  173. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
    Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century, but I should have said they do not predict regional or local conditions, nor specific temperatures in a given year, or even within a decade.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The difference between you and me is that I have directed you to the actual model predictions, the actual observations, and pointed out that they don’t support your claim. Now you want to talk about regional results. Well Warren, the models do even worse on regional predictions. But that’s just the IPCC’s opinion. You can have your own opinion of course, you just can’t back it up with the science from the 99% of scientists you claim support your position. When push comes to shove, you clearly don’t even know what they are actually saying. Do you not find it odd that I am refuting your claims by quoting the science from YOUR side of the debate to you?

  174. Richard D says:

    Warren says: December 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
    Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.
    ++++++++++++++
    Mitigation efforts contemplated will have virtually no effect on temperature but will affect people’s standard of living. And then there’s the law of unintended consequences and the very real negative environmental consequences of “green” energy policies, e.g. ethanol, wind farms, etc…

  175. ferdberple says:

    Kirk c says:
    December 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone .
    ============
    This is an illusion. In an infinite universe the “unknown” will always dwarf the “known”. Science seeks to explain the finite, that which is known, while religion seeks to explain the gap between what is known and what is unknown. That region between the finite and the infinite that will be forever beyond our grasp.

    Religion and Science in all ages have their charlatans. Very few have a Martin Luther.

  176. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    there is indeed a loose correlation between the documented rise in avg global temperatures and trend lines in these events.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Again, the 99% you claim you represent contradicts you. Extreme weather events, hurricanes and tornadoes have been in decline for several decades. Droughts have been flat. Again, that’s the IPCC talking. In fact, AR5 predicts that these trends will continue at least until 2100.

    Again, read what the science says. Not what you think it says.

  177. Richard D says:

    the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century,
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    right, built in warming and confirmation bias for a few hot years in the 90′s and then all FAIL…..reality shows little variation +/- for millions of years. No data shows deviance from natural variation.

  178. ferdberple says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
    Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century
    ================
    Not true. the models did not predict the trend line of the 20th century. Any such suggestion is false. What the models have done is to hindcast the past, which is no different than a parrot repeating what it has heard.

    There is no skill involved in a parametric model hindcasting the past. Any model that did not would be modified until it did. As any mathematician will tell you, a polynomial of degree N will exactly fit any set of lines with N+1 points. And such a polynomial will have no skill in predicting point N+2. Exactly as we see with the climate models.

    If this was not the case, the climate models could just as easily predict the stock market, and climatologist would have no need for government funding. They could simply use their climate computer to predict stock futures, and quickly parlay any small investment into mega millions.

  179. Matt says:

    What prevents Santa from going back home to his family in modern day Turkey? Are they estranged or something? Or is this another case of religious persecution? In which case he could always seek asylum in Germany, when push comes to shove.

    Or maybe his Arabic buddy Jesus would let him crush on his couch until he found a new place to hide in Antarctica? I mean, Bethlehem is just around the corner from Turkey, innit?

    Btw, it only took me like half an hour to scroll to the bottom of this thread on a tablet.

  180. Michael in Sydney says:

    Warren

    You asked a specific question of skeptics to which I replied. Do you not have the politeness to answer or was the question rhetorical in your mind?

    Best

    Michael

  181. GeeJam says:

    It is now 6:30 am on Christmas Day – and instead of ‘prepping’ today’s massive family lunch, yet again, my obsession with non-existent CAGW means I have spent the last hour reading Lord Monkton’s excellent message and all those regular well-wishers (except Warren) who seek the truth. Christmas lunch will just have to wait.

    PS. Warren – please consume about 50 x brussel sprouts today.

    Merry Christmas all.

  182. William McClenney says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    “I don’t what you mean by AR….”

    Assessment Reports, as issued by the IPCC. The most recent of which, AR5, becoming available in various drafts, has been extensively discussed here in recent months. No offense is meant, but it really would behoove you to keep up.

    For instance, one major oversight of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is just how long the present interglacial, the Holocene, is expected to last. By the new year the Holocene will be exactly 11,717 years old, or a couple of centuries or so older than half the current precession cycle. The precession cycle varies from 19,000 to 23,000 years long, and we are at the 23kyr point now, making 11,500 half. Only 1 such warming as the Holocene has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle in the past million years or so, and that was MIS-11, the Holsteinian interglacial.

    If you are possessed of better knowledge than this……….

    “While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals.”

    “The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …

    “… the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, “while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.

    “In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.” http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf

    ……….then you should enlighten us. If there is something that can ease or delay the transition into the next glacial, other than CO2 I suspect you would have a very attentive audience here.

    If not, then evidence must be presented as to why MIS-1 will be like MIS-11 in the absence of GHG forcing. Because MIS-11 did happen. It lasted something like 1.5 to 2 full precession cycles, not just about half of one cycle, like all the rest, and we are just over half now.

    To be involved in this discussion you have to have a pretty good idea of when you live, and what can reasonably be expected to happen at such a time http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

    Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:

    “In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”

    Warren, if you wish AGW to even be detectable (and sea level leaves little doubt), then CAGW must exceed this (+6 to +45meters amsl):

    http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf

    and this (+52meters amsl):

    http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf

    Given the strong environmental oscillations that appear to attend the end interglacials, how do you propose separating our AGW signal from significant climate noise?

    The most interesting bit might actually be that in order to prevent attenuation of MIS-1, the Holocene, we may have to leave the CO2 “climate security blanket” up there, just in case……..

    It might all depend on just how good a GHG CO2 actually is…..

    At the end of this discussion, that is all that matters. At the half-precession old Holocene, we will either “go-long”, like MIS-11 did, or we might not. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the difference was dependent on whether we leave CO2 up there, or not?

    That is a depth of the discussion you seek to join.

    “Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

  183. ferdberple says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 24, 2013 at 10:10 pm
    Again, the 99% you claim you represent contradicts you. Extreme weather events, hurricanes and tornadoes have been in decline for several decades.
    ============
    Which is predicted by science. Weather is the net work performed by the earth due to warming by the sun. This forms a Carnot cycle heat engine with an efficiency of about 20%.

    CO2 is predicted to raise polar temps more than equatorial temps, which will reduce the efficiency of the engine, leading to less extreme weather. Quite simply, since the energy from the sun is assumed to be constant, you cannot do more work if you decrease the efficiency. Even if the poles and equator rise the same amount, this will still reduce efficiency. Thus it is a violation of scientific laws to expect more extreme weather with increasing temperatures

    The only scenario under which more extreme weather is predicted is in the case of falling temperatures. As temperatures fall, especially polar temperatures, this increases the relative difference between the poles and the equator, increasing efficiency and leading to more extreme weather.

  184. RACookPE1978 says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm (replying to)

    Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century, but I should have said they do not predict regional or local conditions, nor specific temperatures in a given year, or even within a decade. … I, and I suspect you, cannot judge whether the IPCCs error range is accurate or not, but to say that the modelling is useless or invalidates AGW is not valid. It doesn’t invalidate that a) earths avg temp has risen about .65c in the 20th century (that’s just measurement), or that b) it’s due to human activity (that’s physics), or that c) the earth will continue to be incrementally warmer as we add co2 to the carbon cycle via fossil fuel burning, et al.

    Where to begin?

    1. No, the models did NOT “reproduce” the 20th century – They were re-programmed specifically to duplicate the 20th century warming – only 1/2 of which 1950 – 2000 (50 years) could have been influenced by man-released CO2; and only 1/4 of which actually showed an increase in temperature while CO2 increased (1973-1998). But for the first 1/2 of the century, temperatures were either increasing (while CO2 was steady), or were decreasing – also while CO2 was steady!

    See Hansen’s original 1988 temperature plots: The rise from 1890 to 1940, the decline from 1940 to 1973 is striking … but not very supportive of the IPCC’s agenda of destruction and taxation.

    2. As soon as that “forced” period of compliance stopped, the models – every single one of them, in every run, under every computer, and under every different starting condition ( and that alone invalidates the concept that some kind of average of all these different model conditions and programs could “duplicate” correctly earth’s past, present or future because there is only ONE correct “earth” – averaging 23 different “wrong” earths together cannot make a ensemble average that is more correct than the (perhaps) single model that might be almost right. The rest? By definition, if every one of 23 is different running even slightly different programs or codes or start points or assumptions, 22 of the 23 models are WRONG.

    3. The other 75 percent of the century had steady CO2 levels, but increasing, steady, and decreasing temperatures. And, in the 60 years since man DID influence CO2 levels, temperatures have spent MORE time steady or falling than they have rising! Your entire premise is based on the ONLY 23 years (1975 – 1998) in the world’s history over 4.0 billion years that both CO2 and temperature rose at the same time.

    4. Thus, even if you correctly state that the earth was warming, it has been warming at the same average rate since 1650 – 350 years with no CO2 influence from man, and 63 (1950 – 2013) with man-released CO2. Thus, no CO2 influence can be proved on earth’s warming. The “physics” you have paid for with your (our!) 10.6 million dollars a day in government money to “prove” a CO2 = warmer temperatures = more taxes on CO2 to the government is simply .. wrong.

    5. Ah, the magical “prudence” policy. Also known as the insurance policy, the precautionary principle, the “I am not sure about the future but I have been taught by people who fear the future, and I have faith in those people who have taught me despite the evidence, therefore I must stop the future from occurring by harming as many other people as possible unless I control the future” principle.

    So, you have been taught to fear a warmer earth, and that fear is now your religion. (Since there is no evidence of your religion, and no evidence of the future you fear might occur, and since your faith in that feared future is only due to your faith in the teachings of the priests of that religion based on their interpretations of the (deliberately hidden) obscure projections of their oracle (and Basic and C++ and NEVER on the evidence those programs actually run) run by their religious homes.) But I digress while discussing your faith.

    We have now had 17 years of static temperatures while CO2 has steadily risen at the HIGHEST rate possible in your models. NO model has duplicated actual conditions, but you base your religion on the assumption that (somehow) the earth’s temperature will rise the next 100 years.

    What is the probably of a continuing static or even a declining temperature?

    At least 71% historically … We already have (25 + 10 + 17)/63 years of steady or declining temperatures since 1950! And CO2 has steadily increased the whole time. Assume 68% to be conservative.

    So let’s try 0-1 degree warmth.
    What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 0 and 1 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.

    What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 16% ? (You tell me. )

    So let’s try 1-2 degree warmth.
    What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 1 and 2 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.

    What is the probability of a 1-2 degree warmth? 8% ? (You tell me. )

    So let’s try 2-3 degree warmth.
    What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 2 and 3 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.

    What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 4% ? (You tell me. )

    So let’s try 3-4 degree warmth.
    What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 3 and 4 degree? Experts begin to predict “some harm” but never seem to be able to quantify that harm: If crop land is lost someplace, additional land is now available elsewhere previously too dry, too cold, or too wet! If sea levels rise proportional to temperature, the sea might rise another 2-3 mm per year. All other changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.

    What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 2% ? (You tell me. )

    So let’s try 4-5 degree warmth.
    What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 4 and 5 degree? Experts consistently predict ” harm” but never seem to be able to quantify that harm: As above, If crop land is lost someplace, additional land is now available elsewhere previously too dry, too cold, or too wet! If sea levels rise proportional to temperature, the sea might rise another 3-4 mm per year . Still, almost all other changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.

    What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 1% ? (You tell me. )
    What is the percent of HARM (compared to the known good) coming from that 1% possibly of potential occurrence? Well, perhaps 25% harm, 75 % good coming from a 1% chance of a rise the century to +4 degrees.

    So, YOU are demanding the world kill millions every year for 100 years, and condemn billions to day-to-day harm from stress, bad food, bad water, no sewage treatment, no transportation, no storage, no lights, no refrigeration, no productivity but from animals and humans as slaves to your policies. YOU are the one demanding “we” follow your religion of CAGW to avoid your fear of the future and your failures.

    But your policy of the “Precautionary Principle” demands the absolute certainly of death to millions and daily harm to billions based on an unproven theory that says there is a 1/10 of 1% “chance” of “possibly” avoiding “some” harm to some people. Somewhere. 100 years from now. Maybe.

    So we must destroy today’s economy to prevent that 1/10 of 1% chance of the future from occuring.

  185. M Simon says:

    Primitive superstitious cult? Virgin birth?

    Merry Christmas to ALL. Unless it would incur a fatwa from our Moslem friends. Or the disdain of our Jewish friends. Or the incredulity of our Hindu friends. Or the condescension of our Buddhist friends.

  186. Richard D says:

    But your policy of the “Precautionary Principle” demands the absolute certainly of death to millions and daily harm to billions based on an unproven theory that says there is a 1/10 of 1% “chance” of “possibly” avoiding “some” harm to some people. Somewhere. 100 years from now. Maybe.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    It’s both stupid and cruel.

  187. ferdberple says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
    Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?
    =====================
    Insurance pays out in case of a loss. Who is going to pay you or your descendants if you make all your policy payments but temps rise more that 2C anyways? The simple fact is that you will be paying premiums into a policy that will never make payment in case of a loss.

    As such, what you are describing is not insurance at all. What you are doing is making payments on a promise to deliver, with no mechanism to enforce the promise. This is a standard confidence trickster rip off. They promise to deliver in return for your money, but after you have paid they could care less. They know full well there is nothing you can do if they fail to deliver. Even if they wanted to, the money is long gone. You have no hope of recovery.

  188. John Coleman says:

    I will not join in either religious o scientific debate this Christmas Eve. I write to extend my very best wishes to one and all. May your holiday to full of family love and laughs. If you are known, please think of your fellow commenters and posters on WUWT as your extended family. Merry Christmas to all.

  189. M Simon says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
    What if the models are right?

    We will need to kill of a LOT of humans. Would you prefer industrial methods or just plain old starvation? I guess industrial methods are out. They produce too much CO2.

  190. RoHa says:

    “Then there is also the case of Anthony Flew, a life-long atheist philosopher, who decided in his later years, based solely on reason, that it was likely God does exist.”

    Not God as the Christian thinks of it, but something more in the line of the Aristotelian Prime Mover.

    http://www.reason.org.nz/journal/2005v78n4sum.pdf

    I knew Flew. He was a good friend of J. J. C. Smart, who was my professor when I was an undergraduate at Adelaide, and he was emeritus at Reading when I did my doctorate there. I met him several times, and had dinner with him. I never thought he was a particularly great philosopher, but he was a decent man, and I am disgusted with the way Christian apologists exploited him in his old age and still exploit him after his death.

    http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/the-exploitation-of-antony-flew/
    http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/

    (Smart hinted to me that Flew’s mind was failing at the time of his “conversion”, and others have made the same suggestion. A criticism of that suggestion is here.http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/regis-nicoll/antony-flew-true-convert-or-exploited-scholar-11562658.html )

  191. ” Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, ”

    Would the 36 lies MoB goes on to quote be just so many of those those multiple li(n)es of evidence we hear so much about ?

  192. Warren says:

    Michael: I’m sorry, but I did not see your earlier post. Here is my reply. Your point that you don’t like the policy implications, and thus don’t believe, or are more skeptical, doesn’t seem logical to me. The science rises or falls on its own merit. Or in other words, the atmosphere has no idea about policy or politics. Regarding confidence level, climate science is multidisciplinary. That is different than physics in which I can write f=ma and calculate a value with 100% confidence. 90% confidence in a calculation having to do with a complex system of the earths atmosphere is a VERY high confidence level.

  193. Michael in Sydney says:

    Warren

    You now totally ignore your previous appeal to relativity, plate tectonics and evolution and instead appeal to policy and politics. What am I to make of your answer? I think you did not think through your previous appeal to skeptics.

  194. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer: you’re reading my post exactly backwards. I said the models do NOT predict regional climate trends. And you have not directed me to any specific finding in the 5th Assessment that says the models have not predicted the 20 century uptick in temperature trend. . I cite Professor Wolfson (Professor of physics at Middlebury College) in his lectures on the “science of Climate change” published by the Teaching Company, in which he shows a graph of multiple projections in the IPCC reports, tracking the shape of the hockey stick of Global average trends.

  195. Warren says:

    Michael: ? You made the appeal to politics, citing fear of the consequences of climate change as a reason to doubt the Science. That’s quite a strange view.

  196. Michael in Sydney says:

    Ok Warren

    I see you are not up to it. Thanks

    Best

    Michael

  197. Warren says:

    Ferdperple: your concept of insurance is sure different than the insurance one buys for the risk of one’s house burning down. It does not promise to repay you, Unless your home burns down. Likewise, the carbon tax is a good idea, only if the earth is going to warm sufficiently to cause economic and environmental damage without it. The odds of having a house fire I’ve read are about 5% in ones life time., yet we all buy fire insurance. So then you have to assess the odds of significant climate change vs the costs of prevention. For most on this forum, it appears to be a purchase they wouldn’t make. I would.

  198. Fran Tick says:

    ” Would the 36 lies MoB goes on to quote be just so many of those those multiple li(n)es of evidence we hear so much about ? ”

    Would you mean ‘ lines of evidence’ in the sense of ‘to spin a line’ then ?

    How can you be so dismissive of the alarmist’s cause ?

  199. Warren says:

    Mcclenney: yes, the earths climate has a roughly 100,000 temp cycle, punctuated by say 20,000 year warm spells. We’re in a warm spell, and in another 10,000 years or whatever, the earth will begin to cool again. The global AGW driven temp uptrend is superimposed on this 100,000 yr cycle. So the question is are you not expecting the two to be additive, leading to ever warmer global temperatures for the next 10000 years?

  200. M Simon says:

    M Courtney says:
    December 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    Although Lord Monckton’s implied association of socialism with immorality is questionable to say the least.

    Depends on who owns your labor. If you own your labor then the basis of socialism is theft. Funny that socialism bases its whole theory on labor and the self ownership of the same. But then takes that labor for the good of the collective. When dealing with the capitalists you at least have the option of making a better deal with a different capitalist. Assuming that you keep improving your ability to serve.

  201. M Simon says:

    Warren says:
    December 25, 2013 at 12:41 am

    The historical evidence is of roughly 10,000 year interglacials. We should do what we can to prevent the next ice age which will soon be upon us.

  202. Warren says:

    Richard, racook1978, and others: the odds of harmful climate change you cite are much lower than projected by the IPCC. If we were faced with 1 % probability, or 20%, this forum wouldn’t exist, nor would the IPCC. In the assessment of the IPCC, it’s far higher..more than 2 thirds I think..in any case much more than the 5% risk most of us have of a house fire for which we all buy homeowners insurance. The IPCC has estimated the GDP impact at 1% point each year for mitigation. I don’t know what they say the economic costs would be without mitigation. But the discussion I’ve been having is mainly about the validity of the science. Arguments about what to do, or the economic costs, have no bearing on the validity of the science,, one way or the other. Put another way, the atmosphere and it’s physics are not affected by our human worries about standard of living.

  203. mogamboguru says:

    Well, I, for one, would prefer NOT to mix science with religion in any way – because, to my mind, religion – that is: ANY religion – is the complete opposite of truth. (Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno would most certainly agree…)

    Anyway: FELIZ NAVIDAD!

  204. ralfellis says:

    Monkton:
    They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.
    the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.
    ___________________________________

    Sorry, Monk, I have had enough of your spiritual pontification on a science blog. How on earth can any rational and educated being believe that the Catholic Church cares one jot about the truth? How can anyone compare the lies of the Catholic Church to the truth of the scientific method?

    This Catholic ‘truth’ would be the same ‘truth’ that jailed Galileo, burned Bruno to death, slow-roasted Jaques de Molay to death, killed all the Templars, and massacred each and every Cathar in the Albigensian crusade. Sorry, Monk, where is the ‘truth’ in the Catholic Church denying real science and murdering 300,000 deeply spiritual people, who were no threat to anyone. What ‘truth’ demanded that the priests and bishops of Montsegur be burned to death in communal funerary pyres? Where was the ‘truth’ in Bishop Arnaud Amaury declaring of the people of Beziers: “Kill them all, God will know His own”. Which ‘truth’ would that be, Monk?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Montségur
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers

    The real truth of the Catholic Church, is that it always has been a ruthless power-base that took control of Europe as de-facto Emperors of Rome after the Western Roman Empire collapsed, and have ruled with an iron fist ever since.

    May I remind you that the Spanish Invasion of England was not King Phillip II of Spain vs Queen Elizabeth I of England – it was a crusade by Pope Sixtus vs a small heretic nation who demanded real truth instead of Catholic propaganda. Do you wish the Spanish Amara succeeded, Monk? Is that your view?

    Likewise, the Reformation of the 17th century was a bold stand by Holland and northern Europe against the power, greed, corruption and lies of the Catholic Church. And this was a bitter struggle that saw all the Huguenots massacred and exiled and 1/3 of the population of Germany exterminated, all in the pursuit of real truth rather than the political propaganda that masquerades as ‘truth’ within the Catholic Church. That is why every British monarch has to give an oath that they are not Catholic, to prevent the tyrants in Rome from ever taking power again.

    Oh, and a Merry Xmas to you, Monk.

    Ralph

  205. John Law says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    December 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” – Stephen Schneider

    “The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.”
    – Edmund Burke

    “Give me money that’s what I want” – The Beatles (and of course Al Gore)

    Wonderful writing from Christopher, though not particularly religious myself, it is clear to me, that without morality, there can be no real civilisation.

  206. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    The essence of science is intellectual honesty.

    I you don’t have honesty, either because the concept doesn’t exists in your vocabulary or because it has been watered down by reasons of expediency, then you can forget science.

  207. Txomin says:

    You are correct, dear Monckton. But climate bigotry is just one form of bigotry (note that I’m using here the dictionary definition of bigotry, that is, intolerance of differing opinions). The behavior is exhibited by sufferers of many other social maladies, from race or gender to obesity or tobacco. It is not that there is a lack of relevance or importance to any of these topics, it is that their ideation is one of utter (colloquial) imbecility. The climate “concern” is a bit more out there (who would have thought this would eventually matter 30 years ago) but no different in its realization than any other of the mainstream concerns. In short, our by-numbers collective intellect amounts to little. Climate talk simply makes our shortcomings more evident. Twenty years from now, the concern might be about quanta and whoever does not believe that “an unprecedented quantum shift is about to happen” will be the new pariah.

  208. ralfellis says:

    Oh, and if anyone is wondering why we use the term ‘Xmas’, it is because the term ‘Christ’ in Christ-mas is very non-specific.

    Kings Saul, David and Solomon were all called the messiah in the Tanakh, as was Cyrus the Great of Persia. And ‘messiah’ is translated in the Vulgate Bible as ‘christ’, because both ‘messiah’ and ‘christ’ simply means ‘king’ or even ‘priest-king’ (the anointed priest-king of Judaea) in the Aramaic and Greek respectively.

    Thus Christmas actually means Kingmas, and does not clearly define which king is intended. Perhaps the Catholic Church is actually honoring Cyrus the Great, who knows. Thus the X in Xmas underlines the fact that we don’t know who on earth this 1st century priest-king really was, because he does not appear in any historical record.

    (By the way, the Testimonium Flavium is a fake interpolation inserted by the ever-deceitful Church chronicler Eusebius, who was greatly peeved at not being able to find Jesus anywhere in Josephus Flavius’ long and detailed history of 1st century Judaea. This is just one in a long chronicle of deceits by the Catholic Church, designed to prop up their crumbling empire of deceit.)

    Ralph

  209. bobl says:

    Firstly, I was very remiss in missing Christmas wishes to the Mods

    @ Warren,
    You have arrived on a science site, WUWT is not really an opinion site. The people here generally have good scientific reason for believing CO2 warming is overstated. I think maybe a grounding in why people interested in science are sceptical of Climate Change is in order. So here’s why I don’t agree. I can’t speak for anyone else because we are free thinkers here.

    Firstly there is scale, the warming is supposed to be caused by a radiative imbalance of 0.6 +/- 17 Watts (Hansen)- let’s ignore for the moment that the error margin is two orders of magnitude greater than the value – Meaning that this value is accurate to zero significant digits. The average incoming radiation at midday each day at the equator is about a killowatt, about 1700 tines the imbalance. On average it’s something like 600 times the imbalance averaged over a 24 hour period. As a reference 0.6W is about the energy emitted by an incandescent christmas light, you know like an icicle light. This 0.6W added warming acts in the lower atmosphere from the surface to the troposphere, a height of lets say 3 Km (base of the lower level cloud) probably more like 10 km on a clear day. So you have a Christmas light in a column of air of say 3000 Cubic Meters (1x1x3000) that has 600 times that energy of that christmas light flowing through it every day, modulated up to 30% or more by cloud, or season or dust. or leaves blowing across it that is free to convect, radiate, conduct and otherwise transform that energy, and you are anticipating that this christmas light will consistently and measurably warm the atmosphere in this column by 4 degrees by the end of the century. It a christmas light per square meter ! It’s very very small compared to the natural sources of energy dissipated every day, some 0.06% of the peak energy flow

    2. Science tells us that the all cause warming due to the atmosphere retarding heat transfer, and the gas law PV=nRT, warms the earth through all causes by 33 Degrees. Now Let’s just suppose we say that all 33 degrees warming is caused by CO2, we know it isn’t but let’s suppose. Energy absorbtion in the CO2 band is 85% (The atmosphere is 85% opaque at these frequencies) so let’s compute what would happen if we let this get to 100% opaque (IE Earth had a CO2 Atmosphere like Venus but limited to 1 atm). Weel use a relationship that will overestimate this (let’s be conservative), let’s presume that the increase in temperature is linear (It’s not, both CO2 and most forms of feedback are logarithmic, but assuming linearity will give us a temperature above the limits of what could happen). The increase possible is 15% against 85% or about 17%. 17% of 33 degrees is 5.61 Degrees, so if earth was venus and we had a CO2 atmosphere at 1 atmosphere pressure the rise would be only 5.6 degrees and earth would still be habitable temperature wise though you would find breathing difficult ;-). (Venus is hot because it has an atmosphere of almost 100 earth atmospheres – 100 times as dense as ours). This includes all feedbacks, since the 33 degrees we extrapolated from incorporates feedbacks, and we know that most of the warming across the atmosphere is due to the lapse rate (dependent on gravity). Actual warming for a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere is strictly less than this (a lot less). The IPCC projection for this scenario is anything up to 78 degrees C ( Unrealistic, earth’s history has never seen this sort of scenario for any CO2 density in the past) and it does not tally with the magnitude of the greenhouse effect to date (EG 33 degrees as 85% absorbtion). The IPCC would only be consistent with the all cause atmospheric warming so far for sensitivities below about 0.5 degrees per doubling

    3. Lets look at that amplification, the IPCC says the direct warming of CO2 is multiplied by a factor of 3 to reach a final value of about 3.3 degrees per doubling (Central estimate). But lets look what has actually happened, lets use a convenient point for warming from the end of the little ice age Scientists say the CO2 level then was about 270PPM, Now its about 400. The effect of CO2 on temperature follows a log law. You can write this as
    Delta T = C x ln( CO2/co2) we know some numbers from our scenario.
    Delta T is about 0.7 at this point
    CO2 is about 400
    co2 is about 270

    From this you can find the constant multiplier empircally
    0.7 = C x ln(400/270)
    or C=delta T /ln(400/270)
    = 0.7/0.39 = 1.79

    So now we know the constant for this relation. Let’s look at the doubling of warming then from 270 PPM to 560 PPM

    delta T (doubling) = C x ln (540/270)
    delta T (doubling) = 1.79 x ln (2)
    delta T (doubling) = 1.79 x 0.69
    = 1.24 degrees for a doubling of CO2
    Conclusion, if we attribute all warming since the little ice age to CO2 rise since the LIA we can only demostrate climate sensitivity of 1.3 Degrees per doubling at best, yet the IPCC models claim 3, 4 or more, the previous Australian Government tried to claim 6?

    There is more.

    For example when you look at the detail of feedback mechanisms, you encounter the fact that negative feedback reduces the impact of CO2 by a factor of 5. To produce the IPCCs nett amplification of 3 there must be positive feedbacks amounting to 15 times, five times to bring it back to equity and three times more. this requires a loop gain in the positive feedbacks of more than 0.95. Furthermore the individual mechanisms, lapse rate, radiation, convection, transformation, conduction etc, to oceans, rocks, evaporation etc are not time correlated, they have different lags, so you have a myriad non time correlated feedbacks with variable lags with a positive feedback component with a loop gain of 0.95. Such a system is highly oscillatory when perturbed, the climate is not. The Nett gain of 3 (all things considered is implausible – actually I’d say impossible).

    Finally
    What is (40 – 0) / 2 = (20) (Melbourne approx temperature range and average)
    What is (32-22)/2 = (27) (Kalimantan approximate temperature range and average)

    Which climate is hotter
    Which climate is more extreme
    Which climate is more habitable, by more creatures, tropical Kalimantan, or mediterranean Melboune. ( That is what 7 degrees of warming does, it lowers the max, and raises the mins)
    On Earth as average temperature rises, temperature extremes fall

    That’s enough for now, as you see, any which way you look at it, a climate sensitivity of more than about 1.5 is highly implausible along several lines of calculation and the mesurements themselves only support values between about 0.5 and 1.3 degrees per doubling, with a higher liklihood at the lower end, this is just math. This is why I am a sceptic, these things don’t add up, and I will not believe the models until these things can be explained that has never been done.

    Other peoples opinion is not enough around here, you have to argue the real science with math and examples. If you stick around you will learn more

  210. Gail Combs says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Chad: No, my 99% refers to multiple peer reviewed counts of tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers that support AGW, not to a poll of scientists….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well that is very easy to achieve if the only way you can get a peer reviewed paper published is to say in the paper you agree with AGW even when your results have nothing to do with AGW. For several years I have been calling it the get out of jail free card because it is so darn obvious in so many papers. Heck even the news media practices blatant censorship at the urging of the same set of people as Los Angeles Times and Reddit and the BBC (with explanation) show.

    {Note: Professor J. Scott Armstrong who wrote the first article on Los Angeles Times censorship, has written papers on peer review and communicating science.}

    Here is the response of ‘Climate scientists’ (and I use that term very loosely) to a paper they do not like.
    email 2683, from 12 April 2003…

    Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to. Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor. So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).

    I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.

    This is from Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review a long essay detailing the corruption of peer review in response to the claims the e-mails are are being taken out of context.

    The post here is a follow-up from my last post on some Climategate 2 emails, which I have tied together into a kind of narrative. Why should you read this? It is very simple. There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal ‘to and fro’ of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.

    This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.

    What to me is even worse is the corruption, like a cancer has spread throughout the scientific establishment to the point where papers like How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data and stories like US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds are now being published. The first paper reports “… surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices….” I find that truly SAD, and it brings us back to exactly what Lord Monckton is talking about Honesty and Integrity are now missing in science academia.

  211. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 25, 2013 at 12:16 am
    Davidmhoffer: you’re reading my post exactly backwards. I said the models do NOT predict regional climate trends. And you have not directed me to any specific finding in the 5th Assessment that says the models have not predicted the 20 century uptick in temperature trend. . I cite Professor Wolfson
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You charged in here shouting about how obvious the science is and how 99% of scientists agree. When challenged to discuss the science, all you could muster is a reference to a video by Wolfson. When pointed out to you what the IPCC AR reports said, you didn’t know what an AR report was. Having explained that to you, and that they don’t say what you claim 99% of the scientists say, you babbled something about you should have made your claim in regard to regional results from models. Challenged on that, you now claim that’s not what you meant. Having been presented with evidence directly from the IPCC showing that even they present evidence that a child could understand that the models predict more warming than it actually happening, you state that you cannot see it and refer again to a video by Wolfson rather than discuss the plain facts before you.

    You understand neither the science nor what the scientists have said. You think yourself an expert because you saw one video. When presented with contrary evidence, you splutter about the video. You are just a poser.

  212. eyesonu says:

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, sir, that excellent essay covered a lot of bases. To provoke thought by the readers would be an understatement. Thank you.

  213. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Trustworthiness is the foundation of all virtue. It’s closest relative is truthfulness which is the trustworthy spoken word.

    Atheism is not the ‘religion of irreligion’ it once was, having, like true religion, suffered from the dead hand of priestcraft. There is little agreement in what it is in which atheists do not believe. It has become an argument between several shadows about which light they reject.

    Coming as this essay does on about the day of the passing from this this ball of dust, this mortal phase, of Mr Kalashnikov, the unrepentant, nay, proud inventor of the most accessible, the most deadly, the cheapest weapon ever created enabling man to kill, main, terrorize and debase all human virtue with the least input of skill or muscle, it is certainly time, is it not, to reconsider what science becomes when decoupled from the very purpose of Creation.

    There is only one Creation therefore there is only one Creator. Knowledge of Him permeates the densest of jungles with each of us having access enough to one or another of the principles of at least one stage of Revelation to know the difference between right and wrong, truth and untruth.

    Whether or not one accepts the decisions of men at the Council of Nicea or “all things done at Chalcedon” (where the second 4th General Council took place) we should, given our intelligence and independent capacity for thought, have the presence of mind not to blame the Founders for the behaviour of their followers.

    Bearing that admonition in mind, consider the moral challenge of the hideous and expensive lie that is the CAGW movement. As recently as last week and not for the first time, I was counselled not to fully reveal my knowledge of a scientific matter lest funding for its alleviation diminish. The challenge, the moral challenge, is deciding how to deal with the world as we find it. Shall we all navigate the shark infested waters of life rudderless and drifting with the tide? Shall our cant and destination be dictated by the whim of the wind? Does it matter not which path we take as long as the journey is an easy descent?

    Consider the choices of the inventor of the ‘shaped charge’ (an artillery shell). He was expounding on the efficiency of this weapon to Sir Abbas Effendi, the holy man from Palestine, who asked if it was a worthy endeavour to seek efficiency in the killing of men. The inventor responded with a comment to the effect that “more people died in preventable accidents in the home” than because of warfare. His reply? “War is the most preventable accident.”

    The outrages against science and morality that are the fatuous, alarmist and devious claims of the “CO2 is going to kill us all” movement constitute one of the most “preventable accidents” of our generation. Political and economic groupings seek advantage at every turn of the AGW worm hoping its castings will fertilise the murk in their hearts if not wallets. Feel good; pay now.

    “In the soil of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love.”

    Truth is love manifested. Make this day a celebration of that love.

  214. amoorhouse says:

    My Xmas message to the warmists is:

    How does it feel to have a massive inanimate rock speeding through space laugh at your intellect?

    Wassail!

  215. phlogiston says:

    If falsehood had, like truth, but one face only, we should be upon better terms; for we should then take for certain the contrary to what the liar says: but the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand forms, and a field indefinite, without bound or limit. The Pythagoreans make good to be certain and finite, and evil, infinite and uncertain. There are a thousand ways to miss the white, there is only one to hit it.

    Michel de Montaigne, “Of Liars”

    I thought this quote would chime with Lord Monckton’s classical-rooted thoughts on the unity of truth.

    Monkton’s eloquent scourging of the scientific, media and political classes’ mendacity and complicity in dishonesty is of course entertaining and reassuring to us skeptics. And it is fair and justified. Monkton skillfully walks a tight-rope here of sincere engagement of religion without crossing into the dismal territory of patronising proselytism.

    But even in regard to Christian (and other) religions, something is not quite right. The quote by Christ in the gospels comes to mind: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. and another, Judge not that you may not be judged.

    The point is not the rightness of Monkton’s accusations. Another, non-biblical phrase that is pertinent here is “crapping in your own bath”. There are mature and immature human societies. Mature societies develop effective, if unofficial, methods of obtaining consensus; immature societies by contrast are locked in endless bitter polarised confrontation, each side spewing endless narrative of the rightness of their cause. In the long term there is a tendency for societies to mature as there is for imperially dominaing cultures to become subversively civilized by the cultures that they dominate (e.g. most popular dish in England now being curry).

    We are self-righteously accusing practically the whole world of being in an evil conspiracy, OK, and disturbingly there may be substance to this. But think of it this way. Hypothetically, what if we won the climate argument tomorrow. The world’s political leaders and scientific and media opinion-leaders all announced in unison the utter and final falsehood of the CAGW argument. What next? Here are some options as to what might follow:
    1. Climate science ends, it’s settled, nothing more to discover, everyone goes home.

    2. Like good Christians we hark back to Noah’s ark and aim to wipe out all life connected with CAGW and start a new society with “breeding couples” of sound skeptics;

    3. Or, maybe, life goes on. Climate science looks more widely at the mysteries of atmosphere and ocean. Some of us here might be in a position to take part in this, alongside the massed ranks of former AGW believers who just days before we were having such fun abusing and ridiculing.

    Lets maybe take a hint from Nelson Mandela. Society might work better if we find ways to work with former enemies, rather than try to replace them.

  216. donald penman says:

    Climate science does not seem very keen on answering the question about Agw that they raise,they are content with the idea that it might be happening, all the things that global warming might/might not cause IF global warming is/is not happening is regarded as evidence for global warming.In reality there is no real evidence that the earth is being catapaulted into a hot house earth by co2 ,we still have polar icecaps at both poles and it gets cold in winter and warm in the summer at higher lattitudes, untill we see changes there it is unlikely that the climate is sensitive to co2 warming it might be more sensitive to global cooling as we may find out in the next few years.

  217. cynical_scientist says:

    Religion is not the source of morality. We do not exist in a moral vacuum where we might or might not think certain things are bad and are totally dependent on a priest to set us straight on the matter.

    Readers of the “Wicked bible” of 1631 which contained the misprint “thou shalt commit adultery” did not shrug their shoulders and say “well if that’s what God wants” and rush out to have sex with the neighbours wife.

    Owners of a copy of the “wife beaters bible” of 1531 which contains the erroneous footnote “And if she be not obediente and healpeful unto hym, endevoureth to beate the fere of God into her heade, that thereby she may be compelled to learne her dutye and do it.” did not because of this believe that they had a moral duty to beat their wives. At least I hope they did not.

    Readers of the “unrighteous bible” of 1651 which contains the misprint “Know ye that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” didn’t suddenly think it was right to be wrong and wrong to be right. Nor did those with a copy of the “Sin On” bible of 1716 which contains the instruction “Go and sin on more” rush out to do do what they were told.

    More seriously I assert that one can be a very moral person and also an atheist. Indeed as an atheist I tend to distrust the morality of the excessively religious. The excessively religious have a tendency to stop considering and thinking about moral questions replacing their inherent moral responsibility with a mindless adherence to instructions from a priest or religious leader. This can and has lead to great evils being done in the name of religion.

  218. negrum says:

    I agree with most of Lord Monckton’s conclusions and goals, but not his premises, something which I think is possible, since this is not a strictly scientific or logical discussion.

    I feel that the statement: ” .. the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth. ” is misleading and irrelevant. The aims of different philosophies and approaches is not as important as the methods by which those aims are pursued. Otherwise it is too easy to fall into the trap of noble corruption.

    Religion seems to involve a certain amount of formalised self deception called faith/belief (I use the words interchangebly) which is subjective, and cannot be equated with a scientific approach where it doesn’t matter what you believe or want: testable facts should always trump beliefs and the absence of testable facts is not the validation of a theory. Obviously not lying is a prerequisite for the scientific approach and wishful thinking is not advised :) At most I would classify the various religions as tentative hypotheses, awaiting further investigation.

    Human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser degree, which makes the scientific search for truth particularly difficult, due to the amount of self-discipline required.Various scientific institutions recognise this and follow procedures to ensure that deception (including self-deception) is minimised.The field of climatology as a whole seems to have neglected the basic scientific procedures so badly that it starts to present itself as a religion.

    I think one of the reasons that climatology has become so popular is that religions – especially Western ones – seem not be coping that well with the advent of the internet. Easily available opposing views contribute to people abandoning their faith in search of something better – hence most churches’ strong views on heretics. Since those who stray from the true faith usually still retain a desire for a system where doubt or skeptisism is not an integral part of the thought process, they are easy prey for the first pseudo-scientific organisation they encounter.

    I disagree most strongly with the concept that religion is a prerequisite for morality (which seems to be an accepted synonym for “good”.) Part of the problem in the discussion is the definition of morality, which seems to arise mostly from subjective judgement and varies widely depending on the organisation and the person.

    What I find the most useful is where religious and non-religious can find common ground and can discuss sensitive issues in a reasonable manner. With some exceptions, this blog seems to be one of those few places, with the credit going to the author and the moderators.

  219. Many thanks to the numerous commenters who have been kind enough to join in our seasonal philosophical discussion. Some responses, if I may.

    I’m delighted that Paul767 has referred to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, a magnificent author who ought to be compulsory reading for every Socialist.

    I’m also delighted that RoHa meet Anthony Flew. I, too met him and admired him, for he was a genuine seeker after truth, and an always refreshing philosopher. His movement towards the notion that God exists was an illustration of his intellectual honesty (though scientifically one might disagree with him as to whether the Big Bang had a cause at all: that is something we shall never know).

    Roha, supported by Mr. Dewhurst, rightly points out that religion is not essential to morality. Be that as it may, morality is essential to science, for otherwise scientists might all behave like the tiny handful who have fabricated the climate scare.

    Roha, supported by Martin A, takes me to task for using the past participle “gotten”. That, like “driven” and “sunken”, is one of our vigorous Germanic strong-verb usages and it is a shame it has become lost in the Old Country.

    “Andud” seems wilfully to misunderstand the head posting by suggesting that I had suggested Jesus the Nazarene had created the universe 2000 years ago. No, I did not put a date on that, though He took human form (as a Nazarene) 2000 years ago. The best science at present seems to suggest that the universe winked into being 13.82 billion years ago. This is deduced from the anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation, though I cannot give a clear account of how it was done or whether the answer is right.

    Then, sadly, we have the trolls.

    The furtively pseudonymous “climateace” lists the nonsense on my Wikipedia bio, complaining that I have said I can cure various diseases. No, I have said I am researching a possible cure for various infectious diseases. I only said that much so that potential patients could come forward. Several of them are now better, so researches continue. Does “climateace” really wish that these cures had not taken place?

    “Climateace” also parrots Wikipedia’s assertion that I said I had a Nobel Peace Prize (much as Michael Mann said he had one, until the UN told him not to). No, I have not said that. I have told the story of how Professor David Douglass of Rochester University, New York, presented me some years back with a Nobel Prize pin made from gold recovered from a physics experiment 30 years previously, after I had given a lecture on climate sensitivity to his faculty. He said I ought to be recognized because I had had a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC corrected. This, therefore, was what is known as A Joke – a concept with which most trolls are unfamiliar.

    Mosher, in characteristically unconstructive form, incorrectly accuses me of having misquoted Keats, and adds that “the truth of science is contingent”. Contingent upon what, he does not say.

    Abbott talks of my “extreme prejudice”: but, by now, it should be clear that I take a scientific and not an aprioristic position. I may be right or wrong, but, unlike the trolls, I do not simply follow the Party Line because I am told there is a “consensus” about it.

    Talking of which, “Warren” says 99.8% of scientific papers “support” anthropogenic global warming. Well, I support it myself. If there were more of it, the world would be a more prosperous place. It is cold that is the killer, as we discovered in a recent winter here in the UK, when there were 31,000 excess deaths in a single month because it was so cold. No headlines, of course: deaths from cold don’t fit the Party Line.

    “Warren” is exactly the sort of true-believer at whom the head posting was directed. He has not the slightest regard for what is objectively true., Instead, he cites “Naomi Orestes” as having said there was a “consensus”. One supposes he means “Naomi Oreskes”. However, the most comprehensive survey of scientific papers on climate ever conducted was by Cook et al. (2013), who claimed that 97.1% of 11,944 papers published since 1991 supported the “consensus” that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. The paper in fact demonstrated that only 0.3% of those 11,944 papers supported the “consensus” thus defined, as Legates et al. (2013) pointed out.

    “Warren” says he will only take me seriously when I publish a peer-reviewed paper (though, curiously, he and others who say that do not seem to wish to hold Al Gore, for instance, to the same standard). However, if he will read Legates et al. he will find that I was one of the co-authors. It will be interesting to know whether he continues to adhere to his belief system when he realizes that he is not in the company of 99.8% of scientists publishing in the field, but only 0.3%.

    Likewise “Warren’s” assertion that the IPCC’s “90% confidence” in its findings is impressive displays a fundamental ignorance of statistics on his part. There is no dataset on the basis of which any such confidence interval could have been determined. In short, it is fictitious, as was the previous report’s “65% confidence” and the latest report’s “95% confidence”.

    I have had several peer-reviewed papers published. If “Warren” got his science from the reviewed literature rather than from Greenpeace, he might have come across some of them. He might, for instance, like to read my paper Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?, published in August this year in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Erice Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, where I examine whether he would be justified in taking out precautionary insurance against future global warming. The answer, based on the IPCC’s and Stern’s own mainstream analyses, is that it is 1-2 orders of magnitude costlier to act today than to adapt the day after tomorrow. One cannot, as “Warren” and Stern claim, make global warming go away at an annual cost of 1% of GDP. Most mitigation measures cost 20-80% of GDP, while doing nothing, according to Stern, costs about 1% of GDP (or 3% at most, if the warming this century does not exceed 3 K). Since there has been no warming yet this century, and we are one-seventh of the way through it, we could see as little as 1 K warming by 2100, in which event all efforts at mitigation are infinitely more expensive than the do-nothing option.

    He may also like to read my earlier paper for the Annual Proceedings, published in 2011, in which I demonstrated that most of the global warming from 1983-2001 was caused by a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover (Pinker et al., 2005). So “Warren’s” statement that most of the warming in the 20th century was manmade may not be true, as several papers in the learned literature (including mine) attest. And there is certainly no scientific basis for his assertion that physics dictates that most of the warming must have been caused by us. That is another instance of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, arguing from ignorance. We don’t know why the warming occurred, but if Pinker is right (and Dr. Joseph Boston kindly reanalysed her data for me to make sure she was) then most of the warming was probably of natural origin.

    Next, “Warren” makes the strange assertion that I had said tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers were wrong. I had made no such assertion. Far fewer papers than he may realize suggest that global warming may prove catastrophic. Of the 64 papers marked by Cook et al. as supporting the IPCC’s version of “consensus” to the effect that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade, only one said warming might prove catastrophic.

    Finally, “Warren” asserts that I believe in the existence of a global “conspiracy” among scientists. No: I had explicitly stated that there is indeed a small group – we all know who most of them are – who for political and financial motives have been making up bad science and getting it published in acquiescent journals. The real problem is that, once the political class had taken up the issue, the remainder of the scientific community stood by and allowed the lies to continue to be told – again for political and financial reasons. That is not a conspiracy: it is the herd instinct of the hive mind that so much of academe has become – a hive mind of which “Warren” seems to be a part.

    Let us hope “Warren” has learned from his experience here that mere assertions of religious belief in the New Superstition are not enough. He must back his claims with proper, peer-reviewed evidence. That excludes tendentious lecture series, and it excludes the documents of the IPCC, which are not peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. The morality taught by my own religion requires that science be a genuine search for truth, which is why those who have tried to assert that science is “amoral” are not quite right. The search for scientific truth is a moral process, in that it requires scrupulous intellectual honesty of the scientist. Scientists like the small and malevolent band who have made up scientific results and claimed certainty where none can exist are not intellectually honest; their work is immoral; and their conclusions, because their work is immoral, are valueless.

  220. Daniel H says:

    I normally enjoy Lord Monckton’s commentaries but this one was sad and disappointing. Was it really necessary to conflate religious “truth” with scientific inquiry? I mean, yeah I realize it’s Christmas and Christmas is obviously a religious holiday, but we get enough of the faith-based science from the AGW crowd. Faith is not the same thing as truth. It’s belief in something without evidence and that’s actually what the problem is, right? And just how big of a problem is it? Here is an excerpt from a 2011 working group study by the Pontifical Academy of Science — the official “science” wing of the faith-based Vatican:

    We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life. We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.

    http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/glaciers.pdf

    So much for the church and “truth”…

    Does this mean that Lord Monckton only derives truth from the Catholic Church when it’s convenient? Someone please clarify because I must be confused.

    Oh, and Happy Winter Solstice :-)

  221. Gail Combs says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    James Abbott: a little snarky at the end, but generally well put. Unfortunately the scientific near consensus is not matched by a consensus among voters, who seem unlikely to accept policy measures until we (or more accurately, our grandchildren) reach the point ( or temperature) of deep regret.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You mean the coming Ice Age?
    From the Peer Reviewed Papers you believe in:

    A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records

    We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,… Despite a conservative tuning strategy, the LR04 benthic stack exhibits significant coherency with insolation in the obliquity band throughout the entire 5.3 Myr and in the precession band for more than half of the record. The LR04 stack contains significantly more variance in benthic d18O than previously published stacks of the late Pleistocene as the result of higher- resolution records, a better alignment technique, and a greater percentage of records from the Atlantic. Finally, the relative phases of the stack’s 41- and 23-kyr components suggest that the precession component of d18O from 2.7–1.6 Ma is primarily a deep-water temperature signal and that the phase of d18O precession response changed suddenly at 1.6 Ma.

    page 9
    Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250– 650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence .

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
    ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments
    ….As summer insolation declined through the late Holocene, summer temperatures cooled and the local ice sheet margin expanded. Gradual, insolation-driven millennial-scale temperature trends in the study area were punctuated by several abrupt climate changes, including a major transient event recorded in all five lakes between 4.3 and 3.2 ka, which overlaps in timing with abrupt climate changes previously documented around the North Atlantic region and farther afield at ∼4.2 ka…..

    (These are the Bond events also seen during glaciation as Dansgaard-Oeschger events every 1200 to 1500 years)

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

    A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.

    A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier

    …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

    The authors of BOTH papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.

    MORE:

    Abstract
    …..We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer……
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

    Abstract
    …..Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean……
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

    And finally. As reported in Nature Geosciences, “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum,” Celia Martin-Puertas et al. took a meticulous look at annual sediment deposits in a German lake from 3,300 to 2,000 years ago. They analyzed the sediment layers—called varve—carefully measuring proxies for solar irradiance. This is what they found and their major conclusion:

    Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
    Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

    Even NASA agrees the sun has gone quiet: “It’s the smallest maximum we’ve seen in the Space Age,” David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., told reporters in a teleconference. and NASA: Deep Solar Minimum and NASA: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

    And so does SpaceDaily: (SPX) Aug 09, 2013: Looming weak solar max may herald frosty times
    It is amusing to see the story includes the usual AGW non sequitur (get out of jail free card) I laugh about:

    While there is no certainty that the Little Ice Age was caused primarily by the decreased solar activity, a link does exist. If the next solar cycles are even quieter that the current one, and a cooling takes place, it may counteract the global warming trend over the next few decades.

    When you look at CAGW in relation to the entire Holocene the politicized panic is really laughable. Carbon Dioxide is a plant food and if we are really really lucky it might keep us out of the next major ice age but I doubt it. The real take away from a study of ‘Climate Change’ and such is burning coal will stave off the extinction of C3 plants (our main food source) for a bit longer. SEE: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

  222. markstoval says:

    I enjoyed the essay, especially since I have come to the conclusion that truth is the most important thing. Human existence requires cooperation and we must have trust to cooperate fully. This requires truth.

    I see our atheist friends are whining about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. They mention evils committed when the Church was, in effect, the government in Europe. Yet for some odd reason they fail to mention the horrors committed by governments all around the world throughout history. (is this the Jim Hansen school of argumentation?) They fail to mention that the root evil has always been the state itself.

    The question of “God” does not get answered by how believers have acted when they were organized and had power over others. Gandhi is reputed to have observed he liked Christianity but did not care so much for the Christians.

    The eternal question man asks is “how did all this get here”?!? How did matter come to be in the first place? The atheist says it all happened by “accident”. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary what a weak argument. The agnostic says, “don’t know”. That is much better.

    Me? A Taoist. Do Taoists believe in God? I read someplace “Taoism offers the option to skip the comparison. This question is irrelevant. God could or could not exist, and either state doesn’t change the way we lead our lives. Our lives are expressions of action between ourselves and the universe. To respect our surrounding environment is a furthering of respect to ourselves. This manner of living doesn’t change regardless of the nature of God or the Tao.” … A Taoist doesn’t think the Tao is before, after or is even equal to God. The Tao is a concept to describe something that goes beyond our capability to define. Taoism leaves the Tao undefined and a Taoist happily explores the wonder that opens up as a result.

    I find most atheists to be intolerant in exactly the same way that many “believers” are intolerant. Shame on both sides when they do that sort of thing. I think that studying philosophical Taoism would help many of our atheist friends get a grip on life to where they also could say …

    Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night

    :-)

  223. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    I don’t do religion myself. But a merry Christmas to you all anyway.

  224. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    The Mandlebrot fractal blows my mind.

  225. Daniel H has wilfully misunderstood the head posting. The only sense in which I have “conflated” religion and science is in pointing out that belief in catastrophic global warming, for which there is precious little scientific evidence, has the character of a quasi-religious superstition and not of science. My main point was that true religion, however inadequately and imperfectly, insists upon morality and, therefore, intellectual honesty.

    As for the Pontifical Academy of Sciencies, I had lunch at the Academy with its Prefect a couple of years ago, and tried to suggest to him that it was not the place of the Church to fall into the trap of making mere fashion statements about global warming (in which he is a true-believer of the worst kind). However, neither I nor the eminent scientists present were able to make a dent in his belief system. He was unable to adduce anything resembling a scientific argument.

    The Church, therefore, has gotten its science wrong yet again. Fortunately, few will recall the Pontifical Academy’s pointless and asinine pontification on this subject, for it will be submerged in the thousands of other flatulent, half-baked, me-too statements churned out by the world’s governing class. I shall add it to my collection of official idiocies on the subject. Sub specie aeternitatis, the Prefect of the Pontifical Academy will be proven wrong. Fortunately, his expatiations on this or any other subject are not de fide. We are free to ignore them, as almost everyone is ignoring his pietistic but scientifically meaningless statement on global warming.

    I do not assert that everything the Church says on science (or, as here, on politics masquerading as science) is true: nor am I obliged to believe any such thing. But science without morality is mere politics. Whether morality springs from religion or simply from an appreciation of the natural law on the part of a good soul, it is essential to the proper functioning of genuine, independent, disinterested scientific enquiry. The pedlars of the global warming scare have acted immorally in dressing up politics as though it were science. The world is already beginning to laugh at them. If the scare has any useful purpose, it is in reminding the people that when the classe politique expresses the greatest certainty that a thing is so there is the greatest probability that it is not so.

  226. Mindert Eiting says:

    ‘Davidmhoffer wrote (yesterday, 8:34 pm): ‘ Every last model prediction, all 22 models, and all the predictions from all the models, have failed’.
    .
    In the long run perhaps all our models fail but some fail more miserably than others. If you take an exam of two-choice items, you may have about one half wrong if you don’t know anything. A miserable failure is to have all items wrong. That may sometimes happen by chance or because you misunderstood the instruction, but it almost always means that you have pertinent false knowledge in stead of just ignorance.

  227. ferdberple says:

    Warren says:
    December 25, 2013 at 12:28 am
    Ferdperple: your concept of insurance is sure different than the insurance one buys for the risk of one’s house burning down. It does not promise to repay you, Unless your home burns down.
    =============
    Who is going to repay you or your descendants if you pay your carbon tax, but temperatures rise anyways?

    You mistake is to assume that by taking out insurance, this will prevent your house from burning down. But this is a false assumption, which we can see through common sense. Insurance does not prevent your house from burning down.

    You make the same assumption about carbon taxes. That by paying the tax you can prevent warming. However, there is no guarantee this will happen. No one will refund your taxes if the warming takes place anyways.

    In this fashion carbon taxes are not at all like insurance. Instead they are payment for a promise, with no hope of recovery if the promise is not delivered. This is the standard operating procedure for the most common form of confidence swindle. Trading money for a promise never delivered.

  228. pax says:

    To paraphrase my teacher’s comment on my less than enthusiastic school performance: The good mixed with the deeply disturbing.

  229. Solomon Green says:

    I feel sorry for Warren. I am sure that if he had posted on another site he would have had much support. He is wrong but I admire his courage. I am surprised though that he has been allowed to get away with this statement “Five independent studies concluded that the Climategate Controversy was without foundation…and that there was no substance to the claims against the Scientists.”

    Lord Oxburgh, who chaired the main investigation was never independent. At the time he was chairman of the UK branch of Falck Renewables, a wind energy firm. He is currently a non-executive Director, Green Energy Options Ltd (GEO) (energy monitors to manage domestic energy consumption), President of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association and gives occasional professional advice to Climate Change Capital. His conflict of interest was such that he should never have accepted the appointment to chair the investigation. His careful selection of the evidence supporting his pre-determined conclusion has been widely criticised on other blogs.

    The following recent finding by a committee of the House of Lords might also have escaped Warren’s notice:

    “THE CONDUCT OF LORD OXBURGH
    1. The Committee has considered reports by the Sub-Committee on Lords’
    Conduct and the Commissioner for Standards on the conduct of Lord
    Oxburgh (annexed to this report). The reports arise out of a complaint,
    received on 1 July 2013, alleging that Lord Oxburgh breached the Code of
    Conduct by not registering in the Register of Lords’ Interests his position on
    the advisory board of the Real Asset Energy Fund, a fund which invests in
    renewable energy power plants.
    2. The Commissioner concluded that Lord Oxburgh had breached the Code of
    Conduct, but that the breach was minor and could be dealt with by way of
    remedial action, which Lord Oxburgh has now taken.
    3. The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, to which, in accordance with the
    Guide to the Code of Conduct, the Commissioner presents his reports, has
    accepted the Commissioner’s conclusion and the remedial action by Lord
    Oxburgh.”

    Happy Christmas to Warren and congratulations to the noble lord in having sparked off so many comments in so short a time with a single blog.

  230. Samuel C Cogar says:

    (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD) said:

    Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.

  231. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer: you continue to make false claims about what I said, which seems to be the basis for all your rants. First, you continue To say I said the models were accurate at the regional level. I never said that anywhere, and several times have said that they are indeed not accurate regionally, yet you continue to repeat that falsehood. 2nd you said I did not know what the assessment reports were. I certainly do and did, and have read them…I simply didn’t recall what The term AR meant. You (not so nicely) reminded me when I asked. And third, you continue to claim that the IPCC doesn’t show models confirming the uptick in 20th cent temps. Show me exactly where that occurs in the IPCC reports please…I gave you my science reference that repeats the IPCC graphs that show this.

  232. Warren says:

    Bobl: you state that the site is science, not opinion, yet there is much of that is everywhere. Returning to the science, you state that co2 in the atmosphere has negative feedback. That is incorrect. The physics are this: co2 increases as temp increases in the Atmosphere, due to increased releases from the oceans. Increased CO2 increases the global warming effect in turn. So increased CO2 is both a cause and effect of increased atmospheric temperature, a classic positive feedback. This can be found in any science book dealing with The physics of Climate Change. This positive feedback, and the positive feedback of the albedo effect, and the positive feedback effect of water vapor, more than offset the negative feedback effects and provide a net positive climate sensitivity to Co2 increases.

  233. Jim Cripwell says:

    If I may be permitted to comment on the discussion between Warren and others. CAGW is a very viable hypothesis. There are all sorts of reasons to believe it could be true. There is no science to prove that it is wrong. People like Warren are very capable of writing about all the signs that CAGW is real. And he is correct.

    HOWEVER, and there is always a however, however, there is no empirical data that allows us to actually measure the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, as it relates to the CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels. Once one realises that this empirical data does not exist, it follows, with all the inevitability of the inevitable, the CAGW will remain merely a hypothesis into the indefinite future. This conclusion is, of course, an anathema for people like Warren and Steven Mosher.

    So the warmists will NEVER agree that the climate sensitivity of CO2 has not been measured; and probably cannot be measured. And, to me, that is the key issue in this discussion . It goes to the heart of the claims by the warmists like Warren and Steven Mosher, that CAGW is an indisputable fact. It is not.

  234. Gail Combs says:

    davidmhoffer says: @ December 24, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    ….. Does my citing Lovelock negate your cite of Mu[e]ller?
    Ahah, yes Muller, an excellent example of the problem Lord Monckton is writing about.

    “I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011

    “If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008

    “There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006

    “Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003″

    From his consulting firm, Muller & Assoc.:
    “…Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.

    We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable…
    and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well.

    GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start. “

    Perhaps having a Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” as a Muller and Assoc as a member og the ‘Team’ might have something to do with all of Muller’s publicity shenanigans. – A puppet attached to Shell Oil with money strings comes to mind. Privately held consulting firms are so very very nice for hiding money trails aren’t they?

    Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis

    To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:
    “…The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…”

    No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. Tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.

    Another player is David Hone who is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser, he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he’s succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith, SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.

    Then there is John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”. John H. Loudon, a Dutchman, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001 club.

    As another comment said FOLLOW THE MONEY if you can’t understand the science.

  235. eric1skeptic says:

    steven mosher (December 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm) “It an essay about truth the monktopus not only misquotes Keats, but he gets the meaning exactly backwards. I find that ironic. Further the point of science is not “truth” in its religious or philosophical sense. It’s far more pragmatic than that. The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.”

    Mosher is correct. Science can only offer coherence of observations and theory, never truth. If a scientist wishes to pursue truth, they will only succeed in abstract math which has meager funding. The theory that the rise in CO2 is manmade is coherent with most observations and theory and warming from increased CO2 is likely although dependent on cooperation from the sun.

    Committed CAGW zealots like Mike MacCracken http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf use phrases like “virtually certain” not to describe CO2 rises being manmade or CO2 increases causing warming in theory, but ““significant disruptions … are virtually certain to occur.” I note that phraseologists like MacCracken are always careful not to speak of “truth” despite the title of his article. Happer, who MacCracken was critiquing also carefully does lay claim to “truth”.

    MacCracken’s claim of virtual certainty is propaganda intended for a public that does not understand the uncertainties in climate science much less the absolute uncertainty inherent in all of science.

  236. Gail Combs says:

    Max Hugoson says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Warren = Troll…that simple. Isn’t there a bridge to return to?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    But trolls are so much fun to play with especially trolls who do not even know what AR3, AT4, and AR5 are yet tries to come of as knowledgeable..

    I know, I know it isn’t nice to take candy from babies especially on Christmas day.

  237. Warren says:

    Bobl: a correction to my last sentence: “..a climate sensitivity greater than 1.0″ rather than “positive climate sensitivity”

  238. A C Osborn says:

    Warren comes across just like a 20 something Greenie likeTythers on Energy Matters, Adam Berlingo on TallBloke’s Talkshop and my niece’s son. They all appear to have been brainwashed from their schooldays and through College/Uni, they all absolutely believe in Cagw and quote from the IPCC and their favourite warmist scientists.
    They totally ignore any dissenting Data, finding excuses for not looking at it or for ignoring it.
    They continually repeat their rehearsed “lines” rather than actually answering, just questions like politicians.

    Well I have a very serious question for you Warren, you see I have these deeds to a Bridge in London, can I interest you in buying it for a measly £10,000?
    I am sure once you own it you can put up toll booths and charge the motorists to cross it and very quickly recoup your £10,000 and from then on it is profit all the way.

  239. Gail Combs says:

    R Taylor says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Yes, democracy (Greek for rule by the herd) is the worst form of government, except for all the others….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I prefer a republic.

  240. HenryP says:

    Science and religion are both the way to the truth……
    in fact your beliefs will likely lead you on a way of independent research, and to not rest until the truth is asserted. That is hard work. Don’t expect to see many miracles without it:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/12/10/my-own-true-christmas-story/

  241. Harry Passfield (AKA Snotrocket) says:

    A very Merry Christmas to all!!
    And doesn’t Warren give us cause to celebrate!?
    I mean, Warren is a construct. He is probably a mix of SkS kids hoping that they can disrupt MoB’s Christmas essay. Well, I have news for Warren: I really like him/her/them/it being here. There constant poking at the science means that there is so much more for us to learn. The responses are GOLD! I learn more from them about the science, yet so much more about the warmist clan. Absolutely priceless!!

    On another note. My NY resoluiton is to post under my family name. No more Snotrocket (a poor joke that got legs); I shall post as Harry Passfield in future. All the best!.

  242. glenncz says:

    re: Insurance
    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
    Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    oh yes, that tax. the one that will decrease the temp by .006 in 90 years
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-estimates-its-greenhouse-gas-restrictions-would-reduce-global-temperature-no-more
    These numbers came from our own EPA who is working so feverishly so we can save ourselves.
    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f
    Top Middle Column
    Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
    temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 (previously 0.007 to 0.016 °C) and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100
    (previously 0.06–0.15cm).

    Yes Warren, Let’s Do It. All it will take is Political Will and selfishness to shave .006C off the temp. (at least it’s Celcius and not F). And not let’s forget fixing .1cm of sea level rise.

  243. Allan MacRae says:

    The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  244. John Whitman says:

    Christopher Monckton,

    As to your sentiments expressed here on WUWT, which I assume are a sincere gesture of good will during this family and friend oriented holiday period, I return your sentiments. Happy holidays.

    As to your discussion of mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) jusxtaposed with all aspects of philosophy ( metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, science, etc), it is merely irrelevant to climate science.

    What is relevant to climate science versus either your Christian mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) or the mysticism of radical environmentalists is the general philosophical subject of demarcation of science from that which isn’t science. The demarcation is carried out by applied reasoning strictly without the aid of mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism).

    As to your discussion of your moral mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) and of the moral mysticism of radical environmentalists, both moral mystical approaches are equivalent in view of irrelevancy to applied reasoning that is science.

    Happy Holidays to all WUWT folks: commenters; owner; moderators, contributors!!!

    John

  245. Bill Illis says:

    Will increased CO2 increase the temperature of Earth and by how much?

    It is the question.

    How do you answer it?

    A whole scientific discipline cobbled together a number of different physics/meteorological principles and came up with an estimate.

    Then they decided to defend that estimate and the process used to arrive at it to significant extremes and never bothered to ask if it was right or not. In fact, if one bothered to ask if it was right or not, they got kicked out of the club.

    It is not peer review, it is peer pressure.

    This is not the way to answer an important question.

  246. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    And third, you continue to claim that the IPCC doesn’t show models confirming the uptick in 20th cent temps.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I said no such thing. I said that the models produced the past, but all their attempts at predicting the future have failed. I provided you links to the IPCC site and also to articles on the matter. A child can discern the difference in the predictions versus the observational results In fact, Cowtan and Way, two stalwarts of the supposed 99% you claim to be representative of, published an entire paper trying to explain away the models’ failure. They theorize that the models are wrong due to temperature changes in areas like the arctic regions where we have limited temperature data and can’t measure it. Kevin Trenberth, pretty much the top of the supposed 99% heap, head of WEGEX by acclamation, has theorized that heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans where we can’t measure it.

    Your own side of the argument is scurrying around with increasingly bizarre explanations for the failure of the models.

    Who should I believe Warren? You? Or the climate scientists?

    I believe neither. I looked at the predictions made by the models at various points in time, and what the observational data after those points in time revealed.

    [Snipped - strayed into the personal - mod]

  247. Warren says:

    Osborn: demonization is not argument and snark is not science. Until you figure this out, you’re unlikely to win in the Court of Reason.

  248. Gail Combs says:

    Warren says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Warren we are in the main scientists and engineers. I am a chemist for example and if I took the trouble I could list more than 50 other contributors with scientific creds. . That means We Question This is because …Most Published Research Findings Are False [Another Peer reviewed paper :>) ]

    Just because a paper made it into a peer reviewed journal does not mean IT IS THE TRUTH All it means is it doesn’t have any really obvious flaws the reviewers could easily pick out. And the reviewers who are looking at that paper are looking from the basis of their own hard held beliefs.

    As the famous scientist Max Planck said “Truth never triumphs—its opponents just die out, science advances one funeral at a time.”

    In 1980 J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, ran experiments and wrote up the results in Bafflegab Pays He also wrote The seer-sucker theory: the value of experts in forecasting as well as more formal peer-reviewed paper Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors

    Dick Pothier whom my husband (physicist) took courses from wrote an article about this in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 1982.

    Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals by Dick Pothier

    ..If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School: Choose an unimportant topic. Agree with existing beliefs. Use convoluted methods. Withhold some of your data. And write the whole thing in stilted, obtuse prose.

    Armstrong, who is the editor of a new research publication called the Journal of Forecasting, offered the advice in a serious, scholarly article last month in the journal’s first issue. He said yesterday that he had studied the publication process in research journals for years.

    “Although these rules clearly run counter to the goal of contributing to scientific knowledge — the professed goal of academic journals — they do increase a paper’s chance of being published,” Armstrong said.

    “Some readers may feel that the suggestions here … are extreme,” he wrote in his article. “However, they provide a description of many papers published in the social sciences…. It is not by accident that intelligent and successful scientists produce such work.” Armstrong surveyed dozens of recent studies on how articles in such journals get published, and the result, he said, “was rather depressing, if our job is to get that research information out and have the readers benefit from it.”…

    In short you better agree with the big shots in academia if you want a paper published. Ground breaking work is not wanted. The saga of the discovery by Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshal, that a bacteria caused peptic ulcers is a classic example of acadamia to new ideas.

  249. A C Osborn says:

    Warren says: December 25, 2013 at 7:58 am
    Osborn: demonization is not argument and snark is not science. Until you figure this out, you’re unlikely to win in the Court of Reason.

    Warren, to Demonize – “portray as wicked and threatening”, whereas I portray you as naive and gullible, that says it all about you.
    You have no court of reason, so there is no point in mentioning it, you only have the “Religion” of CAGW.

  250. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer; re: are continued exchange on the models on the models. I read back through our postings. In many of our exchanges, it’s clear that you were were arguing about the confidence in the models future projections, whereas I was referring to the Wolfson lectures( which, if you will check, are not marketing but Physics) on the accuracy of the models with respect to duplicating the 20th century hockey stick. You missed my point, and I missed yours. So I need to read your link with that in mind, and you need to listen to the Wolfson lectures with my point in mind. We can compare findings after the Christmas holidays, if you want.

  251. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ Warren; The Court of Reason? Your own arguments have included the following logical fallacies: Argument from Authority, Appeal to Consensus, Ad Hominem, and Straw Man, to name a few. You don’t seem to understand what actual science is, or more importantly, what it isn’t, though you pretend to, and that is why you receive snark and flak.

  252. Ted Swart says:

    AlLI can say is that I think Monckton spoils his excellent critiques of the CAGW alarmists inscientific nonsense by trying to couple science and religion. His Roman Catholic religion may mean much to him but there are myriads of skeptics for which this is not the case. This in no way dimishes our concern that dishonesty i\on science undemrines the supposed scienec from the inside. Some skeptics are Catholics, some adhere to other branches of the Christian religion, some are theists in other ways, some are deists, some are atheists, some are agnostics, and many have no religios affiliation.
    The thing that binds us all together is an unswerving commitment to truth and openenss on the part of scientists.
    The hypotheis of CO2 caussed dangerous warming is quite simply a terrible and costly mistke. Al Gore’s inconvenient truth is nothing other than an inconvenient blunder. If the belivers had welcomed skeptics instead of trying to ostracise them we would have arrived at the truth a long time.ago. Nature has been kind enough to highlight the ineptness of the computer models and the sooner this is more widely accepted the better.

  253. Peter Miller says:

    Warren is the same guy as ‘Michael the Realist’ who appeared on Jo Nova recently, the same tedious pretentious mutterings, mostly modelled on the Global Warming Cult’s tired old mantras, or arguing black is white.

    Ignore him, let him go back to his lonely little fantasy world.

  254. _Jim says:

    Daniel H says December 25, 2013 at 4:16 am
    … the official “science” wing of the faith-based Vatican:

    Please, Daniel, in the spirit of the season can we address this at a later date?

    I would at that time be glad to engage on this and related subjects.

    Merry Christmas.

    .

  255. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    You missed my point, and I missed yours.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I didn’t miss your point at all. Nice attempt at a face saving retreat though.

  256. Robert in Calgary says:

    A Christmas Present for Warren who really, really needs it.

    You’ll have to buy it for yourself to make up for all your silly posts in this thread.

  257. _Jim says:

    cynical_scientist say December 25, 2013 at 4:00 am

    More seriously I assert that one can be a very moral person and also an atheist.

    Hence, the existence of the animal kingdom; man is in the predicament of bridging a gap between two ‘worlds’, for why do we feel such pain or experience the exuberance of beauty in art and other works on occasion? Pure animals never experience such joy … (re: animals – happy, yes, joy is another thing.)

    Merry Christmas.

    .

  258. silver ralph says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 5:20 am
    My main point was that true religion, however inadequately and imperfectly, insists upon morality and, therefore, intellectual honesty.

    _____________________________________________

    Christian morality? You do jest, surely. The bible says:

    kill anyone not listening to priests. Deut 13:5
    kill homosexuals. Levit 20:13
    kill anyone who hits their father. Lev 21:15
    kill followers of other religions. Ex 22:19
    kill everyone in a town, if one person worships another god. Deu 13:13-19
    kill brides who are not virgins. Deu 22:20-21

    Is that the sort of morality you want in Western society? I would hope that most of us have moved on from that sort of Dark Age morality, because we now have man’s superior secular morality.

    ralph

  259. bobl says:

    @Warren,
    You clearly don’t understand feedback, you just parrot what you think you understand from a book. Let’s look at some negative feedbacks.

    1. the suns rays hit the ground, the ground heats up, the ground radiates most of that heat back to space through the IR transparent spectrum region of the atmosphere, the radiation is proportional to the cube of the temperature of the surface, a classic negative feedback.

    2. The surface heats up from the sun, depending on the temperature of the surface the rate of evaporation increases, evaporation consumes 2250 Kj of energy per kg of water evaporated – negative feedback.

    3. the heat of the surface rises, Ice at the poles melts, 333Kj of energy is absorbed per Kg of ice melting – negative feedback.

    I could go on, but I wont.

    Negative feedbacks don’t subtract, they divide, so while the direct effect of CO2 is say 1 degree, the negative feedbacks absorb or otherwise remove 80 percent of that, they divide it by 5. leaving 0.2 degrees. The IPCC and your book though say the Net effect feedback rather than dividing by 5 multiplies by 3. To get to the IPCC and your books number after negative feedbacks are applied requires a positive feedback overriding the negative feedbacks in play, and a further multiple of 3. 3×5 is 15, so to meet the IPCC and your books overall gain of 3 there needs to exist exist positive feedbacks of 15, that’s a loop gain of 0.95, which is near as impossible.

    Being an engineer I know lots about feedback. it gets even more complicated than this, but that’s the basics.

    Your precautionary argument is also poor. We are currently pulling out of a little ice age which occured in the 1800s. That point was about 0.7 degrees, below current. The little ice age, caused hunger, disease and death that killed half the population of Europe. We are a mere 0.7 degrees away from that. More CO2 and warmth increases our food supply, while less CO2 and warmth reduces it, till in conditions like the LIA crops fail, further you would take away the very tool humans use to survive cold, – reliable energy. In which direction lies safety, clearly the precautionary principle tells us that we must err on the warm side, and we must be prepared for similar conditions to that already experienced in the LIA in the future with a reliable, çheap energy supply.

    You did not comment on my other points demonstrating the inconsistency of IPCC sensitivity estimates to historical facts.

    Warren, you are at a crossroad, you can either blindly follow your faith in others, or you can become a responsible environmentalist by checking the facts for yourself and making up your own mind, issue by issue, greens lie to you just like everyone else in order to get their own way. I don’t ask for your belief, I ask only that you be critical and check the math for yourself. If you can’t or won’t then I am sorry, for you will remain ignorant.

  260. Pat Frank says:

    davidmhoffer, I agree with your considered position, but honestly, climate models don’t reproduce the past, either. They are parameterized to fit past trend lines. Model outputs of past trends aren’t hindcasts. They’re just tendentious reproductions.

    Models adjusted to reproduce past temperatures can’t reproduce past precipitation. Models adjusted to reproduce past precipitation can’t reproduce past temperature. Their partitioning of internal energy through the climate modes is wrong. They don’t predict a thing about climate, past or future. They just have enough degrees of freedom to be adjusted into producing any trend line one targets. Presented to the naïve, willful and otherwise, the lines become proof.

  261. glenncz says:

    Warren, I suggest instead of worrying about the models, that you study the history of the consensus of climate change.
    http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

  262. ralfellis says:

    And here is some koranic morality for you:

    Muslims must fight, even if they don’t like it. Koran 2:216
    Kill kuffer unbelievers wherever you find them. Koran 4:19
    Strike off the heads of the kuffer believers, and the tips of their fingers. Koran 8:12
    Kuffer unbelievers are the lowest animals. Koran 8:55
    Make war on the kuffer unbelievers. Koran 9:14
    Fight the kuffer unbelievers until they pay the jizya tax on unbelievers. Koran 9:29
    Muslims, if you do not go to war, god will punish you. Koran 9:39
    The unbeliever will burn in hell. Koran 14:29
    God has prepared a fire for kuffer unbelievers, that will surround them like a tent. When they cry out, they will be showered with molten brass. Koran 18:29
    Garments of fire have been prepared for the kuffer unbelievers. Boiling water will be poured over their heads to melt their skin and their guts, and they shall be lashed with rods of hooked iron. Koran 22:19

    And this is not cherry-picking, as there are about 500 verses like this in the Koran. I can post a full list, if you will allow it.

    So, is this the morality we want in the 21st century? Or are organised religions like this going to take us back to the Dark Ages? Frankly, we are much better off, now that religion has been put back in its box. The danger we face, is the resurgence of fundamentalists who are determined to use verses like those above to create mayhem on the streets of the West.

    Ralph

  263. Pamela Gray says:

    Warren, what does the data say about increased water vapor? Do observations match the modeled increase in water vapor? And is it relative or absolute water vapor that increases with more re-radiated LW infrared?

  264. A C Osborn says:

    glenncz says: December 25, 2013 at 8:52 am

    That is an interesting Collection of past Scientific Opinions, it would be interesting to see it brought up to date. For much more of the same you want to have a look through Steve Goddard’s Real Science archives, he has collected hundreds of old newspaper Weather cuttings and Scientific pronunciations.

  265. HenryP says:

    @Silver Ralph

    You are quoting from the old testament. In the times of the old testament people did not know what God is really like.
    To know what God looks like, you could look in the New Testament or here:
    http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc
    or start here
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/

    1) on the notion that science is apparently without error and that religious thinking is backward thinking full of errors.
    One of the biggest errors in human history was slavery and although sometimes condoned or allowed by the various religions in the past,
    slavery was never taught or instituted as a way of life by any particular religion. Some simple research, for example in American history,
    will show that it was pure economics that was the root cause of the error of slavery.
    Note that it was initially (mainly) Christian men and women both in England and the USA that stood up against slavery and ultimately succeeded in getting it abolished.
    The eugenic laws that Hitler put into place in Germany in the forties were based on “science”. It allowed the Germans to discriminate against and even terminate the lives of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, even paraplegics. Will we ever forget Joseph Mengele and his experiments? During the period before the war, Hendrik Verwoerd studied this nonsense in Germany and as a result we in South Africa got stuck here with the error of apartheid.
    Again it was the Christians in the USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere in the world who stood up against Hitler and they prayed and asked their governments to bring in armies to fight Hitler.Many of them sacrificed their own lives so we might be free.
    Can I ask you: in the above simple examples of human error: was it not economics and pseudo psychology that were the culprits of the mess and was not Christianity instrumental in bringing an end to these horrors?
    2) on the notion that current science makes few errors
    You think or assumes that because science is based on facts, it should always be without error or less error, especially in modern time.
    One example I can give of a big mess that we have at the moment caused by science is nuclear energy. It seems there are still those who still believe there is nothing wrong with it. But don’t ask any of them who still sing the praises of nuclear energy to go and volunteer to clean up the mess, either in Chernobyl or Fukushima. We are still sitting with two enormous problems there.
    Another debacle of science gone completely wrong, is the issue of global warming……….namely, there is no man made global warming!
    I had to find that out for myself, after studying the relevant facts and data. You can read more about that in my blog here;
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
    or just buy the book: “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker, available from Exclusive Books, ISBN: PB: 978-1-4411-1970-4

    3) On the idea that religious thinking is irrational
    I addressed this here:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/

    Truth is that nobody knows for sure what came before the Big Bang. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose!

    4) on the issue that religion has held women and the rights of women back.

    I don’t disagree that religions have held women back and some of them still do. I did a careful analysis to see what Jesus had to say on it . I found that Jesus is probably the first man in recorded history who stood up for the rights of women. Remember what Jesus said to the men who wanted to stone the woman who had committed adultery? His statements on divorce made it very clear that the rights of men and women should be equal. (You can read more about that on page 28 of my book that you can access here: http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc.

    The point I wanted to make here is that Jesus (God) left a finger print of Himself by the sacrificial life that He led on earth and the words that He spoke. Is it now His fault that (many) people past and present did not look closer or did not chose to look closer on how things ought to be between male and female, to eliminate the error?

    5) on the issue that you don’t need God for inspiration to do good.

    I refer to this in Chapter 17 of my book page 41 .Matt 25:31-46. You can read this here.

    http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc

    It must be possible to measure our faith in Him by the (positive) effect it has on the people around us, such as family, friends, our church and even our city and country. If somebody cares more for other people than for him/herself, then he or she is doing God’s work whether he or she believes in Him or not. Jesus says: no greater love has he than him who gives his own life for a friend. But I don’t think “science” or “self examination” will inspire you or make you to take certain steps to do good. If you will analyse the things carefully and go back you will find that a string of events came together or occurred one after the other that made you decide: you have to do something. Looking back at my own life I saw exactly such a string of events that made me come and help to bring an end to apartheid. There were things that happened as a result of my actions here (e.g. after my correspondence with prof. Heyns) that still hurt to this day. But I realized there are casualties in a war. In the end, we won. During my employment as a plant chemist I was probably the first (white) shop steward ever elected for MEWUSA. As a result of my involvement with the End Conscription Campaign I had also started visiting people in prison, initially just those that refused to do military service. I remember it was probably also due to my correspondence with President de Klerk that eventually led to all these people being released. After apartheid came to an end, I carried on visiting prisoners and started a prison ministry, visiting prisoners in weekends. From 2007 I resigned my work as a chemist and now run two small charities, full time.

    Science is now my hobby, but again I found that the reason why I was directed ( as a hobby) to check out global warming must be because there is some “bigger” reason. (I refer to the nuclear accidents as explained earlier). We need energy. Clearly shale gas is the way to go.

    6) what is the exact relationship between science and religion?

    If you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.

  266. Climatologist says:

    A Roman Catholic talking about truth?

    (Reply: Painting millions with the same brush? Why not Jews? Moslems?
    Please take your hating elsewhere. ~mod)

  267. Grey Lensman says:

    Gail. Fundamental error in principal. All a Republic is, is that it is not a monarchy and refers to a State. Democracy is a form of Government. Thus you live in a democratic republic rather than a dictatorship republic or a theocratic republic.

  268. Zeke says:

    inre silver ralph’s post

    The agreement between the people who were former slaves in Egypt was a contract agreement through the hand of a mediator, Moses. The original testament, or contractual vow, was entered into voluntarily by the people of Israel and their God. In this contract, the people agreed to essentially follow the 10 Commandments; it also provides a basic social structure. In this way, it is a bold experiment in self-government based on laws agreed upon by all parties involved. They agreed that they would not enter into the idolatrous and corrupt practices of the people in the land of Canaan. That includes rejecting everything to do with the cultures of the surrounding nations – from making and bowing down to an idol, through temple prostitution, and on to child sacrifice.

    In the social structure, there were to be 12 tribes, or provinces, with elders of families representing them, and private property which does not permanently change hands (for more than 70 years at a time). There was to be a priesthood which could judge legal issues, but did not own property – and interestingly therefore were not able to expand their property through bribes. That was a limited judiciary. The law was in writing and could be referred to by anyone. Laws applied equally to all people. There was to be no king. It was not a monarchy until four hundred years later. The transition to a monarchy was considered a great disaster and failing of the people to keep their original agreement.

    Whatever you may think, this was a bold experiment in self-government. The basis for that self-government was the understanding and keeping of the laws contained in the 10 Commandments. And that meant utter rejection of the practices of the people in the region.

  269. Zeke says:

    Here is a version of the 10 Commandments which would support the basic structure of the society for the people of Israel. These were the laws voluntarily adopted and agreed upon by the people in 1440 BC. This is a newer translation:

    Only one God, and no idols.
    Watch yer mouth.
    Git yourself to a Sunday meetin’.
    Honor your Ma and Pa.
    No tellin’ tales or gossipin’.
    No foolin’ around with another fella’s gal.
    No murderin’.
    Don’t take what ain’t yers.
    Don’t be hankerin’ for your buddy’s stuff.

    Now if you are wondering whether the people kept the agreement and lived by the law of Moses, you will just have to read the rest of the book.

  270. davidmhoffer says:

    Pat Frank says:
    December 25, 2013 at 8:49 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Agreed. But if a simple discussion about the predictive capabilities of models on temperature alone was over Warren’s head, there wasn’t much point trying to take him to the next level. But excellent point to make for those who are up to speed on the issue and beyond relying on videos to inform their opinion.

  271. dp says:

    Science as practiced and considered of itself has the voids (uncertainty) of Mosher’s contingent reality, but science as it exists in nature is defined, absolute, everlasting, and quite likely beyond our reach to fully grasp. Science as it exists in nature is reality and necessarily the truth. Any acceptance of voidless reality requires faith and our science as practiced simply disallows that. Our weakness is we don’t know how to close that gap and we’re left with the flaws and fraud of contingent reality and the policies that issue from those flaws.

  272. ralfellis says:

    .
    And without wishing to dampen any Xmas spirit, the gospels of Xianity are not much better at social morality:

    Then said Jesus unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his wallet: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luk 22:36

    (Jesus said) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Math 10:34

    The parable of justification for rich bankers. Jesus said of the rich man:
    Why then did you not put my money in a bank, so that I would get it back with interest? And he said to the others, Take the pound away from him, and give it to the man who has ten pounds. To everyone who has, more will be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Luk 19:11-26

    Jesus said: he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Math 10:37

    Then one said unto Jesus, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But Jesus answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Math 12:47-49

    I luuurve the justification for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Sort of ‘Robin Hood through the looking-glass’ – capitalism at its best. But then sticking two fingers up at your family, well surely that comes straight out of Marxism. Confusing creed, huh?

    Merry King-of-the-Jews-mas

  273. HankHenry says:

    Wow! and Amen.

  274. Zeke says:

    ralfellis says, “The parable of justification for rich bankers.” Jesus said of the rich man:
    Why then did you not put my money in a bank, so that I would get it back with interest? And he said to the others, Take the pound away from him, and give it to the man who has ten pounds. To everyone who has, more will be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Luke 19:11-26

    The land owner entrusted his property to several servants and left to a far country. It was still his property when he returned. Context, context, context.

  275. Warren says:

    Pamela,
    Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with the physics expressed by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and the rise in global avg temperatures. The earth is a closed system with respect to water, so the amount of water the air can hold, globally, depends almost entirely on the Global avg temperature; and rising temps evaporate more water. Venus is an extreme example (much more extreme than anything projected for earth)….after the formation of Venus, the planet, being closer to the sun than earth,lost its liquid water to evaporation, and the large amount of water evaporated further warmed the planet, such that it now has a temperature as I recall about 500 Celsius higher than the calculations show it would be without atmosphere..hot enough to melt lead. In other words, Venus experienced runaway global warming due to the positive feedback of water vapor and the huge amount of water put into the atmosphere. In contrast, earth is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than calculated without the atmospheres effects, and mars is not warmer than the no-atmosphere calculation, since it has nearly zero atmosphere. I hope I answered your question.. It’s not that water vapor increased due directly to infrared absorption, rather it increased due the rise in global atmospheric temperature, further amplifying the temperature rise.

  276. ralfellis says:

    Zeke says: December 25, 2013 at 9:28 am

    The agreement between the people who were former slaves in Egypt was a contract agreement through the hand of a mediator, Moses.
    ____________________________________

    Yes, but Moses was a murderer, who was banished from Egypt for the murder of an Egyptian and the concealment of his body in the sand. Ex 2:12

    And then Moses went on to order the murder of 3,000 people for honoring a different god. Ex 32:28

    Then Moses destroyed sixty cities in Og, killing all the women and children in them. 3:4-6

    And Joshua was no better. At Jericho he killed all the men, women and children, and stole all the gold, silver and brass. Significantly, the only people allowed to survive the slaughter at Jericho was a prostitute called Rahab and her family, who opened the gates to allow the Israelites in. Josh 6:21-25

    What sort of moral role-models were Moses and Joshua? A religion forged in blood cannot assume the high ground in matters of social morality – especially in the 21st century.

    Ralph

  277. Warren says:

    Davidmhoffer: I’ve had enough of your personal attacks. If you don’t stop, I’ll ask the moderator to kick you off the forum. You are completely out of line.

    [I have checked your accusation that davidmhoffer has been making personal attacks. I find only one, it's quite mild but I'll snip it anyway. If I have missed any, please point them out in a comment. I can't promise to act immediately. Given the time of year, please be patient. - mod]

  278. Zeke says:

    Inre: ralfellis. Re: Og and Sihon, kings who declared war on the Israelites, and lost the battle.

    Moses and the Israelites were passing through this area on their way to Canaan. Requests were sent to the following nations to allow their passage: Moab, Edom, Amorites, Bashan. The Israelites asked to use the road, and they would purchase any water and any food on their way through. Og and Sihon chose instead to attack the people, including their women and children, rather than allow them to pass through. And they lost.

  279. troe says:

    Our “Magnificent Obsession” even on Christmas day. From my frosty Tennessee hills home I ask you to consider:
    Senator Howard Baker (TN) The Clean Air Act
    Senator Albert Gore Jr (TN) Climate Change research funding specialist on all levels
    Rep Bart Gordon (TN) Chairman House Science Committee
    Senator Lamar Alexander (TN) ranking member Senate Science Committee

    Tennesse is the home of Oak Ridge National Laboratory

    Our politicians know how to work the system better than most. Apologies to all

  280. ralfellis says:

    HenryP says: December 25, 2013 at 9:05 am
    To know what God looks like, you could look in the New Testament or here:
    http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc
    or start here
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith
    ___________________________________

    Page after page of meaningless twaddle designed to bedazzle the gullible proletariat of yester-year. Sorry, but you are on a science blog here, and we are rational, intelligent beings who are not about to be cowed by an invisible bogey-man in the skies. Especially a supposedly benevolent (but actually malevolent) bogeyman who likes nothing better than punishing people and sending torments and destruction down on earth.

    Your link says that to understand god we: “First, we have to acknowledge that God is the Creator of all things.”

    Yowwee, now that is really the scientific method. First we have to beelieeeve, and only then we are allowed to engage the brian and think.

    Merry Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-Mas.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

    Ralph

  281. Gary Pearse says:

    “Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities”

    Am I right in saying that NO university or scientific institution in the world is untainted by this shame?

  282. Jim Clarke says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    “To all skeptics, my question is: of all other near consensus-science issues….relativity, plate tectonics, evolution…do you single out AGW for derision, and if so why?”

    The simple answer is evidence. Relativity and plate tectonics have been confirmed by observation and, more importantly, there have not been any observations that indicate they are false. Nor has anyone yet proposed a better explanation for the observed. Evolution…frankly, the only reason that evolution is considered a consensus science is because of its direct conflict with religion. It has been elevated to consensus to defeat a dogmatic religious stance. If that religious stance was not there, evolution would still be very much a theory, and progress in that field would be advancing much more rapidly. As it is, it has become its own dogma, every bit as sacrosanct as the creationists beliefs. Quantum physics is revealing that the theory of evolution will likely have to do some evolving itself.

    As to AGW…it has not been confirmed by observation. There are many observations that are contrary to the theory and disprove some aspects of it. There have been better explanations proposed for the observations. These explanations all involve a significant natural variability that is larger than the impact of CO2 emissions, and these explanations have been supported by the evidence.

    This begs the question about your precious peer reviewed literature: Why do the majority of peer-reviewed papers support the AGW theory? First of all, the majority of those papers do not attempt to verify the AGW theory, but take the theory as a first assumption: ‘If the theory of AGW (as proposed by the IPCC) is true then the following things will happen.’ Such papers are used as evidence that scientists are supporting the theory, when, in fact, they give no evidence whatsoever that the theory is valid. There are actually very few papers that provide evidence that the theory is valid, simply because there is very little evidence that the theory is valid. In fact, most attempts to directly support the theory in the journals are convoluted attempts to explain why the observations are not fitting the theory, such as constant attempts to rewrite past climate history or ‘the heat is hiding in the oceans’ nonsense.

    But the primary answer to your question is FUNDING. Let’s use medicine as an example. Suppose you are a biology research scientist that has a particular curiosity about certain viruses and bacteria that seem to have no real impact on humanity or the human environment. They appear to be completely benign, yet you remain fascinated. So you write your proposals to get funding to study these little creatures. In the meantime, your peers are sending in proposals to study viruses and bacteria that may pose huge threats to humanity or the environment. Who do you think gets funded. Who do you think will be able to do research? Who do you think the journals will be more interested in publishing? It is your peers that will get the money, not you. Even if their hypothesis is wrong and their work is terrible, they will still get the funding. They will still get published. They will still get the accolades from the university and the positive press in the local media.

    Have you ever seen the headline: “Everything Unfolded Quite Nicely Yesterday” In this world, good news is no news. Ideally, science should be about discovering the truth, but realistically, science has become a source for politicians to promote problem solving. If it is not a problem, it doesn’t get government funding. It becomes absolutely necessary for scientists to spin all of their work into something that will solve a problem or benefit the world in some way. It becomes absolutely necessary that scientists never question the validity of the problem itself, if they want to stay employed. If the government is funding global warming science, then spin your proposal to indicate that your research will add to that understanding. And if your research doesn’t actually add anything or even refutes the global warming meme (as many papers do) then simply conclude that your findings are not conclusive, that global warming is still a problem and that you need more funding to really understand what is happening (as almost all AGW related papers do.) Even though your evidence does not support the AGW theory, you spin in your Abstract and conclusion will give that impression to the likes of Oreskis and others.

    Climate skeptics are dismantling the alleged problem of global warming. They are basically killing the goose laying the golden eggs, for the politician wishing to appear concerned to the electorate, bureaucrat convincing himself that he is involved in a noble cause and the scientist wishing to do research and feed his/her family. It is not a conspiracy to hide the truth, it is an attempt to prosper in a cultural environment that benefits from a falsehood. (Such environments are quite common in our human experience; from nationalism to our relationships with spouses and our children. We often ignore truth in order to prosper (or at least get by) in such environments).

    Consequently, the funding and peer review process is no longer a path to truth, but a path to what somebody with money wants to hear. To some extent, it has always been this way. I am sure that there were many alchemists that who knew they would never turn lead into gold, but they weren’t about to tell that to the king.

    Still the ‘truth will out’, despite this ‘unnatural’ attempt to pervert it. It may take some time, but thanks to the internet, not nearly as long as it used to. The internal policing and censoring of scientific thought, euphemistically called peer review, is no longer the only path to truth. Truth, like anything, is arrived at more quickly when there is competition for it. If the peer review process was really about discovering truth, it would welcome those who pointed out its flaws, and not circle the wagons and claim divine authority, like it does, and you are demonstrating in your posts.

    Merry Christmas to all!

    May the truth be with you!

  283. Zeke says:

    Inre: ralfellis says, “And Joshua was no better. At Jericho he killed all the men, women and children, and stole all the gold, silver and brass. Significantly, the only people allowed to survive the slaughter at Jericho was a prostitute called Rahab and her family, who opened the gates to allow the Israelites in. Josh 6:21-25″

    And subsequently, the Israelites were removed from their land for their utter corruption by the Assyrian army. Assyrians were known for flaying people alive, putting them on pikes, and their legal code instituted the removal of limbs, noses, and ears for small offenses. Not a pretty ancient culture, but just another example of idolatrous, pagan “morality.” The southern kingdom of Judah was also removed by the brutal, greedy Babylonian army in 586 BC, about one hundred years after the Assyrians took the northern kingdom.

    There is no favoritism. You can read Habbakuk to try to understand the events of those days.

  284. Chad Wozniak says:

    @ralfellis -
    It’s kinda like reading Mein Kampf, isn’t it?

  285. ralfellis says:

    Zeke says: December 25, 2013 at 9:37 am
    Here is a version of the 10 Commandments which would support the basic structure of the society for the people of Israel.
    ___________________________

    People often quote these Ten Commandments, as if previous peoples and civilisation never had laws of morality, before Moses found his stones.

    However, all the major civilizations had their codes of social conduct. These are the Egyptian laws or commandments, from the Book of the Dead. They are declared retrospectively, as they were recited to the god(s) as they judged your heart and soul, and decided if you could live for eternity or be fed to a hippo-crocodile beast:

    I have not impoverished the divine herd (people);
    I have committed no crime in place of What is Right;
    I have not known (done) nothingness;
    I have not done any evil
    I have not made a daily start in labours over what I did (previously);
    My name has not reached the office of director of servants;
    I have not stolen goods from an orphan;
    I have not done the abomination of the gods;
    I have not slighted a servant to his master;
    I have not caused affliction;
    I have not caused hunger;
    I have not caused grief;
    I have not killed;
    I have not harmed the offering-cattle;
    I have not caused pain for anyone;
    I have not reduced the offerings in the temples;
    I have not harmed the offering-loaves of the gods;
    I have not taken the festival-loaves of the blessed dead;
    I have not penetrated the penetrater of a penetrater;
    I have not masturbated;
    I have not reduced the measuring-vessel:
    I have not reduced the measuring cord;
    I have not encroached on the fields;
    I have not added to the pan of the scales;
    I have not tampered with the plumb bob of the scales;
    I have not taken milk from the mouths of babes;
    I have not concealed herds from their pastures;
    I have not snared birds in the thickets (?) of the gods;
    I have not caught fish in their pools;
    I have not held back water in its time;
    I have not dammed a dam at rapid waters;
    I have not put out the fire in its moment;
    I have not transgressed the days concerning meat offerings;
    I have not turned back cattle from the property of a god;
    I have not blocked a god in his processions;

    I think you will find most of the Ten Commandments in here. And note the purge against corruption – nothing changes.

    Ralph

  286. Steve Keohane says:

    Warren says:December 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Pamela,
    Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with

    Got data?

    http://i48.tinypic.com/2qlfnzn.jpg

  287. Zeke says:

    Ralph says: “Your link says that to understand god we: “First, we have to acknowledge that God is the Creator of all things.” Yowwee, now that is really the scientific method. First we have to beelieeeve, and only then we are allowed to engage the brian and think.”

    In science, you claim that without a theory, there can be no observations. The observer will not be able to single out any particular event or force from any other, without a hypothesis. Similarly, one believes that God exists and is also able to make the observations. It is not an irrational and unheard of principle in science.

  288. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren says:
    December 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Pamela,
    Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with the physics expressed by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and the rise in global avg temperatures.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Would these be the global average temperatures that haven’t risen in close to 2 decades? How does water vapour increase in response to temperature when the temperature isn’t increasing?

    Oh, well, it turns out that your assertion is wrong according to both satellite data from NASA’s NVAP-M project and from NOAA’s radiosonde data.

    But you’re close to a new record for the number of things wrong in a single sentence. You really oughta stop assuming that you are an expert because you watched a video.

    Pamela – if I have deprived you of the pleasure of spanking this little troll, I apologize.

  289. ralfellis says:

    Chad Wozniak says: December 25, 2013 at 10:35 am
    @ralfellis -
    It’s kinda like reading Mein Kampf, isn’t it?
    ___________________________________

    A fair comparison. The Nazis were, after all right-wing socialists (i.e.: called National Socialists).

    Likewise, the Nazarene Church of Jesus and James were also socialists. You were expected to give all your wealth to the Church when you joined (as with the Essene and the Templars). This is why the latter Nazarene Church was called the Ebionites, or The Poor, just like the Templars were called the Poor Knights of Christ.

    But St Peter went one stage further, because when Ananias and Sapphira did not give all their wealth to the disciples, they were both killed. Acts 5:1-11

    Bear that in mind, next time the collecting plate is passed around. Did you leave a dollar in your pocket? Ooohhhh – better watch your back, the malevolent being will get you……..

    Ralph

  290. HenryP says:

    Warren says
    Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with the physics expressed by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and the rise in global avg temperatures. The earth is a closed system with respect to water, so the amount of water the air can hold, globally, depends almost entirely on the Global avg temperature;

    henry says
    my results show relative humidity decreasing at an average rate of about -0.02% per annum , over the past two decades, in a reasonably representative sample, balanced on latitude, together with a slight increase in precipitation.
    The problem is that in a cooling period such as it happening now, from 2002:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    the differential between the poles and the equator is increasing, causing more clouds and rain around the equator and it becomes both cooler and drier at the higher latitudes.

    So, in order for you to claim that humidity is increasing due to the warming (which is now in the past, as per the above graph) you have to come up with some results that show the trend of the increasing humidity at all latitudes……

    My results suggest that global cooling as such will continue to accelerate and will not end until around 2040
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

    Wishing you all a joyous and blessed Christmas, celebrating the fact that our God came to be one of us, Immanuel, Christ in us.

  291. Harry Passfield says:

    Re; Warren: As I saw in another post, whether a typo or not, he is the “git that keeps on giving!” (I wish I could find the original to give props).

  292. dp says:

    It was not a typo – I know because I wrote it :)

  293. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ Warren; You are incorrect (as usual). Water vapor in the upper atmosphere has been declining, and that decline far outweighs the slight increase in lower atmosphere water vapor in terms of its’ effect on OLR:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
    This is borne out by the FACT that there has been no further warming for about the past 17 years, and the evidence shows that we are now in fact cooling, which very likely will continue for several decades. The reason for this is simple: the warming effect of our additional CO2 can not be shown to exist, no matter how much you wish it so.

  294. Zeke says:

    ralfellis says: “But St Peter went one stage further, because when Ananias and Sapphira did not give all their wealth to the disciples, they were both killed. Acts 5:1-11″

    That is not at all what the text says. People were giving to others in need voluntarily. This is not socialism, this is charity. The two in question, Ananias and Sapphira, were also giving but claimed it was all they had. This was meant to impress everyone. And they died. No one laid a hand on those two. The spiritual lesson is obviously not to give a false impression of generousity or try to purchase a position. Context, context, context.

  295. Chad Wozniak says:

    @thingadonta –

    In reference to your comment about a non-religious moral standard:

    My non-religious moral standard is founded on four basic principles: (1) the golden rule; (2) the agreement to disagree; (3) the pledge to do no harm; and (4) furtherance of well-being.

    A declaration of human rights institutionalizes these to some extent – but doesn’t fully articulate them. More is needed. However, a, benevolent, tolerant religious belief can provide that, since it will incorporate these four principles.

  296. Jim Clarke says:

    “Venus experienced runaway global warming due to the positive feedback of water vapor and the huge amount of water put into the atmosphere.”

    Nonsense…Venus was always hot. There were never liquid oceans on Venus that evaporated and caused the atmosphere to heat up. The atmosphere of Venus has likely always been as hot as it is now, relatively speaking.

    Earth, on the other hand, has NEVER had runaway global warming, even when the temperature was warmer than today and CO2 was much higher than today (or both). There is no feasible way that humans will ever put more CO2 into the atmosphere than has naturally been there in the past. Those high levels of CO2 did not trigger runaway global warming then and the far lessor amounts today will certainly not trigger it.

    Move Venus into Earth’s orbit and it will eventually cool down to an Earth-like temperature. The amount of CO2 and water vapor in the Venusian atmosphere will not stop that from happening. These gases play extremely minor temperature roles in atmospheric temperature compared to the distance from the sun.

  297. ralfellis says:

    Dear Monckton,

    Sorry to pour rain on your parade, Monk, but I suggest you keep your faith out of science. If you want to maintain Dark Age beliefs, that’s fine by me, but don’t shove it down my throat.

    I know more about your Church than you will ever know, and I am not afraid to use it. So bottle it up, will you.

    Ralph

  298. A C Osborn says:

    Jim Clarke says: December 25, 2013 at 11:10 am
    The 2 main reasons for Venus’s high temperature are the distance from the Sun and the Density & Depth of it’s Atmosphere. ie the atmospheric Lapse Rate.

  299. _Jim says:

    ralfellis says December 25, 2013 at 10:51 am

    A fair comparison. The Nazis were, after all right-wing socialists

    Right wing – socialists?

    Makes perfect sense if one is running with/defining one’s own set of ‘definitions’ I suppose.

    .

  300. _Jim says:

    ralfellis say December 25, 2013 at 10:51 am

    Likewise, the Nazarene Church of Jesus and James were also socialists.

    Liquor back in the cabinet and Eggnog back to the fridge … please?

    And Merry Christmas.

  301. jdseanjd says:

    Thank you Lord Christopher, entertaining, informative & moral as ever.

    I’ll vote UKIP because you’re guiding Farage.

    I’d love to join this lively debate, but being almost sufficiently full of Christmas cheer, I’ll content myself with best Christmas wishes to all, & here’s to a return to sanity in 2014.

    You never know. Fact is stranger than fiction, as someone said.

    JD.

  302. _Jim says:

    re: ralfellis says December 25, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Appear to be missing the core of Commandment numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

  303. HenryP says:

    @ralph
    clearly there issues (hate) in your life that make you say things like:
    Sorry, but you are on a science blog here, and we are rational, intelligent beings who are not about to be cowed by an invisible bogey-man in the skies. Especially a supposedly benevolent (but actually malevolent) bogeyman who likes nothing better than punishing people and sending torments and destruction down on earth.

    which clearly show that you do not know your own God/Creator

    henry says
    note that nobody but you brought up the subject
    and we answered you in truth, like I did here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512916

    Wise men still seek Him and bow down in awe when a baby is born.They realize that a whole new universe and dimension is wrapped up in this one baby girl or boy.

    Did you work out the improbability of your own existence?
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/

  304. dbstealey says:

    Warren,

    I think it is very interesting that you comment here to your heart’s content. No one is censoring your opinion [even though numerous commentators have given you such a painful spanking that you must be a masochist to keep coming back for more].

    The point is this: climate alarmist blogs like SkS, realclimate, tamino, etc., etc. all heavily censor comments that dispute the climate scare, using verifiable scientific data. You, on the other hand, are free to post as much of your cut ‘n’ pasted nonsense here as you want. Readers can then decide for themselves which point of view is more credible; yours, or everyone else’s.

    If you have any interest in scientific veracity, you should go back to wherever you’re getting your misinformation from, and demand that they follow the lead of WUWT by allowing all points of view.

    The reason that those alarmist blogs will not allow skeptical viewpoints is clear: they do not want their readers to see any other point of view. Their alarmist propaganda is all that is allowed.

    And that explains why you are so far off track. You have been subjected to only one side of the debate. But even you realize by now that you have no credible argument, for the simple reason that you avoid the one thing that should decide the entire debate: you avoid empirical [ie: real world] data, which proves conclusively that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Despite the rise in the harmless and beneficial trace gas CO2, which has happened before without any runaway global warming or climate catastrophe, none of the scary scenarios have happened, as were incessantly predicted by the Warmist cult [and which you continue to predict, without any scientific evidence to support your belief].

    When zero of the predictions that were made have come to pass, reasonable people will decide that the predictors are wrong. Simple as that. So if you keep on arguing your scary predictions, everyone else sees that you have simply become a religious acolyte. Not a scientist. You have totally swallowed the Kool Aid.

    Time to wake up and face reality, Warren. The alarmist side of the debate lost. If you have normal intelligence, the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will see the real world as it is. And you will stop being frightened.

    Merry Christmas!

  305. Jimbo says:

    ……enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.

    Some Warmists have told me that even if CAGW is wrong going onto windmills and solar is a good thing anyway. I say do it for the right reasons, don’t make up fairy tales and waste resources studying a non-problem. Be realistic about what solar and wind can do for us in the here and now.

    For others who insist there is a problem with co2 I say then why reject nuclear? France relies on nuclear for 70% of its energy needs. Any catastrophe there?

  306. Harry Passfield says:

    dp says:December 25, 2013 at 10:58 am “It was not a typo – I know because I wrote it :)”

    Thanks DP…it’s a keeper. Happy Christmas to you and yours! (Oscar Wilde: “I wish I’d said that”; “You will, Oscar, you will!”)

  307. pochas says:

    If you want to know God, look around you.

  308. DirkH says:

    Zeke says:
    December 25, 2013 at 11:03 am
    “Context, context, context.”

    They’ve been bringing up that distortion all the time now, and they always get defeated the same way, yet they don’t learn.

  309. rogerknights says:

    Kirk c says:
    December 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone .

    That’s only true of the experimental sciences–and sometimes not even then. It’s not true of the observational sciences, like geology, astronomy, and climatology.

  310. glenncz says:

    Warren says:December 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Pamela,
    Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Whaat? Measuring global water vapor is even more difficult than measuring temp.
    Here NOAAstates that water vapor decreased 10% since from 2000 to 2010.
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
    Why did that happen, when temperatures really didn’t budge. Then they refer to increased water vapor during the 1980 & 1990′s which increased temp.’s by 30%, which would be less than .15F. That’s the amplification we are supposed to be worried about?
    Then NASA write this article stating water vapor is a major player in global warming.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
    So water vapor is a major player because it supposedly caused .15F degrees of warming in the 1980′s and 1990′s?
    Then here is a “peer-reviewed” article from SCIENCE. Writing that the decrease in water vapor is “mysterious” and has slowed global warming.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
    That’s absurd, because there hasn’t even been any global warming. How can you slow something that is not even moving?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2014
    There hasn’t even been any global warming for 17 years. From CRUTHadley. Are you even aware of that?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2014/mean:12
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
    Believe in the SCAM. That’s fine because everybody believes the same thing.

  311. Zeke says:

    DirkH says, “They’ve been bringing up that distortion all the time now, and they always get defeated the same way, yet they don’t learn.”

    I think it is fair game to answer, because it is straightening out the plain meaning of a text.

    It is a good article and elicited some great responses from all perspectives. Merry Christmas (it is still the 25th here) to you and everyone here! Thanks for all the excellent, in depth reading in 2013. You are all a wonderful book I can’t put down.

  312. Joe says:

    “No: I had explicitly stated that there is indeed a small group – we all know who most of them are – who for political and financial motives have been making up bad science and getting it published in acquiescent journals. ‘

    That’s the definition of a conspiracy.

  313. Janice Moore says:

    Yes, indeed, it was D. P. Nice one! #(:))
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/23/michael-mann-forced-into-a-do-over-in-mann-vs-cei-steyn/#comment-1511469

    Harry Passfield! Cool. (a man with your wit and fine intellectual insight deserved better) Merry Christmas to you (and to you, Gee Jam — I think I can consider myself one those to whom your cheery greeting was addressed).

    Well, Chad Wozniak — you win the Atheist of the Month prize (Ralph, sorry, but you are only the runner up — a mighty effort, though). I have NEVER heard as disgusting a denigration of God’s Word as your comparison of the Bible with Mein Kampf. Congratulations! No, I’m not going to discuss why. This is certainly NOT the place (nor the day — for crying out loud, you guys feel extra-insecure today, huh?)
    and, moreover, what would be the point?

    And, yes, I will continue to pray for you, for I care about what happens to your soul when you die even though you do not.

  314. Jim Clarke says:

    I agree with Christopher Monckton that religion and science are fundamentally institutions of truth seeking, but this quest is more often than not distorted by the hierarchies that are set up to run these institutions. It is the hierarchies that become dogmatic and then sacrifice the truth to the adherence of the dogma. This happens in both science and religion.

    Many who have chastised spirituality and it’s noble quest for truth, do so based on the sins of the hierarchy created around that spirituality. The two are quite different and often fundamentally opposed.

    Do not make the even bigger mistake of believing that science is immune to the vagaries that plague religion. Science may be a noble pursuit to understand physical truth, but the institutions set up around science often prevent that from happening.

  315. HenryP says:

    Jimbo says-
    why reject nuclear? France relies on nuclear for 70% of its energy needs. Any catastrophe there?

    Henry says
    no, we don’t want another Chernobyl or Fukushima
    Nobody in W-Europe wants nuclear anymore

    Let us rather go fracking for gas,
    OK?

    or do more hydropower.

  316. Janice Moore says:

    @ Zeke — Well done.

    Just FYI (re: Harry Passfield’s fun Oscar Wilde quote at 11:53am today):

    (from Bing search, per “Commentary Magazine”)

    On hearing a bon mot from someone, Oscar Wilde responded, “I wish I’d said that.” “You will, Oscar, you will,” replied his friend James McNeill Whistler.

    lol

  317. Jim Clarke says:

    A C Osborn says:
    December 25, 2013 at 11:24 am
    “Jim Clarke says: December 25, 2013 at 11:10 am
    The 2 main reasons for Venus’s high temperature are the distance from the Sun and the Density & Depth of it’s Atmosphere. ie the atmospheric Lapse Rate.”

    I agree. But the density and composition of the Venusian atmosphere is very likely the result of its distance from the sun. This graph:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_composition.gif

    demonstrates that the original Earth atmosphere was similar to that of Venus, but the Earth’s distance from the sun allowed liquid water to exist and life develop. Over billions of years, that life re-engineered the atmosphere of this planet, scrubbing it of all that CO2 and depositing it in the crust, while also releasing oxygen.

    Restoring a tiny fraction of the crust-bound CO2 to the atmosphere will not turn Earth into Venus. On the contrary, the Earth will patiently set about returning that CO2 to the crust, just like it has from almost the very beginning.

    My point is that it is illogical to use Venus as an example of run-away greenhouse warming. It is far more scientifically accurate to look at the Earth as an example of the relative ineffectiveness of greenhouse gases to control atmospheric temperature. In ‘the beginning’, Earth was like Venus, with a dense CO2 atmosphere, but that atmosphere failed to keep the new Earth from cooling and the rest, as they say, is history.

  318. john robertson says:

    Merry Christmas to all, as the obsession with religion pulls at some commenters here, might I recommend you google Yello:Domingo, a fine 4 minute Youtube to sooth the soul.

  319. Plonk says:

    This may have been mentioned somwhere in this very long discussion, but I find it hard to believe that anyone from the science community or even journalists would state that Polar bears would ear Penguins! Everybody knows they would never get the wrappers off! Really though Polar bears and Penguines are poles apart arn’t they?

  320. Mike Jonas says:

    Warren – Please note that the models could not predict the 20thC uptick, because it had already happened. The models did predict a 21stC temperature rise, and it isn’t happening. NOAA’s “State of the Climate” report 2008 advised that a 15-year period of non-warming would create a “discrepancy” with the models. That period has now been exceeded, so we are entitled to argue that there is a discrepancy between the models and reality. Not just some models, not 97% of models, but all models. It is on such discrepancies, ie. falsifications, that science is ultimately based.

  321. “Joe” says the fact that there is indeed a small group who for political and financial motives have been making up bad science and getting it published in acquiescent journals is “the definition of a c.onspiracy”. It would only be a conspiracy to the extent that the group were acting in concert. Read the Climategate emails and decide for yourselves whether they were doing so.

    However, the actions of a small group do not constitute a conspiracy of all or very nearly all scientists: and the usual accusation leveled at skeptics is that they are positing a giant conspiracy among the entire scientific community, rather than – at worst – a small conspiracy among a handful of greedy, politicized pseudo-scientists.

    “Plonk” says the polar bears and the penguins are Poles apart. So they are. But the dim blonde from Greenpeace whom I was interviewing at the time was not aware of that (or of much else, except what the Party Line was).

    Many thanks to everyone except the trolls for an interesting discussion. Though my daring to mention religion at all has dismayed some, most have understood that scientists who recognize no moral yardstick at all do not necessarily consider themselves under any obligation to conduct or to publish honest scientific research. Richard Dawkins, for instance, has taken full advantage of the blasphemy laws to be downright offensive about Christianity, which he hates.

    Eventually it was a Jew who scored the fatal blow that dethroned Dawkins. He asked him the obvious question: how could life as complex as that which teems on this planet have evolved in so short a time as 13.82 billion years? Dawkins, instead of taking refuge in the usual half-baked arguments about sudden environmentally-driven spurts in evolution – for which the evidence is patchy at best – was eventually, and with great subtlety, lured into admitting that he believes in aliens. It was a wonderful moment. Dawkins has been a busted flush ever since: still fawned upon by the Marxist media, but laughed at by everyone else, for he was asserting a belief for which there is little or no more evidence than for the Christianity he had, until then, affected to despise.

    Perhaps, then, it is only the man of true religion who is capable of being a true rationalist: accepting, as he must if he is honest, that what he believes cannot be proven and should not, therefore, be thrust upon those who do not want it, but demanding in all other matters except his faith that reason should prevail. Science is not a belief system. Scientists are not Druids. It is time that the climate-extremists and their supporters in academe ceased to behave as if they were.

    As Bill and Ted used to say, “Be excellent to one another!” And may the New Year bring you and yours new hope and new love.

  322. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    ralfellis says:
    December 25, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Zeke says: December 25, 2013 at 9:37 am
    Here is a version of the 10 Commandments which would support the basic structure of the society for the people of Israel.
    ___________________________

    ‘People often quote these Ten Commandments, as if previous peoples and civilisation never had laws of morality, before Moses found his stones.’
    So therefore elements of the written Natural Law predate the Ten Commandments.
    The Egyptians also believed that the sun was the origin of life and one god.
    Today many intelligent scientists don’t see the sun as relevant to climate change and tell us its all about the greenhouse.
    The Egyptians saw the sun as important.

  323. Brian H says:

    Feynman and Judea Pearl would disagree ( http://fora.tv/2007/06/21/Judea_Pearl_Science_and_Human_Freedom ) . Tolerance of falsehood disqualifies one as a scientist, degrees and tenure notwithstanding.

  324. Rhys Kent says:

    You lost me with that one Christopher. Much as Stephen Jay Gould did with his facile NOMA theory.
    Nonetheless I look forward to your future writings regarding AGW.
    And because I willingly embrace my cultural past, and hold valuable all that it has given me, while declaring quietly my atheism, I wish you an honest and heartfelt “Merry Christmas”.

  325. Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton, for a very good article.
    Not only you tell the truth about the great lie, but you do it with great beauty.
    Merry Christmas!

  326. HarveyS says:

    Also whilst the subject of venus, another thing warren forgot (or didnt know), is the rotation speed of Venus. Venus rotates once every 243.015 Earth days. One side faces the sun for more than a year. In fact, a year on Venus is shorter than its day. It takes the planet longer to turn on its axis than it takes it to orbit the Sun.

    Venus is the only planet in the Solar System to turn clockwise. All other planets turn anti-clockwise. It rotates clockwise on its axis extremely slowly, suggesting that something might have once collided with it to disrupt its regular rotation (hmm I wonder what that did to the climate at the time).

    In fact ‘Warren’ its impossible to compare what the Earth and Venus. But then you don’t let facts get in the way of spin. That said that’s you sides problem, facts and observational data do not support your case, never have.

    But for most the ‘warmist’ side its cause not the truth that matters.

  327. Janice Moore says:

    @ C. Monckton – “busted flush” — nice. And, after all that squawking — perfect.

    “As Bill and Ted used to say, ‘Be excellent to one another!’” (Monckton)

    And, thank you. May 2014 be your best year so far!

  328. Bill H says:

    Excellent Sir Monckton! Well Done!

    To many people forget that the Old testament is about the LAW. A law etched in stone to God’s people. The Fulfillment of that law was God’s son Jesus the Christ. The Law served two purposes. One was to direct peoples actions and two, It was to show man how deeply flawed he was.

    Christs Birth was God’s gift to a sinful man. It is very appropriate that you would show how religion is the moral compass given by God to man and how that compass is now rejected by the very people in need of it, a group of self serving and ungodly men. The Bible warns of the “learned” who would reject Christ and cling to their own version of truth and just how it would be their undoing. History truly repeats itself as the Roman Empire destroyed itself from within due to their “Learned” who rejected God and clung to their own version of morality.

    Men without direction and a foundation in the truth will never seek it diligently. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23 Man will perish if not reminded of his sinful behavior and the need to remain humble in God’s sight..

    Merry Christmas To ALL… Remember, Jesus is the reason for the season!

  329. Gail Combs says:

    Warren says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    …It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You do not know what your are talking about. That subject has been dissected at WUWT ad nauseum.

    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment

    …With respect to climate, we have had 17 years without warming; all models show greater tropical warming than has been observed since 1978; and arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth. And yet, as the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever….

    Dr. David Whitehouse (Ph.D., Astrophysics) Dr. David Whitehouse on the AR5 figure 1.4 This is about reality vs climate models in the draft version of IPCC AR5.

    Dr Bjorn Lomborg ( professor of statistics) Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot

    This one was written for you: Blind faith in climate models It shows all 25 models as a spaghetti graph vs reality. Not one graphed computer model matches the recent temperature.

    Climate models – worse than we thought: Observations Now Inconsistent with Climate Model Predictions for 25 (going on 35) Years

    National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful

    New peer reviewed paper finds the same global forecast model produces different results when run on different computers

    Nature on the failure of climate models “…An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now.”

    New paper: climate models short on ‘physics required for realistic simulation of the Earth system’

    Study: lack of cloud physics biased climate models high

    Climate models aren’t good enough to hindcast, says new study

    And those are just scratching the surface on the subject.

  330. ralfellis says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    Richard Dawkins, for instance, has taken full advantage of the blasphemy laws to be downright offensive about Christianity, which he hates.
    ______________________________________

    Ah, so now we have it in writing. The Monk wants to reinstate the old-fashioned blasphemy laws, so that we can all be burned at the stake, like William Tyndale.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs_-_Tyndale.jpg

    And Tyndale’s great crime? Well, he translated the Bible into English. Oohhh, such an unforgivable crime – to allow the proletariat to read the original biblical texts in their own language… That, is where the Monk and his ilk want to take us.

    We allow the fundamentalists to turn back the great gains of the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment at our peril. Remember, it was the Reformation that allowed the Royal Institution to be founded, and therefore the Industrial Revolution to begin. So every technology around us, is the result of the selfless few who stood up to the might and power of the Catholic Church – at their great peril.

    Without the Reformation, the likes of Wren, Petty, Boyle and Newton would have been sharing the funerary pyre with William Tyndale, and we would not have the modern world we are now blessed with. Think about it.

    Ralph

  331. Amr marzouk says:

    Spot on

  332. bobl says:

    @ Jim Clarke

    Move Venus into Earth’s orbit and it will eventually cool down to an Earth-like temperature

    Sorry, nonsense,

    That should read, move Venus into to Earth’s orbit and reduce the density of it’s atmosphere to 101.3 Kpa at the surface and the surface temperature will cool to become earthlike.
    Venuses temperature exceeds earths (given the difference in radiated flux,) simply because it has a denser atmosphere, it is PV=nRT acting. Probes have shown that at the point in Venus atmosphere where the pressure is 101.3 kPa Venus’s temperature is pretty much spot on what we would expect it to be from the physics. Sorry, Warren, you are wrong too..

    Warren, Mars has ten times the CO2 partial pressure as earth. if CO2 heat retention warms the earth, then why doesn’t it warm mars?

    Titan has an atmosphere of Methane, GWP (Global warming potential) of 72 yet its cold enough to liquify methane? How come it’s not runaway hot?

    Warren, warming of the earth above theoretical (without atmosphere ) is 33 degrees, not 60 – get your facts straight please. – You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

  333. ralfellis says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    Dawkins, instead of taking refuge in the usual half-baked arguments about sudden environmentally-driven spurts in evolution – for which the evidence is patchy at best – was eventually, and with great subtlety, lured into admitting that he believes in aliens. It was a wonderful moment. Dawkins has been a busted flush ever since:
    ____________________________________

    Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

    The Monk castigates Dawkins for believing in aliens, but he himself believes in an omnipotent alien, who lives in the clouds, the skies, the heavens, the cosmos or perhaps a fifth dimension. I’m confused on that point, because Christians have been adjusting the residence of their alien for centuries. He was in the skies, until we went to the skies, and then he went into space, until we went into space, and now he or she has gone multi-dimensional – apparently.

    Tell me, Monk, just where does your alien live? Give me an address and a telephone number.

    Adam meets an alien, fresco from the Sistine Chapel:
    http://www.prlog.org/11409306-the-creation-of-adam.jpg

    Ralph

    P.S. Does your alien need a spacecraft, or has his or her technology superseded the spacecraft phase of evolution? I only ask because if he or she is still using a spacecraft, I would be interested in the registration number of the latest model, because my son collects aircraft registrations. It would give him a few extra brownie-points with his school mates to have its registration number….

  334. Jim Clarke says:

    ralfellis says:
    December 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    “Ah, so now we have it in writing. The Monk wants to reinstate the old-fashioned blasphemy laws, so that we can all be burned at the stake, like William Tyndale.”

    Christopher Monckton is no more saying that then you are saying that all Catholics should be burned at the stack. There are better ways to discuss issues than making up ridiculous statements out of whole cloth and then falsely attributing them to your opponent (unless that is all you have to go on).

  335. ralfellis says:

    Jim Clarke says: December 25, 2013 at 3:27 pm
    Christopher Monckton is no more saying that then you are saying that all Catholics should be burned at the stack. There are better ways to discuss issues than making up ridiculous statements.
    __________________________________

    So why does the Monk want to toughen the blasphemy laws, if it is not to silence those who wish to point out the gaping holes, the rational illogicalities, and the cruel oppression of the Catholic Church? The blasphemy laws have long been used by the Catholic Church to silence its critics, and a jail-sentence would do that in the modern era as effectively as burning at the stake in the 16th century. But burning was far more effective at silencing the heretics – just ask William Tyndale. Its a bit like Muhummad’s ‘Dead Poets Society’ – look it up.

    Why do you think Queen Bloody Mary of England gained her distasteful sobriquet? It was not because she liked a few vodkas, that’s for sure. No, it was because she burned 280 critics of the Catholic Church to death. That is what powerful religions do – they seize power and control the people without mercy.

    And we allow those dark days to again stalk the green and pleasant lands of Britain at our peril. Some 5 million people died for Europe’s freedom from Catholic tyranny, and we trample on their brave memory at our peril. To regress back into the blasphemy laws of old would be the biggest error of any free and open society, which would lead to a new Dark Age. But the Monk does not want you to know any of this, and so he would be using those same new blasphemy laws to end any such discussion – the ‘truthful’ Church cannot allow you to know the true truth.

    And it is not Dawkins we have to thank for the ending of this new blasphemy law in the UK, but our comedians. It was British comedians who convinced parliament that their ill-thought blasphemy proposal (by Catholic Tony Blair) would lead to the ruination of Britain, not Dawkins. So thank you, Monty Python team (who could not have filmed Life of Brian), thank you Stephen Fry (who could not perform his quiz show), thank you Rowan Atkinson (who could not have appeared in Black Adder). Thank you, one and all.

    Ralph

  336. Gail Combs says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    December 25, 2013 at 10:30 am

    “Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities”

    Am I right in saying that NO university or scientific institution in the world is untainted by this shame?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There might be a few privately funded colleges, probably religious that maybe still be untainted but I doubt it. Humans have a tendency to run in herds and to ‘Join’ there fellows. Graduates from one university go on to become faculty at another university so the ‘infection’ spreads. Not to mention: Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement – ‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus
    Heck the warmists and the United Nations even have an NGO colleges can join just like they have ICLEI for cities and towns
    <a href="http://www.pomona.edu/administration/sustainability/policies-procedures/climate-plan.aspx"Pomona College

    …is a signatory of the American Colleges and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment, which requires its member institutions to develop plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with detailed recommendations, targets, and interim milestone dates for reducing emissions. It also requires that institutions complete yearly inventories of emissions for tracking progress….

    The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment
    Mission and History

    The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) is a high-visibility effort to address global climate disruption undertaken by a network of colleges and universities that have made institutional commitments to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions from specified campus operations, and to promote the research and educational efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the earth’s climate. Its mission is to accelerate progress towards climate neutrality and sustainability by empowering the higher education sector to educate students, create solutions, and provide leadership-by-example for the rest of society….

    Of course you have think tanks like Heartland and The Global Warming Policy Foundation, launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords UK.

  337. Myrrh says:

    [snip -pointless insulting slayers rant -mod]

  338. rogerknights says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm

    I think a far more critical question is ” what if the models are right” or what if the models understate?” And the natural follow-on: ” Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?” I don’t view that as alarmist, but rather as prudent.

    The developing world says, “Who’s ‘we,’ white man? WE aren’t going to pay for any insurance policy!”

    Given that attitude, the West’s efforts will amount to bailing out a ship that is willfully taking on water–futile and economically suicidal.

  339. mikael says:

    I bow my head for the article and its staments, witch I fully and with all my hart, agrees on.

    Some of us, have been thrue everything, thrue nagging doubth and dancing along the edges of sanity, and also hammered with despecable acusations, of been murdere and so on.
    But one thing have steadyed the corse thure all this years.
    The truth.

    Fractals, the cross is the oldst symbol we know of, and its universal, the pilars of the earth.
    What we miss, is the range between 1 and 0.
    Like this.

    The flower duet
    Enjoy.

    And never forgett, the path to knowledge is brutal, and must be fully understudd.
    Knowledge have enemys, and the 4 greates of them all is:

    But I have no fear of our future, the obstacle is the present, and the consequences of moronic policys based on flatout lies and even wurse, forged science, and the corruption of it.
    And all the doooms days senarios, with an old time Fire and Brimstone certanty and hell to pay if we dont follow Theyr intentions.

    peace

    “There are two ways of spreading light..to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”
    ― Francis Bacon

  340. bobl says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm

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

    Commenters here have made a valid point that not having Religion does not preclude an ethical code for truthfulness, however I still think your point is well made.

    It is undoubted, in the West Historically our ethical code has been derived from the teachings in the Bible. It is religion and religious texts that have brought us to the common understanding of our ethical responsibilities, whereas without that factor there would perhaps be a myriad of conflicting moral codes that would continue to have us at war with each other. Indeed the spread of atheism does seem to be fragmenting our society into tribes delineated by differences in moral standards, Bikie gangs, or hippy communes being two such groups. While one can’t say that this necessarily produces worse moral behaviour, one can say that it produces spread, and one can no longer rely on behaviour resembling the ten commandments. Indeed our very own Australian high court has conceded that pluralistic marriages are recognised for many purposes – some what a departure from traditional morality.

    Civilisation is however wholly dependent on such a common perception of ethics, and would collapse into feudalism without it. On this basis, Monckton is right, our common understanding of what is right and wrong, undoubtedly derives from the church, and without that uniting force we would be an undisciplined mess, not a civilisation.

  341. ferdberple says:

    HarveyS says:
    December 25, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    Venus is the only planet in the Solar System to turn clockwise. All other planets turn anti-clockwise. It rotates clockwise on its axis extremely slowly, suggesting that something might have once collided with it to disrupt its regular rotation
    =============
    Venus presents the same face to earth at closest approach, every 584 days. In this fashion the rotation of Venus is spin-coupled to the earth’s orbit.

    What are the odds that a collision would yield such an amazing co-incidence? Spin-coupled harmonic oscillation over hundreds of millions of years seems more likely. Something similar must be at work with Earth’s moon, such that it always presents the same face to earth.

    http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html

  342. Jimbo says:

    Here I am wishing you all a very merry white Xmas.

    Global Warming Hates A White Christmas
    By Brad Johnson on December 23, 2011
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/23/394922/global-warming-hates-a-white-christmas/#

    Half the U.S. is already covered with snow
    By Douglas Main and Live Science, Published: December 23
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/half-the-us-is-already-covered-with-snow/2013/12/20/84203c36-682d-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_print.html

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the present. Children have to know what snow is. It’s not rare or exciting anymore, it’s just bloody cold and localized cold kills just like localized global warming. ;)

  343. Jimbo says:

    I’m dreaming of a white Christmas……..just like the one’s I used to know…… La, la, la, la.

    Enjoy the white stuff from the past in areas with ‘reduced’ snowpack all caused by dangerous global warming – that thing from the past. Haaaa haaaaa.
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/photos-white-christmas/21357805

  344. ferdberple says:

    rogerknights says:
    December 25, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    The developing world says, “Who’s ‘we,’ white man? WE aren’t going to pay for any insurance policy!”
    ================
    Worse yet, the developing world now says, “We want you to pay us reparations for having created the mess in the first place. You created the CO2, you pay us for the damages your own scientists are saying you caused. Every storm, every hurricane, every flood, every drought. CO2 is making it worse, so we deserve to be compensated today. Not in 50 or 100 years, but today. Pay us today. If you don’t have the money, then borrow it from China, but pay us today”.

  345. James Abbott says:

    Lord Monckton said

    “Eventually it was a Jew who scored the fatal blow that dethroned Dawkins. He asked him the obvious question: how could life as complex as that which teems on this planet have evolved in so short a time as 13.82 billion years?”

    Not such an obvious question when it implies that the age of the Earth is three times greater than it actually is.

    And what is there to say of a man who uses this description about a woman ?

    “But the dim blonde from Greenpeace”

    This has been a very helpful debate. It has exposed more fully the confused and out-dated views of a man who the skeptic community holds up as a champion of their cause – and in so doing damaging their case enormously.

  346. ferdberple says:

    bobl says:
    December 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    Monckton is right, our common understanding of what is right and wrong, undoubtedly derives from the church,
    =================
    The church and religion are not the same.

  347. Allan MacRae says:

    bobl says: December 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Civilisation is however wholly dependent on such a common perception of ethics, and would collapse into feudalism without it. On this basis, Monckton is right, our common understanding of what is right and wrong, undoubtedly derives from the church, and without that uniting force we would be an undisciplined mess, not a civilisation.

    Allan says:

    Well said bobl. Here is a relevent excerpt from an earlier post:

    Background:

    I have significant business and travel experience on six continents, specifically in regions such as Western Europe, the Former Soviet Union, North Africa, Australia and North and South America. I have spent most of my career in the energy and mining industries including senior management. My strategic and fiscal (tax and royalty) initiatives were instrumental in revitalizing the Canadian oilsands industry in the 1980’s and 1990’s and Canada is now the 6th largest oil producer in the world and the most prosperous country in the G8.

    My comments:

    In travels it was at first difficult at first to understand why countries that were as rich in resources and older than Canada were so poor, and why wealth was so unevenly distributed. The common thread of wealthy nations soon became apparent and it was Rule of Law in all its forms. Rich nations allowed their people to build and retain most of the benefits derived from their honest efforts.

    Merry Christmas to all, Allan

  348. climateace says:

    Lord Monckton, third Viscount of Brenchley, says:

    [Many thanks to everyone except the trolls for an interesting discussion. Though my daring to mention religion at all has dismayed some, most have understood that scientists who recognize no moral yardstick at all do not necessarily consider themselves under any obligation to conduct or to publish honest scientific research. Richard Dawkins, for instance, has taken full advantage of the blasphemy laws to be downright offensive about Christianity, which he hates.

    Eventually it was a Jew who scored the fatal blow that dethroned Dawkins. He asked him the obvious question: how could life as complex as that which teems on this planet have evolved in so short a time as 13.82 billion years? Dawkins, instead of taking refuge in the usual half-baked arguments about sudden environmentally-driven spurts in evolution – for which the evidence is patchy at best – was eventually, and with great subtlety, lured into admitting that he believes in aliens. It was a wonderful moment. Dawkins has been a busted flush ever since: still fawned upon by the Marxist media, but laughed at by everyone else, for he was asserting a belief for which there is little or no more evidence than for the Christianity he had, until then, affected to despise.

    Perhaps, then, it is only the man of true religion who is capable of being a true rationalist: accepting, as he must if he is honest, that what he believes cannot be proven and should not, therefore, be thrust upon those who do not want it, but demanding in all other matters except his faith that reason should prevail. Science is not a belief system. Scientists are not Druids. It is time that the climate-extremists and their supporters in academe ceased to behave as if they were.’

    Lord Monckton, third Viscount of Brenchley, Nobel Prize winner, congratulates himself for ‘daring’ to mention religion? How brave is that?

    Here we all are, still waiting for some science, of which there is not a skerrick in the gospels. There is no science in religion for there cannot be. It is in the nature of miracles that they are un-science based. Religion is not about theories, hypotheses, evidence or stastical treatments.

    Similarly, there is no science in creationism. There is not a skerrick of evidence to show that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs, but that is what creationists believe.

    Religion is about faith. Creationism is about faith.

    It is entirely consistent, therefore, that Lord Monckton links religion, creationism and denialism. whether the latter is applied to the perils of cigarette smoking, the perils of fluoridation, the perils of doing something about CO2 emissions, or the perils of… whatever.

  349. AJB says:

    Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
    Man never is, but always to be blessed:
    The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
    Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

    Know then thyself, presume not God to scan

    The proper study of Mankind is Man.
    Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
    A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
    With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
    With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
    He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
    In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
    In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
    Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
    Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
    Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
    Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus’d;
    Still by himself, abus’d or disabus’d;
    Created half to rise and half to fall;
    Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
    Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl’d;
    The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

    Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,

    Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
    Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
    Correct old time, and regulate the sun;
    Go, soar with Plato to th’ empyreal sphere,
    To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
    Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
    And quitting sense call imitating God;
    As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,
    And turn their heads to imitate the sun.
    Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule—
    Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!

    Alexander Pope,

    The people who challenged my atheism most were drug addicts and prostitutes

    I’ve been reminded that life is not as rational as Richard Dawkins sees it. Perhaps atheism is an intellectual luxury for the wealthy.

    EnviroFUD is hope destructive. Happy whatever, may hope continue to spring eternal in you all.

  350. climateace says:

    AJB

    Hope is like crossing your fingers, right?

  351. Leslie says:

    I used to be hopeful about the Tea Party until it appeared to engage more in conversations about abortions and less about fiscal responsibility. Similarly this post at best feels like friendly fire.

  352. AJB says:

    climateace says: December 25, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    No. Hope is maintaining the mind in a non-destructive state through elimination of ego.

  353. Warren says:

    BOBL says: Warren, warming of the earth above theoretical (without atmosphere ) is 33 degrees, not 60 – get your facts straight please. – You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Bobl, you should be pointing the accusing finger towards yourself. 60 degrees F temperature difference (my number) equals 33 degrees C temperature difference (your number). i.e. The same.
    As far as the rest of your commentary is concerned…, the temperature of Venus being 500C hotter than its non-atmospheric prediction — hot enough to melt lead — has long been estimated by Scientists analyzing the spectrum of thermal radiation from Venus; the estimates were confirmed by the Venus probes. The greenhouse explanation — water evaporation due to Venus’s proximity to the sun, leading to a large greenhouse effect and high atmospheric temperatures, and an atmosphere of 96% CO2 and a runaway greenhouse effect — is not even controversial in the Science. If still in doubt, you can verify the scenario with any College or even High School physics prof, or with a Science publication that covers the topic. You can also verify the Mars Greenhouse effect as essentially zero in the same way.

  354. Chad Wozniak says:

    Warren, you get it wrong again – Venus is so different from Earth that parallels can’t be drawn. The high temps on Venus are due more to the compression of its atmosphere than to CO2 (94 timers as dense as Earth’s ,and 150 times more massive). Venus has 250,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth does now, and 500 times more than Earth ever had.

    There have been many periods in Earth’s history when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was many orders of magnitude greater than today – until about 2 billion years ago, before blue-green algae evolved and photosynthesis began to convert the CO2 to O2, the Earth’s atmosphere was 20 percent CO2 – and the Earth didn’t burn up – in fact it went through a couple of global ice ages. In the Eocene and Oligocene, CO2 concentrations reached 8,000 ppm at times – with no runaway heating. And in the Miocene an ice age started when CO2 was at 8i00 ppm.

    About 96 percent of the potential greenhouse effect has already been achieved at 400 ppm. Doubling the concentration will only increase the effect by about 2 percent. When you weigh that against the 250 to 1,400 times the effect that water vapor has compared to CO2, that increase is too small to detect any effect from it.

    Your references are also dubious, to say the least. Too many academics have fallen prey to the global warming disease, because of their leftist politics, and Science has long since descended from a once-prestigious journal to a shameless leftist political rag.

    Isn’t it funny how the AGW scam is so convenient to leftists who want to tax us to death and control every detail of our lives? That’s what it’s really about – and about “wealth redistribution,” which invariably works out so that wealth is transferred from poorer to richer. Renewable energy is one very effective such scheme, for transferring wealth upward from poorer to richer.

  355. Chad Wozniak says:

    Warren, I forgot to mention greenhouses – 1,200 to 1,500 ppm CO2, pumped in to increase yields – and no runaway warming there!

  356. Roberto says:

    Does religion cause problems or cure them? As one piece of the answer, let me suggest my favorite comment from Teddy White. White was a sharp historian during roughly 1940-1980. He worked with Mao personally, and knew many of the movers and movements of the day. His observation was that after all the things he had seen, one thing in the world scared him the most. That is when intellectuals give naturally thuggish people cover for going ahead. “I don’t know much myself, but he said it’s right to pound on those people until they change. So we will.”

    These teachers may be religious intellectuals, or cultists, or atheists, or businessmen, or patriots, or scientists, or doctors, or political leaders, or whatever. The excuse doesn’t make that much difference.

    Happy Christmas, or however you would like to say it.

  357. Warren says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 25, 2013 at 10:40 am
    Warren says:December 25, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Pamela,
    Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with

    Got data?

    OK. My source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
    Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

    3.4.2.1 Surface and Lower-Tropospheric Water Vapour (Excerpts)

    My figure was taken from the last paragraph — for the atmosphere over the oceans. Rises in specific humidity over land and Globally are stated in the 1st paragraph:

    Trends in specific humidity tend to follow surface temperature trends with a global average increase of 0.06 g kg–1 per decade (1976–2004). The rise in specific humidity corresponds to about 4.9% per 1°C warming over the globe. Over the ocean, the observed surface specific humidity increases at 5.7% per 1°C warming, which is consistent with a constant relative humidity. Over land, the rate of increase is slightly smaller (4.3% per 1°C), suggesting a modest reduction in relative humidity as temperatures increase, as expected in water-limited regions.

    And:
    Significant interannual variability of column-integrated water vapour has been observed using TOVS, SMMR and SSM/I data. In particular, column water vapour over the tropical oceans increased by 1 to 2 mm during the 1982–1983, 1986–1987 and 1997–1998 El Niño events (Soden and Schroeder, 2000; Allan et al., 2003; Trenberth et al., 2005a) and decreased by a smaller magnitude in response to global cooling following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (Soden et al., 2002; Trenberth and Smith, 2005; see also Section 8.6.3.1). The linear trend based on monthly SSM/I data over the oceans was 1.2% per decade (0.40 ± 0.09 mm per decade) for 1988 to 2004 (Figure 3.20).

    A question was asked earlier whether the figure was specific or relative humidity, Seems it was specific humidity.

  358. tango says:

    keep it up we will bring them down or maybe they will bring them selves down in the end the lying gooses

  359. dp says:

    I would like to divert some of the praise for just a moment to Topher who built some fantastic video interviews this year among all the other excellent, positive, and rational education and publicity materials he’s produced. Well done, Topher, and we hope to see more in 2014.

  360. bobl says:

    Warren,
    We tend to use SI unit here, when using a local scale (Say Fahrenheit) please state so.

    On the Topic of Venus, you must account for the density of the atmosphere, the different rotational patterns and the fact that Venus is more volcanic that the earth. as well. That greenhouse warming is the cause of hot temperatures on Venus is speculative, unproven and contrary to your assertion, very controversial, it is but a theory. I recall an article examining Venusian temperatures at the point at which the atmosphere is earth equivalent pressure, and it is exactly what we’d expect for a planetary body that receives twice the insolation of the earth. One would think that the reflective Sulphur in the venusian atmosphere might have a cooling effect as the warmist scientists say it does on earth. It is quite possible that heat buildup on Venus is internally sourced from its vulcanism, and that its highly reflective atmosphere keeps that internal heat from escaping. That of course is opposite to the situation on earth that has a largely transparent atmosphere and little leakage of internal heat sources. We know so little about Venus.

    You similarly deflect on Mars and Titan, since the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses on both these planets does not lead to runaway warming we can conclude then that GHG’s are a minor factor despite the concentrations of GHGs being 10s to hundreds of times earths

    You also ignore my climate sensitivity boundary tests that show sensitivity cannot be above about 1 odd degree per doubling, and completely miss the point that increasing global average temperature does NOT imply a more extreme climate, interesting you ignore this simple math that doesn’t agree with your ideology… Perhaps you are one of the ignorant “Greenies” that can’t think for themselves.

    If so, then we can go into why mitigating action on GHGs is immoral and totally impractical, since I have done the research and math on that too.

    My point remains. So far you have completely failed to refute any of the math that I rely upon to support my sceptical viewpoint. To convert me to a pro warming view you must show why my math (and logic) is wrong. And furthermore you must show harm, and that mitigation including the attendant deaths by fuel poverty, and wealth diversion to global warming mitigation is justified by the benefit.

    No pointing to others, no deference to authority, Show me the math Warren done by YOU.

  361. bobl says:

    Excuse me, Titan is a satellite (moon), not a planet , I should proof read my work better.

  362. bobl says:

    Warren, we are also getting very close to the point where I will simply classify you as a troll, who believes in atmospheres that violate energy conservation, and ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics. That would be a pretty major denial of science on your part.

  363. ferdberple says:

    Warren,
    On the Topic of Venus, you must account for the density of the atmosphere
    =================
    Huffman has done quite a bit of work on this topic, comparing venus, earth and mars. He shows that atmospheric pressure, not atmospheric composition explains the temperature difference. Well worth a read.

    An interesting fact about Venus, even though it rotates very slowly (once per 243 earth days), unlike earth there is almost no difference in temperature between the day and night side. A second interesting fact is that the rotation of Venus is synchronized to the orbit of earth, such that Venus displays the same face to earth at the point of closet approach.

    Both these facts suggest we still have a lot to learn about Venus. The fact that Venus displays the same face to earth suggests that even minute tidal forces can over time can have very significant effects. Much greater effects than our calculations of simple forcings allow for. The obvious example is the child’s swing, where minute harmonic forcings result in large oscillations. Many times greater than would be possible if the forcing was strictly linear.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.ca/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/nasa-builds-high-pressure-venus-surface-simulation/

  364. Richard D says:

    The pedlars of the global warming scare have acted immorally in dressing up politics as though it were science.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Too true. And enthusiastically proselytized by many who should know better.

  365. ferdberple says:

    The effect of atmospheric density can be readily observed on earth. The atmospheric pressure of earth in a dry mine shaft 60,000 meters deep would be 91 atmospheres, about the same as Venus.

    The dry air lapse rate is 9.8C/1000meters. At the bottom of the dry mine shaft, temperatures would be about 600C, excluding the effects of water vapor (which Venus does not have).

    Of course we do not have the technology to build such a mine shaft, but the effect of pressure on temperature is readily apparent in the TauTona Mine, which at 3900 meters deep has a temperature of 55C. The predicted temperature via the dry air lapse rate is 55C, assuming a 17C average surface temperature.

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

    excel formulas:
    A2 = elevation in meters
    air pressure (bar):
    =101325*((1-(2.25577*10^(-5))*A2)^5.25588)/100000
    temperature (C):
    =(-A2)/1000*9.8+17

  366. ferdberple says:

    bobl says:
    December 25, 2013 at 10:08 pm
    increasing global average temperature does NOT imply a more extreme climate
    ==============
    in fact, the cliamte heat engine is about 20% efficient at today’s temperatures. If you raise the pole and equator temperatures by a similar amount the efficiency drops, meaning you will get less work (weather) out of a given amount of energy from the sun. In other words, weather will get less extreme.

    If you raise the temperature at the poles more than the equator, then the efficiency drops even more, meaning even less work (weather) from the climate heat engine.

  367. David Jones says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    “Thank you and a Merry Christmas from an Agnostic (me) and an Atheist (my husband)
    Honesty and Integrity are not the sole province of the Judeo-Christian religions but of civilized men and women because without honesty and integrity all you have is raiders, parasites and their prey whom they eventually will destroy.”

    Ain’t that the truth! Thank you Gail.

  368. Richard D says:

    If you raise the pole and equator temperatures by a similar amount the efficiency drops, meaning you will get less work (weather) out of a given amount of energy from the sun. In other words, weather will get less extreme.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Exactly, unfortunately it’s strawmen and red herrings, all the way down. The physics demonstrates CO2 can warm. The hypotheses of global warming aka global weirding aka climate change aka extreme weather are a big FAIL. Do no harm….

  369. ralfellis says:

    climateace says: December 25, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    It is in the nature of miracles that they are un-science based.
    _______________________________________

    That is not so, not so at all.

    For instance, the “water to wine” miracle in John 2:9 is a well-known 1st century parlor trick for the royal court, devised by Hero of Alexandria. It was a trick jug that could separate two fluids based upon suction and water surface tension, which demonstrates an intimate knowledge of real science. (Hero made about six different water-to-wine jugs.)

    Here is the very jug that Jesus used at the wedding at Cana:
    http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/Wales/Steam/URochesterCollection/Hero/22,8.jpg

    And here is an explanation of the science that it is based upon:
    http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/Wales/Steam/URochesterCollection/Hero/section8.html

    As Hero himself said of his trick jug:
    Quote:
    We may also pour in the water first, and then, stopping the vent, pour wine upon it, so as to pour out wine for some, wine and water for others, and mere water for those whom we wish to jest with.

    So the water to wine ‘miracle’ was simply a jest – a joke based upon real science. Those who were performing the joke, like Jesus, were rolling around in mirth, while the uninitiated proletariat thought it was a real miracle. And believe it or not, there are some people who still think this was a miracle even to this day. Incredible, I know, but that is Church propaganda for you.

    It was not a miracle, it was science, because the Nazarene Church of Jesus was a Gnostic Church based upon science – until the Catholic Church of Saul got hold of it, and distorted and ruined everything.

    Merry Xmas party tricks…. ;-)

    Ralph

  370. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    James Abbott says:
    December 25, 2013 at 5:10 pm
    Lord Monckton said
    “Eventually it was a Jew who scored the fatal blow that dethroned Dawkins. He asked him the obvious question: how could life as complex as that which teems on this planet have evolved in so short a time as 13.82 billion years?”
    ‘Not such an obvious question when it implies that the age of the Earth is three times greater than it actually is.’
    Most scientists believe that life consists of matter which originated after singularity.
    The formation of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, the building blocks of carbon based life, came later when stars formed supernovas. But for the valency of carbon our life could not exist.
    The evolution of life on our planet depends upon this process which was initiated at the big bang and continues today.
    To argue or declare otherwise is contrary to reason and not backed by empirical evidence.

  371. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Christopher. Another wonderful post.

  372. A C Osborn says:

    bobl says: December 25, 2013 at 10:18 pm
    Warren, we are also getting very close to the point where I will simply classify you as a troll,

    I got to that point after his few posts, I have seen the exact same attitude before, as I stated to him in my first post, which he did not like.
    Like Adam on Tallbloke’s Talkshop he intimates that he wants to debate & learn, but is not actually prepared to look at opposing data.
    If he had been more receptive I could have pointed to the 1000 peer reviewed papers and lots of other websites showing newer papers like the Hockey Schtick etc.

  373. Bruce Cobb says:

    If pressed, I would probably identify myself as an atheist, simply because religion doesn’t play a part in my life. It doesn’t interest me. And yet, I don’t feel the urge to trash others’ religiosity the way Dawkins (and some on this thread) do. There is a viciousness to this new form of atheism which I find repugnant. Part of it may be a reaction to the wrongheaded move by Christian conservatives to bring politics into religion, and the idiotic idea that the bible should be taken literally. That began some time in the early 80′s, I believe, and was a huge mistake. One can oppose that without trashing all religions, or even just Christianity.

  374. HenryP says:

    Warren says

    OK. My source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
    Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

    3.4.2.1 Surface and Lower-Tropospheric Water Vapour (Excerpts)

    My figure was taken from the last paragraph — for the atmosphere over the oceans. Rises in specific humidity over land and Globally are stated in the 1st paragraph:

    Trends in specific humidity tend to follow surface temperature trends with a global average increase of 0.06 g kg–1 per decade (1976–2004). The rise in specific humidity corresponds to about 4.9% per 1°C warming over the globe. Over the ocean, the observed surface specific humidity increases at 5.7% per 1°C warming, which is consistent with a constant relative humidity. Over land, the rate of increase is slightly smaller (4.3% per 1°C), suggesting a modest reduction in relative humidity as temperatures increase, as expected in water-limited regions.

    Henry says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/

    where it concludes:
    quote
    Climate models predict upper atmosphere moistening which triples the greenhouse effect from man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The new satellite data from the NASA water vapor project shows declining upper atmosphere water vapor during the period 1988 to 2001. It is the best available data for water vapor because it has global coverage. Calculations by a line-by-line radiative code show that upper atmosphere water vapor changes at 500 mb to 300 mb have 29 times greater effect on OLR and temperatures than the same change near the surface. The cooling effect of the water vapor changes on OLR is 16 times greater than the warming effect of CO2 during the 1990 to 2001 period. Radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with warming. The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. During the 1990 to 2001 period, upper atmosphere water vapor from satellite data declines more than that from radiosonde data, so there is no reason to dismiss the radiosonde data. Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming.
    end quote
    Again, you must realize from the commenters here by now that there is no global warming, that there has not been any for 17 years, in fact it has been cooling globally for the last 12 years (which is the equivalent of at least one Schwabe solar cycle), and, if you can bring yourself to believe the results of my own investigations, it will not stop globally cooling, until 2040, on average, from 2014-2040, give or take 5 years or so.
    Live with it.
    If you are heavily invested in green energy, or in the development in the arctic, now would be a good time to get out.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  375. Harry Passfield says:

    Mikeal left us a vid of the Lacme Flower Duet – which is wonderful. But for festive enjoyment, the one made by two British Airways Stewardesses is priceless – and should have you in stitches.

  376. bobl says:

    A C Osborn

    Yes, sadly I believe you are right, Warren is but a missionary, sent into the land of the heathens, to convert us to Gaia worship. I had hoped, that like many he had found his way here seeking truth, but alas it is not to be. There is no point arguing with a religious zealot.

    It is ironic he should appear during this post though when Monckton talks of intellectual integrity, but we have witnessed a rather crass display of “Whatever it takes”. I’m not sure about Warren though, let’s not be too harsh as Warren displays all the signs of being very young, maybe a teenager. We should remember that we have no way of knowing and it it not fair to treat children too harshly. We were once young idealistic and always right once too, but have since grown out of it.

  377. Warren says:

    Henry: in that last 17 years you refer to, the oceans have warmed according to the peer reviewed paper published in Science this year, based on measurement, not theory. 17 years is not long enough to conclude what you say, as the additional energy has gone into the oceans. If you look at the 20th century temp record, periods of level temperatures, or even slightly declining temp, are part of the zig zag pattern with its overall upward trend over the last 150 years.

  378. HenryP says:

    Bruce Cobb says
    If pressed, I would probably identify myself as an atheist, simply because religion doesn’t play a part in my life. It doesn’t interest me. And yet, I don’t feel the urge to trash others’ religiosity the way Dawkins (and some on this thread) do. There is a viciousness to this new form of atheism which I find repugnant. Part of it may be a reaction to the wrongheaded move by Christian conservatives to bring politics into religion, and the idiotic idea that the bible should be taken literally. That began some time in the early 80′s, I believe, and was a huge mistake. One can oppose that without trashing all religions, or even just Christianity.

    Henry says
    Bruce, thanks for that comment. I think you are what we call agnostic, and you make it clear that you don’t force your opinions [that cannot be supported by simple scientific observations] on others which I find admirable. This brings me to an important point. Politics and religion are the two most widely talked bout subjects. WUWT has brought in a rule not to discuss religion. Such a rule is fair, but then surely, it must also apply to those wanting to discuss atheism?

    I have identified a few people here that have been put on a pedestal here at WUWT here as being particularly interested in bringing their atheistic beliefs forward and to be insulting towards anyone who who goes against it. For example, in an earlier comment here, Lord Monckton was referred to as the “Monk” by a “Silver Ralph”, which I thought was an UNACCEPTABLE name call, referring to his membership to a particular church. As I have stated before, people who call each other names or fool’s in a blog should be banned for a specific time from posting at all. The reason why Silver Ralph is getting away with it is because his name suggests the probability of a relationship with Leif Svalgaard, another one of those who feel that they must profess their atheism on WUWT at all times and at anytime, as openly as possible, and be insulting to believers.

    What I am about to say has nothing to do with the fact that I am a Christian…..
    The natural backdrop of all of this favoritism of WUWT towards atheists is the fact that climate skepticism in the USA is not being taken seriously. Namely, to get the mainstream Republicans on your side, you first need to win over the bible belt…. Anyone from the bible belt coming to visit WUWT and hearing the rage and rantings of Leif and Ralph and others against the Christian faith will leave and not come back. In their eyes, an atheist is someone who only believes in himself. They do not trust anything coming from an atheist, as they see him simply as a self appointed god, an idol…….

  379. Steve Keohane says:

    Warren you quote “Over the ocean, the observed surface specific humidity increases at 5.7% per 1°C warming, which is consistent with a constant relative humidity”
    But RH% is and has decreased http://i48.tinypic.com/2qlfnzn.jpg

  380. HenryP says:

    Warren says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1513610
    “the extra heat went into the oceans” argument
    Henry says
    Sorry Warren, this is not apparent from the hadsst2 global sea surface temps, which is going down from 2001
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/to:2014

  381. ferdberple says:

    ralfellis says:
    December 26, 2013 at 1:28 am
    We may also pour in the water first, and then, stopping the vent, pour wine upon it, so as to pour out wine for some, wine and water for others, and mere water for those whom we wish to jest with.
    ===================
    We like to think ourselves much more advanced than those that lived thousands of years ago, yet much of what they knew we have forgotten.

    A most excellent device. Simple in design, elegant in application. Who hasn’t wished for a magical wine bottle at a party, that would pour water instead of wine to those guests in need of no more. Only to discover 2000 years ago they had already solved the problem.

  382. Warren says:

    Bobl and Osborne: I entered this website with the belief that most skeptics of the science were science based thinkers, still asking some good questions of the consensus view. Unfortunately, that was not to be. We see mostly comments demonizing those who agree with the IPCC or any peer reviewed papers supporting AGW, junk science such as the recent post making the ludicrous claim that global warming is either not happening on Venus, or is due to pressure rather than the infrared absorbing characteristics of CO2, and the claim which is ultimately the final refuge of scoundrels..’you can’t believe peer reviewed papers because the peer reviewing scientists are all corrupt’ (or similar). This type of thinking, found often on the site, is more typical of those that believe the earth is 9000 years old, Evolution is a Fraud, or that Aliens from a distant planet populated the earth.

    You can prove to me you’re not among those I’ve described by posting your 1000 peer reviewed anti-AGW papers…..as far as I know, no one has ever counted more than 24 out of the 14,000 pro AGW papers published since 1991.

  383. andywest2012 says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Hi Christopher,

    I tremendously admire your seemlingly tireless efforts to combat the party line of CAGW, and agree very much with your characterising of the latter as a kind of religion. But I don’t agree that religions are a search for truth, any more than the culture of CAGW is, no matter how many adherents to either genuinely think that this is what they are engaged upon.

    I don’t believe that there is any phenomenon that can’t (eventually) be understood in objective terms that require no reference to politics or philosophies, and to best address major downsides of a phenomenon such as the culture of CAGW, requires first an understanding of how it works. Religions can be understood as social memeplexes, and the similar characteristics of CAGW that many other than yourself have remarked upon, arise I believe because the culture of CAGW is a secular memeplex. These entities evolve to a ‘party line’ orthodoxy via differential selection. The enterprise of science properly followed constrains memetic evolution to only the direction that reflects (an increasing understanding of) reality, but even memeplexes originally spawned by speculative science can quickly leave the proper enterprise behind, and indeed suppress or corrupt real science, hence then being able to evolve arbitrarily.

    I agree also that Dawkins’ challenges to Christianity are misconceived; given he supports CAGW this is effectively saying “I believe in my memetic bias, but not yours”. We are all immersed in some memeplex or other, perhaps several. Hence belief in religion is not a delusion by definition (unless everyone on the planet is deluded), and by the same token belief in a secular memeplex like CAGW is not a delusion either. We have co-evolved with these entities for a very long time, nothing within the social phenomenon of CAGW is new, quite the contrary; the key to managing the downsides of such phenomena is to understand how they work. Just for clarity to all here, I add that actual climate events or science practised properly fall outside of arbitrarily memetic evolution, but as many have observed, CAGW has long since become disconnected from both of these.

    Find more details on all this at http://wearenarrative.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-cagw-memeplex-a-cultural-creature/ which was guest-posted on Climate Etc and here on WUWT at the begining of November.

  384. Bill Illis says:

    Last month, water vapour levels were 1.0% above the long-long-term average.

    One can cherry-pick a starting point and an end-point and come up with any trend one wants to get. But it is changing much, much less than the climate models have built in.

    So we can put a big X on the most important positive feedback so far. Will climate science start investigating why it has been wrong about this so far. No, they just keep trying to cherry-pick and rewrite the data.

    And more importantly, why doesn’t Warren know this is the case?

  385. Warren says:

    Bill: because one data point doesn’t make a trend. Discussions about ‘climate’ are about long term trends. Single data points are ‘Weather’

  386. HarveyS says:

    Warren says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:29 am
    I tell you what is ludicrous you making this statement.

    ‘ junk science such as the recent post making the ludicrous claim that global warming is either not happening on Venus, or is due to pressure rather than the infrared absorbing characteristics of CO2, and the claim which is ultimately the final refuge of scoundrels..’

    The reason for the temperature on has been explained to you in many posts, these are the facts , the data, the science of why Venus so hot. But as I said to you and others because this you cant compare the Earth and Venus. But then you didn’t come here to debate , you came as a paid troll.
    You don’t answer people questions, you jump around to different subjects. Like to some jumping rabbit with a hot poker up its arse.

    Your comment at 6:29am is a big pile of manure , you are talking out of where manure comes from.

  387. Warren says:

    Harvey: you’ve made my point about demonization better than I could have.

  388. RACookPE1978 says:

    Warren says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:29 am

    Bobl and Osborne: I entered this website with the belief that most skeptics of the science were science based thinkers, still asking some good questions of the consensus view. Unfortunately, that was not to be. We see mostly comments demonizing those who agree with the IPCC or any peer reviewed papers supporting AGW, … .’you can’t believe peer reviewed papers because the peer reviewing scientists are all corrupt’ (or similar). This type of thinking, found often on the site, is more typical of those that believe the earth is 9000 years old, Evolution is a Fraud, or that Aliens from a distant planet populated the earth.

    You can prove to me you’re not among those I’ve described by posting your 1000 peer reviewed anti-AGW papers…..as far as I know, no one has ever counted more than 24 out of the 14,000 pro AGW papers published since 1991.

    Well, your “Aliens populated the earth is from a guy who supports your CAGW religion, and, let’s see here …

    Seems like (prior to 1962) there were about two peer-reviewed papers supporting plate tectonic movement available. But the continents were still drifting. Are still drifting. Will continue to drift. The fact that no pal-reviewed literature is being accepted by editors is meaningless, if the facts show as much steady and cooling periods as warming periods as CO2 increases.

    Please, cite ONE modern science theory that was correctly “predicted” by consensus science “first” …

    Seems like (prior to 1952) there were NO peer-reviewed papers supporting plate tectonic movement available. But the continents were still drifting.
    Seems like (prior to 1942) there were NO peer-reviewed papers supporting plate tectonic movement available. But the continents were still drifting.
    Seems like (prior to 1932) there were NO peer-reviewed papers supporting plate tectonic movement available. But the continents were still drifting. Rather, consensus science violently opposed the thought, fought the methods, fought the analysis.
    Seems like (prior to 1922) there were NO peer-reviewed papers supporting plate tectonic movement available. But the continents were still drifting.

    Conventional wisdom – your much-vaunted incestuous relationship between self-selected CAGW-favored editors, hidden reviewers delaying contrary papers and rejecting contrary (skeptical) positions, and invisible financial reviews at the government and NSF and national board levels do – shall we say – “filter out” the spirit of anyone even trying to analyze the world accurately.

    The 1.3 trillion in new taxes demanded by your CAGW religion is an attractive pile to those who fly in search of funds, in search of power, of influence, of publication, of rewards and awards and honors …. All who analyze rationally receive is condemnation and curses and lawsuits.

  389. Warren says:

    Harvey: re the explanations of Venetian warming you mention as all over the website: you seem to consider these as “received Truth” . the explanation I gave you is that found in any science textbook, or what any physics professor will tell you. Do you get your Science from bloggers?

  390. Warren says:

    Racook1978: I agree with your distaste for new taxes, and I greatly fear that socialists will use AGW to justify their command and control approach to the economy and to our lives. However, the atmosphere knows nothing about these fears…it only responds to the Natural Laws of physics and chemistry, and we must not let our fears interfere with proper assessment of the Science. We disagree on what the Science is telling us, but not on the destructive power of high taxation.

  391. HarveyS says:

    I made the comment about your post at 6.29, and I stand by it. It is a pile of [trimmed], written by a paid troll.
    Your reponse at 7.05am, is also wrong when did me or anyone else here do this

    “to try to make someone or a group of people seem as if they are evil: “, because that is the English definition of “demonize” .

    I leave you to question that comment, in relation how you side ‘demonize’ people that question the so called science of global warming,

    All we have done is point you are wrong not just about Venus.

    [Watch your language. Mod]

  392. Jeff Alberts says:

    Andywest2012: We are all immersed in some memeplex or other, perhaps several. Hence belief in religion is not a delusion by definition (unless everyone on the planet is deluded)

    In one way or another, everyone on the planet probably IS deluded. Just about everyone believes in something that can’t be shown to exist. The level of delusion is the issue. If you fail to seek medical attention for your child because you believe “god” will cure them, or that they’re possessed by demons, that is a serious delusion. If you believe that ancient aliens may have visited Earth and influenced or created our early civilizations, that’s also a delusion, but a much more innocuous one. I happen to believe the latter was possible, but haven’t seen any convincing evidence. I’d even go so far as to believe it’s possible there may be an omnipotent entity out there somewhere, but I simply cannot believe that it acts in the way described in any religious text. You might as well believe in the capricious “Q” form Star Trek, there isn’t much difference.

  393. HenryP says:

    @Warren

    clearly you did not react to my comment here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1513640
    May I ask: for what reason?

    Have you ever made a study of maximum and minimum temperatures?

    You should perhaps do it, as you will not find it in any of your “peer reviewed” papers…..

    The results should interest you because the mechanism of AGW implies increasing minima, pushing up the mean average temps.

  394. Jeff Alberts says:

    Warren says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Harvey: re the explanations of Venetian warming you mention

    Venice is warming?? Oh, you mean Venusian. ;)

  395. Gunga Din says:

    Gail Combs says:
    December 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    “Thank you and a Merry Christmas from an Agnostic (me) and an Atheist (my husband)
    Honesty and Integrity are not the sole province of the Judeo-Christian religions but of civilized men and women because without honesty and integrity all you have is raiders, parasites and their prey whom they eventually will destroy.”

    =======================================================================
    True. Even a toddler with no concept of “stealing” can learn that there is something wrong with it the first time another toddler takes their toy from them. Whether they grow up to not steal themselves depends on what else they learn as they develop their own “moral compass”.
    Many here, such as Gail, who do not identify themselves as “Christian” have a compass that includes personal integrity and honesty.
    My comments here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512159
    and here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512182
    leading to here
    http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/attention-surplus-disorder-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-686
    were not intended to imply that they cannot have an honest relationship with other people by the standards that Man would not applaud.
    Some will laugh. Some will be curious. Some will accept it and maybe learn learn something.
    I hope all appreciate the intend.

  396. Gunga Din says:

    TYPO!
    “were not intended to imply that they cannot have an honest relationship with other people by the standards that Man would not applaud.”
    Should be
    “were not intended to imply that they cannot have an honest relationship with other people by the standards that Man would applaud.”

  397. Warren says:

    Jeff: thanks. Appreciate the nice corrective.

  398. HarveyS says:

    I sorry also that it is you Warren that dosn’t read.

    ‘The main differences that
    stand out are the “bulge” in the Earth’s stratosphere,
    due to the heating of the ozone layer, a
    feature which is not found on Venus, and the
    downward extension on Venus to pressures
    higher than 1bar, the mean surface pressure
    on Earth. The gradient of temperature versus
    height in the lower atmosphere in both cases
    is, in agreement with expectation, close to the
    adiabatic lapse rate, which simple theory (see
    Taylor 2006) tells us is just the acceleration due
    to gravity divided by the heat capacity of the
    air. These constants are about the same on both
    planets and give a value for the gradient of about
    10°C per kilometre. Thus, because the surface
    on Venus is about 45 km below the pressure level
    found at the surface of the Earth, it cannot help
    but be 450K hotter. Mystery solved’

    Astronomy & Geophysics. Feb2010, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p1.26-1.31.

    Ps Sorry Mod , I try and think of better word next time to describe a comment like Warrens.

  399. Ron Richey says:

    Warren,

    I’ve been reading WUWT for something like five years, and have commented maybe three times.
    Once or twice a year someone like you strolls in and makes a boob of them self. Great communicators, like you, but the outcome is always the same…..they get barbequed for lack of knowledge.

    I highly recommend for the next month or two, that you just read, and then study, the data found on this web site. Spread sheet it against the data that you have accumulated so far to convince you of your current position. Compare/analyze/verify. Then argue.

    I also recommend that you wait for the next “Warren” to come along and see what happens, rather than be what happens.

    I wish you the best on your education in climate science.

    Ron Richey

  400. ferdberple says:

    Warren says:
    December 26, 2013 at 6:29 am
    Aliens from a distant planet populated the earth.
    ==================
    quite possible, perhaps even likely. the problem is most people think of aliens as having a head, 2 arms and 2 legs. the aliens that populated earth would more likely be microbes or spores from billions of years in the past, preserved by the cold of interstellar space, and eventually deposited on a world with a suitable environment. In many respects how life on earth spreads from one area to another, carried by the elements.

    In this fashion life becomes much more likely. Life need not have developed independently on earth. A self-replicating chemical reaction need only develop on a single world, then be spread over time to colonize the universe. Some will argue this to be impossible, given the vastness of space, without fully considering the vastness of time.

    At 1 g acceleration, due to time dilation the furthest point in the observable universe can be reached in a single lifetime. Are we to conclude that nature cannot achieve similar wonders with billions of years to work with? And why limit ourselves to billions of years?

    Nothing says the big bang occurred in empty space. There may well have been a universe in existence at the time of the big bang, which is now intermingled with the remnants of the big bang, and the seeds of life were from a much more ancient time. From long before 14 billions years ago.

  401. ferdberple says:

    Nothing says the big bang occurred in empty space.
    =================
    In point of fact, “dark energy” suggests that space was not empty at the time of the big bang. We only need dark energy to explain how the expansion of the universe could still be accelerating, if indeed the big bang took place in empty space. Once we allow that the universe was not empty at the time of the big bang, then the acceleration can be explained without “dark energy”.

  402. HenryP says:

    @ferdberple
    so, interestingly, since we are allowed some free religious thinking on this thread
    do you believe in God: a plan
    or do you believe in
    homo sapiens erectus (don’t laugh)
    a coincidence?

  403. Warren says:

    HenryP: I didn’t react to your comment because I didn’t notice it. Do you want me to locate the peer reviewed Science article on the ocean warming? As I recall, it quantified the total heat uptake by the oceans, and I recall most of the increase in heat content was measured as sub surface. Regarding temp max and minima, I have seen graphs and tables showing that the long term trend in the 20th century has been for less difference between night time lows and daytime highs ..in other words nighttime lows increasing more than daytime highs. I’ve certainly looked at the 20th century hockey stick data data, showing I believe around a 0.65C rise. There are plenty of ups and downs in the 20th century, including some multi year downtrends. Those that agree with AGW,like me, point to the long term trend. Those disagreeing will sometimes point to down periods or decade long flat spots and claim it’s evidence against AGW. I just don’t see how you can conclude anything about AGW without considering a very long time scale. 100 years seems enough to me.

  404. HenryP says:

    Warren says
    …..in other words nighttime lows increasing….

    henry says

    it is the opposite….
    you should actually check those tables in AR4 2007. They are showing minima going down, globally, rather than up, together with some flimsy excuse about it….if you look it up in the text.
    I remember that that was made me wonder, in the first place, about the correctness of AR4 2007

    Study my tables here
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    and notice with me that I was easily able to make a 88 year curve from it, if you set the speed of warming over different periods out against time.
    (Particularly looking at the drop in maximum temperatures)

  405. Warren says:

    RonRichey: another resort to name calling. There is a lot of data presented on the website. And arguments about the data made with completely erroneous understanding of the physics, followed by a rejection of the physics explanations using the claims ‘you didn’t give me more data’The best recent example is the discussion about temperatures on Venus. The facts are everywhere about the Venus probes confirming the temperatures. And the physical explanations thereof. And the comments pour in: ‘Nonsense.’ ‘You’re a troll’. ‘Youre the AGW equivalent of a religious zealot’ or similar. It’s no wonder that we see no peer reviewed papers used as evidence on this site, because many of the commenters say the peer review process is corrupt. I don’t think Science Education will make much progress here with attitudes like these.

    Good luck with your antiAGW studies. Maybe one day they will lead to a Scientific paper that survives peer review.

  406. Box of Rocks says:

    acementhead says December 24, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Ah the Catholic Church. The wonderful, truth-seeking Catholic Church. Would that be the same Catholic Church that burnt Giordano Bruno to death just over four hundred years ago?

    Yeah is also the same catholic church that brought you the enlightenment,,,,

    Clearly you have chosen to open your mouth and show your bigotry and stupidity.

    The left’s narrative on the catholic church is just plain bigoted and wrong.

  407. davidmhoffer says:

    Venus – red herring. What happens on a planet with a 100 bar atmosphere and 980,000 ppm CO2 as the dominant ghg tells us precisely zero about a 1 bar atmosphere with 400 ppm CO and the dominant ghg water vapour. One could as well study nuclear bombs to better understand how wooden matches work.

    Warren – I made the same suggestion to you several time that Ron Richey just made to you again at 7:54 AM. There’s a new paper out regarding solar effects on cloud cover (and hence albedo) being larger than previously thought in the most recent WUWT thread. I suggest you take Ron’s advice. Read the paper, then read the comments, and pay attention to the credentials of many of the people involved.

  408. pochas says:

    Whatever you believe about God, I recommend Judeo/Christianity to be your default behavior. Anything else puts you on the wrong side of history. Jesus was, after all, an extreme liberal in his time, and we conservatives need to keep ourselves centered. I just had an extended discussion with my hippie daughter. That helps, too.

  409. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    It’s no wonder that we see no peer reviewed papers used as evidence on this site
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There are several peer reviewed papers discussed and analyzed in depth on this site every single week. This can be verified simply by reading through the titles of the posts over as long a time frame as you wish to choose as a sample size.

  410. ferdberple says:

    HenryP says:
    December 26, 2013 at 8:05 am
    do you believe in God: a plan
    ++++++++++
    I believe the “universe” to be infinite. the universe itself is god, otherwise the universe could not be infinite. Either god and the universe are both finite, or they are one and the same. That is the meaning of infinity. It includes everything. We are part of god.

    The “universe” (god) itself is much older than 14 billion years. It is infinitely old. the big bang is simply a local event. the birth of a child universe from a parent universe. each universe gives rise to child universes at an exponential rate, through the process of black hole formation. over time this has led to and infinite number of child universes in which all possible outcomes are being played out.

    It is this infinite number of child universes that gives rise to quantum mechanics, which is a necessary requirement for free will to exist. It is also what makes the “unfairness” of our universe “fair” in the infinity of time.

  411. ferdberple says:

    previous post: more correctly, a “near infinite” number of child universes. each child universe is itself finite, bounded by the total amount of matter and energy and quantum states. For all practical purposes “near infinite” is assumed to be infinite, but it is not.

  412. Gail Combs says:

    bobl says: @ December 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well said.

    Maybe I am old, but in the last 20 years or so I have seen a major degradation in moral code manifesting as thousands of dollars of theft by well over a dozen so called friends. Worse the theft is actively aided by the so called law enforcement and court system.

  413. Gail Combs says:

    Jimbo says: @ December 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    I’m dreaming of a white Christmas……..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am wishing the Warmists a Snowy Cold New Year and it looks like I am getting my Christmas wish. Harsh Cold to End 2013 From Midwest to Northeast here in the USA and around the world.

    To top it off, Rare heavy snowfall in Vietnam comes just days after U.S. Sec. of State John Kerry visited Vietnam to promote the new enemy: climate change

    Do you think Kerry will be plagued by The Gore Effect during the rest of his career as U.S. Sec. of State?

    Oh, what a wonderful gift that would be!

  414. ferdberple says:

    Warren says:
    December 26, 2013 at 8:28 am
    Maybe one day they will lead to a Scientific paper that survives peer review.
    ===========
    Peer reviews does not mean a paper is correct. It means that the paper adheres to the general principles of the scientific method. The findings of the paper could be complete garbage or they could represent a major breakthrough. Only time will tell.

    What we do know is that there is a crisis in scientific publishing largely driven by the need for funding. Most scientific investigations deliver negative results. Yet most scientific publications report positive results. Which means publication is not representative of science. It is biased toward positive findings. Like newspapers, no one wants to pay to ready a paper that says “nothing happened”, so no one takes the time or expense to publish.

    The problem with this is due to probabilities. 20 scientists conduct the same study. 19 of them find negative results. This never gets published. 1 scientist conducts the same study and gets a positive result. At the 95% confidence level this is exactly what we would expect to happen. By chance 1 in 20 will find a positive result.

    However, only the 1 scientists with the positive result gets published. That scientists assumes that they were the only one that did the study, and under that assumption they can say with 95% confidence their result is correct. However, it is not correct, because their assumption that they are the only one that did the study is incorrect.

    Therefore, what we are finding is large numbers of scientific papers cannot be reproduced. When someone else tries to conduct the study it turns out to be like cold fusion. 1 in 20 times it works, at the 95% confidence level.

  415. Sun Spot says:

    Scientific method does not deliver truth only DATA. Mathematics only delivers MATHEMATICAL FACTS. Statistics only delivers information and nothing more. Philosophy integrates all these to give us knowledge and combined knowledge with theology you sometimes even get wisdom or truth.

  416. A C Osborn says:

    I think Warren is retreating with the usual I am right and you are all wrong attitude, I have the Science and you only have the Blogs, just like Adam Berlingo, in fact it may well be Adam.
    You wanted a link to 1000 peer reviewed papers, well here it is.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
    There are dozens more here
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/
    And if you really want to find out some Climate History and see what so called scientists are doing to the Temperature Data sets see here
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

    Just let me know if that is not enough I can point to lots more.

  417. Joe Born says:

    Bill Illis: “Last month, water vapour levels were 1.0% above the long-long-term average”

    Is a cite for this convenient?

  418. A C Osborn says:

    ferdberple says: December 26, 2013 at 9:17 am

    Don’t bother, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

  419. ferdberple says:

    Allan MacRae says:
    December 25, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    The common thread of wealthy nations soon became apparent and it was Rule of Law in all its forms. Rich nations allowed their people to build and retain most of the benefits derived from their honest efforts.
    =================
    so true. in our travels we found the same. years ago we were living in Acapulco and got to know some of the locals quite well. one day over cervezas we asked them why they worked only for today, why the didn’t invest for the future. the answer still haunts me.

    everyone had the same answer. “if we were to save some money, the rich man on the hill would pay the police to come and take it from us. so we make only enough for today and worry about tomorrow tomorrow.”

  420. Gail Combs says:

    Roberto says: @ December 25, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    …His observation was that after all the things he had seen, one thing in the world scared him the most. That is when intellectuals give naturally thuggish people cover for going ahead….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is Divide and Conquer. Get the masses fighting over trivial issues.

    This is what you saw happen with the Tea Party by diverting it into the abortion issue. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street both agreed that bankers and fractional reserve banking are a problem so the possibility of a common enemy had to be killed via accusations of racism and the old tired issue of abortion.

    See my other comment on religion and it’s use in Divide and Conquer HERE>

  421. andywest2012 says:

    andywest2012 says: December 26, 2013 at 6:33 am

    P.S. The root home of morality is not religion, be it Christianity or any other. The root of morality is altruistic practices that evolved because it was advantageous to their hosts. In gene-culture co-evolution, religions are merely vehicles that carry these practices (along with much else), and are typically beneficial in a net sense (upsides are greater than downsides). However, in evolution all things are up for grabs and altrusitic mechanisms can be leveraged by parasitic cultures (net damaging not beneficial). Hence the same mechanisms support ‘Great Lies’ such as that expressed by CAGW culture.

    Indeed in populations that couldn’t possibly have understood their world or their origins, Great Lies are needed even for net beneficial culture, e.g. that the sun or moon are deities or that the skulls of ancestors hold power, or that worship of animal spirits brings luck in the hunt or that a man called Jesus ascended to a place called Heaven. But these are not Great Lies in the sense of a real deceit that any individuals are deliberately implementing; they are a cultural model that usefully aligns society and in which populations *honestly* believe. In acknowledging the similarity of CAGW to religion, it is the similar roots and spread of belief that have to be understood to make progress in dissecting the phenomena, and so hopefully helping to combat some heavy downsides.

  422. Gail Combs says:

    Richard D says: @ December 26, 2013 at 12:56 am
    …The physics demonstrates CO2 can warm….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not quite.
    The physics shows CO2 can retard the outgoing long wave radiation. CO2 can’t warm unless it undergoes an exothermic chemical reaction. :>)

  423. andywest2012 says:

    Gail Combs says: December 26, 2013 at 9:05 am

    I think age brings keener vision, but I suspect the things we then see have in fact always been going on.

  424. AlecM says:

    @Gail Combs: There has never been any experimental proof of the IPCC’s claimed thermalisation of absorbed IR energy above that needed for ‘Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium’ in the gas phase. The fact that they decided to replace standard radiative physics with totally imaginary physics is their problem, not mine, as experimental data disprove ‘the consensus’..

    The proof of this failure is the insistence by IPCC researchers that H2O IR in OLR is from the stratosphere whereas the spectral temperature is ~ -1.5 deg C, or 2.6 km in temperate zones. This is because decreasing humidity ensures the mean free path for pseudo-diffusion of H2O IR > Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium** increases rapidly with altitude, hence the probability of escape to Space rapidly increases above a critical combination of relative humidity and pressure.

    It does not work for CO2 bands because that gas is well mixed so its spectral temperature is set mainly by the lower stratosphere.

    Basically, the end of the ‘consensus’ is all over bar politicians desperately clinging to power.

    **Standard Statistical Thermodynamics means GHG-absorbed IR cannot thermalise in that gas volume for which the local IR Density of States is set by Temperature. Instead, it has to pseudo-diffuse to condensed matter which has sufficient band broadening from interaction with internal kinetic energy to thermalise external IR from a warmer source. That matter can be in Space.

  425. davidmhoffer says:

    AlecM says:
    December 26, 2013 at 9:54 am
    @Gail Combs: There has never been any experimental proof of the IPCC’s claimed thermalisation of absorbed IR energy above that needed for ‘Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium’ in the gas phase.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well I can imagine that you may be correct… except that isn’t their claim.

  426. Gail Combs says:

    Bruce Cobb says: @ December 26, 2013 at 4:29 am

    ….There is a viciousness to this new form of atheism which I find repugnant….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You nailed it.
    I am seeing viciousness in attacks on the religious, on Den*ers, on conservatives, on whites just for being white, on anyone who is not ‘Politically Correct,’ who does not kowtow to the MSM cause de jure.

    It reminds me of the teacher who not only turned a blind eye to bullying but actively joined in. It is no longer the ‘Rule of Law’ but the rule of the rabid mob disguised as ‘Social Justice’ or ‘Equality’ or ‘Democracy’ or whatever other catchy phrase the orchestrators are currently using.

  427. AlecM says:

    @davidmhoffer: no professional scientist or engineer can accept the IPCC claim that the Earth’s surface Radiation Field causes the lower atmosphere to expand by thermalising in the gas phase. This is not possible because a RF is the potential energy flux to a sink at absolute zero.

    GHGs do absorb IR energy but the atmosphere resonates as EM energy above LTE pseudo-diffuses to condensed matter. This is the 23 W/m^2 (non self-absorbed H2O bands); 40 W/m^2 goes directly to Space by the ‘atmospheric window’. The operational emissivity, 0.16, is set by the vector sum of opposing surface and atmospheric Radiation Fields. In the Tyndall experiment, thermalisation was at the brass tube; no-one has ever done such an experiment with no container.

    This is not to say there is no conversion of GHG-absorbed IR energy to kinetic energy, just that the identical EM energy must simultaneously be ejected from the local volume to comply with the Law of Equipartition of Energy. This is standard physics completely ignored by the IPCC; Will Happer warned of this in 1993.

    So, IR heating of the atmosphere has been exaggerated 6.85x. It would have been 14.7x but it is reduced by foolishly claiming Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation applies at ToA. This is to claim the H2O and atmospheric window IR from within the atmosphere is generated at ToA: ludicrous.

    The artificial modelled temperature rise plus 3x exaggerated GHE causes the imaginary ‘positive feedback. The temperature rise is offset by hind-casting with exaggerated low level cloud cooling. So, the IPCC climate models cannot predict climate. It’s s pity because but for this intransigent mixing up of Radiation Fields and net Irradiance which is what really drives the radiative flux, also the IR physics, the real science could be recovered and with that the integrity of those in charge. However, it is politically impossible so we must have IPCC death by 1000 experimental cuts.

  428. davidmhoffer says:

    AlecM says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:35 am
    @davidmhoffer: no professional scientist or engineer can accept the IPCC claim that the Earth’s surface Radiation Field causes the lower atmosphere to expand by thermalising in the gas phase.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The IPCC makes no such claim.

  429. Gail Combs says:

    Warren says: @ December 26, 2013 at 6:29 am

    ….You can prove to me you’re not among those I’ve described by posting your 1000 peer reviewed anti-AGW papers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not necessary, Pop Tech already did so HERE. Again note that many of these have the AGW get out of jail free card that is needed to get funding and to get published. That means you have to read the actual papers.

    On the use of theAGW get out of jail free card to get funding and to get published issue you only have to look at what happen to a well known and internationally respected scientist, Dr. Jaworowski.

    ….. “This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout,” he explained. “This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”

    Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

    The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding…..

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6&p=3

    It is getting rather sad when you see something like this attached to a paper by JOEL M. KAUFFMAN, Emeritus, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, PA

    Sources
    Where possible, citations to peer-reviewed literature, or to books which cite such sources, will be used. Because of the existence of a research cartel and media control in this field (Bauer, 2004), the readers’ forbearance in my use of websites and non-refereed sources is requested.

    An example of non-scientific pressure in the climate field is the firing of six editors by the publisher of the journal Climate Research because they published a literature review on long-term temperature proxy studies (Soon & Baliunas, 2003). The review included several studies in which contrary results were found, with regard to the great majority of studies cited. Thus the review did not selectively cite only studies with a desired result and was unbiased. The firings were reported by Zbignew Jaworowski, MD, Ph.D. (2007). Other prominent journals now routinely refuse to publish papers that do not support AGW.

    The paper is Climate Change Reexamined in The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007

    I suggest you read it.

  430. rogerknights says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    So if we are to accept Lord Moncktons position on AGW, shouldn’t we ask Where is his peer reviewed scientific rebuttal? Several studies, including those by Dr James Powell and Naomi Orestes [Oreskes], have shown about a 99% consensus on AGW.

    As soon as Powell’s paper came out, I posted the following comment on one of the sites that hosted it:

    The article states:

    “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.”

    How many papers that “explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false” would get by peer review with that phrase intact? How many would even be submitted to peer review if they included that phrase? They therefore tend to be more circumspect and merely cite a discrepancy, some flaw (minor perhaps only in the author of this article’s opinion), etc.

    Here’s a link to 1100+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptical arguments critical of ACC/AGW alarmism:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    ========

    The article states:
    “Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, . . . .”

    Strawman. The claim is not that skeptics are 100% “prevented” from being published, but that that it is difficult (and hence rare) to get them published, or to get them published without being watered down, as I hinted above.

    ==========

    The article states:
    “If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”
    AND:
    “A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.”

    IOW, an article will be classified as skeptical only if it presents hard evidence. BUT an article will be counted accepting/endorsing even if it presents no hard evidence, but merely implicit opinion:

    “Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

    Denial must be explicit, but acceptance may be implicit. This double standard biases the results of this article. By how much is unknown. For that, the author should have indicated how many fall into the “implicitly accepting” category.

    ==========

    The article states:
    “If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”

    But the weakness of the warmist case isn’t in the “hard evidence” so much as in the inferences drawn from that evidence, the selectivity applied in deciding which evidence is the most relevant, the inferences drawn from those relevant bits of evidence, the assumptions made, etc. It is at those matters where the main thrust of skepticism has been directed.

    But journals want to publish “findings.” This biases them against publishing wide-ranging, argumentative critiques. (To be fair, they rarely publish similar argumentative essays from the warmist side either.) They have a just-the-facts attitude. But the facts don’t speak for themselves. Argumentation has therefore moved to other venues.

    What’s needed is an online venue where viewpoints can be argued among credentialed scientists, with the peanut gallery roped off into a separate section where their comments won’t disrupt the discussion, but can be drawn upon by the participants if desired. (Seen but not heard, IOW.) This is what has finally gotten underway with the establishment this month of the Climate Dialogue site, at http://www.climatedialogue.org/

    ==========

    The article concludes:
    “Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.”

    So what? (Irrelevant thesis.) Skeptics don’t deny that. What they deny is that this warming will continue at its current pace; that it would be very harmful if it did so—or even harmful on balance at all; and that there are amplifying factors that will accelerate the current trend. The alarmists’ case rests on the assumptions of strong positive feedbacks and the absence or weakness of negative feedbacks. That’s where their case is weakest.

    The article states:
    “By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.”
    [i.e., at http://jamespowell.org/styled/index.html ]

    Hmm . . . There’s nothing in that list by the following skeptical scientists, at least half of whom have presumably published papers properly classified as skeptical:

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Claude Allègre, John Christy, David Douglass, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, Richard Lindzen, Nils-Axel Mörner, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer.

    I took their names from Wikipedia’s “List of [35] scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Here are four other names, half of whom I presume wrote articles that were missed: Zbigniew Jaworowski, Augusto Mangini, Nathan Paldor, and Richard Tol.

    Incidentally, four years ago Powell offered to bet that five years hence (i.e., one year from now) “global temperatures will be higher than they’ve been.” Well, they haven’t been so far, so pretty soon the bell will be tolling for him.

    By Michael Scott
    November 20, 2009, 5:14AM
    “Powell claims the ‘denier movement’ actually began around 1992 — the year in which he said media more often began quoting politicians rather than scientists in their climate coverage. He said that’s when large corporations began to pour money into conservative think tanks — which he calls ’skeptic tanks.’
    Powell said his lecture topic, “Skeptic Tanks: How Global Warming Deniers Dupe America,” forms the foundation of his next book, which has yet to be published.
    He also offered a wager to skeptics that the earth is still warming despite a slight downward trend in recent years.
    “I’ll bet any of them that five years from now our global temperatures will be higher than they’ve been,” he said. “If that’s not true, then there’s something fundamentally wrong with the science and our understanding of it.”

    Ya think?

  431. AlecM says:

    It is claimed (2009 K-T Energy Budget) that 157.5 W/m^2 IR energy ** is absorbed and thermalised by the atmosphere within the absorption depth, c. 30 m, adjacent the Earth’s surface.

    That thermalisation would, if true, cause the lower atmosphere to expand using its own heat. In thermodynamics’ terms, a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind. Look it up.

    **The ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’. In reality, there is no net surface IR emission in the wavelength ranges of self-absorbed atmospheric GHG bands; standard radiative physics.

  432. davidmhoffer says:

    AlecM says:
    December 26, 2013 at 10:54 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sigh. You are debunking a claim that isn’t being made. The GHE has nothing, nada, zip, to do with thermalisation of IR. If you want to debunk the theory, start with what the theory actually says.

  433. “Warren” continues to found his case upon a supposed “consensus”, when Legates et al. have shown that only 0.3% of 11,944 papers on climate published since 1981 say they agree with the IPCC’s version of “consensus”, which is to the effect that most of the global warming since 1950 is manmade. If most of the warming since 1950 is not manmade – and the literature tells us little about this either way, and there is certainly no consensus on it – then the warming caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases is not serious enough to be worth worrying about. He also insists that only peer-reviewed evidence should be cited. Well, Legates et al. was peer-reviewed. However, the IPCC, which he cites, was not peer-reviewed in any accepted or acceptable sense. Its reports are partisan propaganda, not peer-reviewed science.

    In any event, as “Warren” will eventually learn, scientific issues are not decided by any mere consensus, however venerable. Nor are they decided by – for instance – citing papers that claim water vapor in the atmosphere has increased, without also citing the papers that demonstrate it has fallen. And, rather than simply believing those papers that support a particular position, one should think a little before merely reciting the Party Line. How plausible is it, given that water vapor is not well mixed either latitudinally or altitudinally, that we can possibly measure changes in column water vapor with a reliability of a few percentage points? We cannot do that: accordingly it is not scientific to found an argument on the assumption that we can.

    Besides, if water vapor has increased, and since we know that CO2 has increased (for it is a well-mixed gas, so we can measure its concentration quite reliably), why has there been no global warming at all for more than 17 years? One answer is that there are many other factors influencing the climate, such as the naturally-occurring recovery of global cloud-cover extent since late 2001 (see Pinker et al., 2005, or Monckton of Brenchley, 2010 for a discussion of this important issue), or the naturally-occurring decline in solar activity since the end of the Grand Maximum from 1925-1995, when the sun was more active than during almost any similar period in the last 11,400 years. Since these natural factors are easily and persistently canceling any forcing from CO2 and from water vapor, the conclusion is either that the natural factors are far bigger than the models had imagined (in which case the models are wrong) or that the effect of CO2, water vapor and other greenhouse gases is less than the models had imagined (in which case the models are wrong), or both (in which case the models are doubly wrong).

    Perhaps “Warren” would benefit from studying just a little chaos theory. Then he would understand how impossible it is for models to make reliable climate predictions more than a couple of weeks ahead. He might also benefit from studying the mathematics of temperature feedbacks (for instance, he may like to read Roe, 2009), in which event he will discover that there is much that is wrong with the models’ treatment of the feedbacks that account for two-thirds of the warming supposedly (but not actually) driven by CO2.

    It is simply not good enough to rretreat into “consensus” or into mere parroting of the Party Line. Independent, rational thought is necessary – and has been depressingly absent in most of “Warren’s” comments so far.

    Finally “climateace” doesn’t know when to let go. He continues to refer to me as having claimed that I am a Nobel laureate. I have never made any such claim. I am no more (and, for that matter, no less) a Nobel Laureate than, say, Michael Mann. We both made conntributions to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, which won the Nobel Prize. His contribution has proven inaccurate: mine has proven accurate. “Climateace” should learn that the childish Saul Alinsky technique of relentlessly attacking the reputation of a political opponent of Communism when one cannot think up any credible arguments against the opponent’s scientific and economic case is regarded here – and by all civilized people – as unwelcome, pointless, and childish. He should grow up or go and play in someone else’s sandpit.

  434. Gail Combs says:

    Warren says: @ December 26, 2013 at 8:28 am

    …It’s no wonder that we see no peer reviewed papers used as evidence on this site….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Good Grief! I have been throwing papers at you in several of my comments

    What in heck do you call the papers in my comments at:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512686

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512748

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512876

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1513177
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well folks, seems warren is only here to preach his religion as that comment proves. Horses and water or better yet the less clean version.

  435. Gail Combs says:

    A C Osborn says: @ December 26, 2013 at 9:22 am …

    I will add to your list http://www.co2science.org/index.php
    That website has a great deal of knowledge just waiting to be looked at.

  436. HenryP says:

    ferdberple says
    We are part of god.

    The “universe” (god) itself is much older than 14 billion years. It is infinitely old. the big bang is simply a local event. the birth of a child universe from a parent universe. each universe gives rise to child universes at an exponential rate, through the process of black hole formation. over time this has led to and infinite number of child universes in which all possible outcomes are being played out.

    It is this infinite number of child universes that gives rise to quantum mechanics, which is a necessary requirement for free will to exist. It is also what makes the “unfairness” of our universe “fair” in the infinity of time.

    henry@ferdberple

    actually, on Christmas Eve I became granddad for the first time….how is that for a Xmas present? As I looked at this miracle, this tiny little baby, I realized that as per God’s promise (e.g. John 3:16) there is eternity and a whole universe locked up in her…in fact Jesus implies that this applies to every person, even those that did not make it to earth….

    in hindsight, this seems rather appropriate in the light of your comment.

    science always confirms Truth

  437. AlecM says:

    Oh Dear, still not got it yet?

    The IPCC’s claims the atmosphere adjacent the surface is heated by absorbing and thermalising surface IR. About half the extra thermal IR emission from the hotter atmosphere returns to the surface as ‘back radiation and warms the surface a bit more. That incremental warming causes more evaporation of water vapour, giving more ‘trapping’ of surface IR.

    Ultimately, so it is claimed, from the ice ball planet all present GHE is caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere causing ‘positive feedback’ via the water cycle.

    In reality, real net surface IR absorbed by the atmosphere is (1/6.85) of that claimed by the 2009 Energy Budget. None of this energy can be thermalised in the atmosphere – it travels to clouds or Space before that can happen. There is no such thing as ‘back radiation’ defined as doing thermodynamic work.

    The failure to understand the real nature of Tyndall’\s Experiment is a monument to sloppy science.

  438. davidmhoffer says:

    AlecM says:
    December 26, 2013 at 11:17 am
    Oh Dear, still not got it yet?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’ve got the exact same problem as Warren. You’re all hyped up about what you think the science says instead of what it actually says. You’ve got some correct facts mixed in with a load of garbage.

    I’m not going to teach a course in radiative physics in a blog post. I will attempt to give you a brief explanation and point you to some further reading.

    Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires that the temperature of a black body be proportional to the 4th root of the absorbed energy flux. Since doubling of CO2 changes the absorbed energy flux by zero, the effective black body temperature of earth similarly changes by zero. HOWEVER:

    The earth doesn’t radiate to space from a surface. It radiates varying amounts from varying altitudes. The average of these is the Effective Radiating Layer. What doubling of CO2 does is change the ALTITUDE at which energy flux in the absorption spectrum of CO2 is, on average, radiated to space. Nothing to do with thermalisation at all.

    Now we could from here get into a rather complicated discussion, but the bottom line is that though the effective black body temperature of earth has changed by precisely zero, the fact remains that for the average temperature from top to bottom of the atmospheric column to remain the same, temps below the ERL must rise and temps above must fall.

    This can most easily be visualized with a physical analogy of a teeter-totter. Start the t-t level. Then push one end down six inches. The other end goes up by six inches. But the average height of the t-t is exactly the same as it was before. The analogy however breaks down when we consider water vapour. While CO2 has a linear distribution in the atmospheric air column, water vapour does not, it is highly biased toward lower altitudes and lower latitudes. Is the feedback positive or negative? I haven’t a clue, and even if I knew the answer to that question with certainty, there are thousands of other feedback loops in the climate system that nobody has a grip on yet (hence the abject failure of the climate models to even get close to reality).

    For further reading on what the theory actually says instead of what you think it says, I suggest:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

  439. Gail Combs says:

    AlecM says: @ December 26, 2013 at 9:54 am

    @Gail Combs: There has never been any experimental proof of the IPCC’s claimed thermalisation of absorbed IR energy above that needed for ‘Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium’ in the gas phase….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    First CO2 is not well mixed. (See Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman essaylink) That is one of the great myths of CAGW used to validate Callendar’s getting rid of the high readings from early chemical analysis. ( link to blog article on Ernest Beck’s PEER-REVIEWED paper )

    Second CO2 can and does intercept long wave radiation from the earth’s surface. What is left out is the speed (Time) at which it re-radiates that energy.

    Third, the claim that the sun has no real effect on climate is also dependent on leaving out time. The oceans can act as a giant accumulator of net solar energy or they can discharge that accumulated energy.

    The PEER-REVIEWED paper In defense of Milankovitch by Gerard Roe shows just how important including time is when talking about solar factors that effect the climate.

  440. PJ Clarke says:

    His Lordship twice cites Legates (Science and Education 2013) as evidence that the concensus is supported by a vanishingly small fraction of papers. However he fails to mention the response published in the same journal which in turn found that the Legates paper contained serious misrepresentations, and it is the number of papers that reject the consensus that is small. A free preprint of the response can be found here

    The IPCC reports are amongst the most reviewed documents on the planet, going through several rounds of public review. Indeed as his Lordship provided his services as an Expert Reviewer it is slightly odd that he now regards the reports as not having been reviewed in ‘any accepted or acceptable sense.’.

    Another source given is the work of Dr Rachel Pinker, His Lordship does not see fit to mention that several climate scientists including Dr Pinker have several times disagreed with the interpretation Lord Monckton places on her work, see ‘assertion 7′ in this document for several examples:

    Several have asked for an example of a model projection being accurate. Here’s one, the IPCC AR3 included projections baselined in 1990. For the 20-year period to 2010 under scenario A2 the prediction was for a rise of 0.35C or 0.175C/decade. Acccording to Woodfortrees the actual trend in HADCRUT4 was exactly that. This because, notwithstanding the recent slowdown in the global surface temperature rise, in the 15 years ending in 2005, the rate of increase was approximately double that predicted. Hence 15-17 years is clearly not long enough to draw conclusions about the long term trend. Nor is it correct to say that no models predict such hiatuses. Here’s one with a 21 year plateau…

  441. dbstealey says:

    I note that Warren tucked tail and ran after others here posted links to thousands of peer-reviewed papers debunking his “carbon” scare.

    What say you, Warren? It was you who demanded evidence of such papers. But now that they have been posted, you tuck tail, run and hide.

    Warren is a typical True Believer/climate alarmist, no? He cries about words that he can’t handle ["nonsense", etc.]. But we see that Warren refuses to answer any questions put to him — while asking all manner of questions based on things that do not really matter, such as Pal Review, and always inaccurate computer climate models — not one of which was able to predict the current halt in global warming.

    Warren fits the definition of a troll, because he is deliberately muddying the waters rather than having a science-based debate. That is because Warrren cannot debate based on empirical facts. If he did, he would immediately lose the argument.

    So what say you, Warren? Is that wrong? If so, then post your empirical, testable facts right here. Show us your runaway global warming. Or any global warming, for that matter. We will be happy to discuss whatever scientific, real world, testable facts you can come up with.

  442. dbstealey says:

    PJ Clarke says:

    For the 20-year period to 2010 under scenario A2 the prediction was for a rise of 0.35C or 0.175C/decade… the 15 years ending in 2005, the rate of increase was approximately double that predicted.

    So? You are simply cherry-picking from 2005. The actual, long term recovery since the LIA has been ≈0.35º/century. And of course, global warming has now stopped. Inconvenient that fact, that… eh, PJ?

    PJ continues:

    15-17 years is clearly not long enough to draw conclusions about the long term trend. Nor is it correct to say that no models predict such hiatuses.

    First off, you cannot label the halt in global warming as a “hiatus”, unless global warming resumes. So far, it has not: global warming has stopped. Words matter, PJ, and your climate alarmist spin does not go unnoticed. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Nothing. Current global temperatures are boringly routine.

    The models are all wrong. All of them.

    And yes, 17 years is long enough to draw conclusions about the trend. You are just moving the goal posts, as you are with your “…21 year plateau.”

    Face it, PJ, the real world is debunking your runaway global warming belief. It simply ain’t happening.

  443. So far as I can tell, the entire premise of Monckton’s argument is the AGW is religion one and therefore scientists who study it should be more moral. Since I don’t buy the first premise and don’t see why the second one should apply to scientists while, apparently, not to some other people prone to dissimulation themselves, it becomes a frayed knot. Just doing the rhetorical equivalent of shouting does not make anything true.

    By the way, which Huxley does he mean? Thomas Henry (Darwin’s bulldog), Julian (the eugenecist) or Sir Andrew (Nobel laureate and neuroscientist)? I presume he means the former. E second would be more in keeping with his theme of ideologically corrupted scientists.

    Finally, the entire piece suffers from an irony failure.

  444. Pat Frank says:

    davidmhoffer, why isn’t it that increased tropospheric CO2 increases the energy density of the troposphere. In order that the TOA radiant temperature remain constant, the ERL increases in altitude so as to proportionately increase the effective radiant surface area. The surface area increases just enough so that the radiant energy density remains constant. So, even though the TOA temperature and the energy density remain constant, the total radiated energy increases.

    The approximately constant lapse rate then requires that the surface warm by the increase in altitude of the ERL.

    This is the static picture, of course. Your point about feedbacks is exactly on-point. No one knows whether the tiny adjustments of climate — physical degrees of freedom — that could completely offset any tropospheric warming are in operation. The resolution of climate models is orders of magnitude too crude to predict or describe such feedbacks.

  445. davidmhoffer says:

    Pat Frank says:
    December 26, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    davidmhoffer, why isn’t it that increased tropospheric CO2 increases the energy density of the troposphere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It does. But at (for example) pre-industrial of 280 ppm and current of 400 ppm, the change is so small as to be a rounding error.

    Pat Frank;
    In order that the TOA radiant temperature remain constant, the ERL increases in altitude so as to proportionately increase the effective radiant surface area.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The TOA radiant temperature doesn’t remain constant. It declines.

  446. dbstealey says:

    Margaret H,

    If catastrophic AGW is not a religion, then why do people believe in it, given the complete absence of any empirical evidence?

  447. It is my anecdotal experience that when people are wrong it is usually for one of two reasons. Either the issue doesn’t affect them so they do not take the time to find the truth or they have spent most of their time in an echo chamber where the wrong belief is continually reinforced. When it comes to understanding the Catholic religion in terms of Western culture ethics, I’m afraid Lord Monckton suffers from the latter. For those of us that have sat through the indoctrination process and had the intelligence even as a young person to reject the nonsense we find it sad and comical that those who fell for it somehow believe that all of us are subordinate to it. It is obvious that those who are religious believers are just as bankrupt in their minds as those parroting ‘peer reviewed requirements’ in regard to global warming. People are not God fearing, they are ‘peer fearing’. The rules of conduct disseminated by the Catholic church are not static infallible truths, they were arrived at by consensus, much the way the hundreds of off shoot Christian religions have been once literacy began to play a role. It is quite obvious to me that religion is a reflection of mans morality, Religion has NOT defined mans morality. Holy passages are only used to enforce peer belief while other passages are ignored or interpreted to meet the peer consensus. Lord, I believe you are suffering from the echo chamber on this issue. Otherwise, I rather like your posts, in general.

  448. Harry Passfield says:

    What a fascinating thread – well, at times. But I have to repeat myself. ‘Warren’ is a construct. Even MoB seems to have realised that as he only refers to the name parenthetically. I mean, we are talking to a ‘guy’ who claims not to know what AR stands for and has to be educated in the terminology of IPCC; ‘It’ even seems to think the adjectival form for Venus is ‘Venetian’ (!); and, having claimed to be ignorant of so many things – or just plainly chooses to ignore them until one for the ‘Warren’ forms comes up with an answer – comes back to claim chapter and verse recollection of obscure ‘peer-reviewed’ papers on ocean heat storage (for example).

    Well, the bot (‘Warren’) has served a useful purpose by bringing out a wealth of knowledge that cannot be denied. ‘It’ has given many sceptics an education that could not be paid for. For that we should thank ‘it’. (And, BTW: if you doubt my idea of ‘Warren’ as a construct, just think of how many rabbit holes go to make up one. Very ‘Alice in Wonderland’).

    Happy New Year everyone, whatever your pov: Just remember to wrap up warm for it.

  449. bobl says:

    PJ Clarke asserts that because one run of one model produces a 21 year pause that global warming is not falsified. I would ask, then that given the infrequency of such a prediction, what is the confidence level of that prediction? Even in the IPCC published data, we see that actual temperature is mining the depths of the probability distribution. Such a hiatus is highly improbable according to the IPCC modelling. One forgets that an event that has only a 1 % probability of occuring has a 99% probability of not occuring, yet an event that more likely than not should not occur, is held as proof of that occurence.

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. Many of the models are proven wrong, these MUST be removed from the cohort forthwith. Averaging a model that is right (or near right) with one that is known to be wrong is NOT going to produce an answer closer to the truth. In my mind the IPCC report is fatally flawed by this, and cannot be taken seriously until the known falsified models are removed from the cohort.

    Besides PJ, enthalpy doesn’t carry over, average temperature is an estimate of the enthalpy of the earth at a point in time, while the pause continues, the trend line continues to lower its slope. Energy will rise from the point enthalpy at the time, it isn’t going to spring out of the oceans to bring back 1999 in an instant. This means that if we show a single period at a given enthalpy then we need to recover from that position. An example, let’s say we saw 10 years at the same temperature as the LIA due to say, the current solar minimum. CO2 warming then has to start from scratch again raising the temp from that low baseline again, you can no longer use that high and rising baseline you did before. So CO2 temperature rise should be largely monotonic, to offset such a forcing, the natural variation (cooling) warmists claim is offsetting CO2 warming has to be similarly increasing in a period of rising solar activity to a sunspot peak. We are at the peak of a sunspot cycle, there is a fair way down from here. If this is in fact true, then adding the cooling descent to the solar minimum to an alreading increasing cooling bias to the climate might be quite worrying, however I’m fairly confident the CO2 warming, and hence the required cooling offset to produce the pause is largely imaginary.

    Every time the temperature declines, we are given that much longer to confirm the science before we burden the public with destructive mitigation policies, but let’s hope the cooling is shallow.

  450. HarveyS says:

    to Harry Passfield

    Yes well no one saw/ got my sarcasm reference to rabbits and ‘Warren’. I will try better next time lol

    [Ne'er fear, the mods see all, read all, remember all. Mod]

  451. rogerknights says:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    To understand anthropogenic climate change, one has to consider time periods of at least 25 years to see trend lines within the yearly variability, and to consider that the warming includes both oceans and atmosphere.

    Would the IPCC’s defenders be saying that if the oceans’ heat content were falling rather than rising? To ask the question is to know the answer.

    Similarly, would the U. of Colorado be saying that sea level should be redefined to mean the volume of the ocean’s basins if those basins’ volume had been shrinking rather than growing? (If shrinking, the actual sea level “where the rubber meets the road” would be rising more rapidly than it otherwise would.) Again, to ask the question is to know the answer.

  452. rogerknights says:

    PS: Similarly, would the NCDC fail to publicize and focus on its new, high-quality station set if its temperatures were higher (instead of considerably lower) than its current, old-fashioned collection? NO, in thunder!

  453. davidmhoffer says:

    Pat Frank;
    In order that the TOA radiant temperature remain constant, the ERL increases in altitude so as to proportionately increase the effective radiant surface area. The surface area increases just enough so that the radiant energy density remains constant. So, even though the TOA temperature and the energy density remain constant, the total radiated energy increases.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    Just realized that I probably misunderstood you in my earlier reply. If you mean the total energy flux as measured at TOA rather than the temperature at TOA, then I pretty much agree. If the ERL moves from say 10km to 11 km, that’s a 10% increase. But if we use an approximate radius of the sphere as 6400 km, that’s only an increase to 6401 which would increase the surface radiating area by only .03%.

    Of course that’s a bit misleading too, because you’re averaging something that doesn’t have a linear relationship in the first place, ie area of a sphere is A = 4piR^2. Then the statistical distribution of the escape level as CO2 increases is also not linear as it is a natural log function. Then one needs to factor in that the earth is an oblate sphere and the atmosphere is thicker at the tropics than the poles… and then one’s head starts to hurt…

  454. Gunga Din says:

    HarveyS says:
    December 26, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    to Harry Passfield

    Yes well no one saw/ got my sarcasm reference to rabbits and ‘Warren’. I will try better next time lol

    [Ne'er fear, the mods see all, read all, remember all. Mod]
    =============================================================
    “Warren” is a pooka?

  455. Richard D says:

    Gail Combs says:
    Not quite.
    The physics shows CO2 can retard the outgoing long wave radiation. CO2 can’t warm unless it undergoes an exothermic chemical reaction. :>)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I hate physics….

  456. Allan MacRae says:

    HenryP says: December 26, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Congratulations Henry to you and your family on the birth of your beloved grandchild..

    A miracle indeed.

    For unto us a child is born…

    … and there is eternity and a whole universe locked up in her…

  457. Richard D says:

    dbstealey says:
    The models are all wrong. All of them.
    ____________________________________
    Time to reject the hypothesis of global warming….

  458. Richard D says:

    dbstealey says:

    If catastrophic AGW is not a religion, then why do people believe in it, given the complete absence of any empirical evidence?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Belief in religion/god and in CAGW are both declared true by appeals to authority.

  459. Pat Frank says:

    David, thanks, you’re right, I did mean the total radiant energy flux as measured at the ERL of the TOA.

    How about this — your increase of 1 km at TOA, represents a 10% increase in the effective tropospheric volume. That is, the volume within which the relevant thermal energy is distributed.

    A CO2 doubling energy of 3.7 W/m^2 is ~1.5% increase in tropospheric energy content (assuming a 241 W/m^2 average surface budget). The atmospheric radius would have to increase by only about 200 meters to keep the total energy density constant, and likewise the 255 K TOA radiant temperature.

    At an average 6.5 C/km lapse rate, that 200 m is equivalent to a surface temperature increase of 1.3 C. That’s the standard static non-feedbacked, climate-remains-otherwise-constant number.

    Which is totally unphysical, of course, because nothing about the climate is static non-feedbacked, constant. And that’s the skeptical rub. Climate models can’t resolve any climate response (physical degree of freedom) that small, by orders of magnitude. The IPCC and that ineffable 97% consensus are talking through their collective hat.

  460. PJ Clarke says:

    To demonstrate that ‘all the models are wrong’ Mr Stealey links to a comparison between modelled temperatures and averaged observations in the troposphere and over the limited latitudes of just 20S to 20N.

    But there’s a lot to be sceptical about in that graph: the lines are arbitrarily ‘anchored’ at 1979 which will cause any discrepency on that date to be propagated forward, the satellite datasets are crudely averaged together even though there is significant disagreement between them, only the most extreme model scenario (RCP8.5) is illustrated and it shows a limited part of the atmosphere over a limited part of the world where there are known issues with observations.

    In fact, for global temperatures, observed measurements remain within the range projected by the IPCC, here are HADCRUT, the NOAA and NASA from IPCC AR5:

    http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/files/IPCC-AR5-1.4.png

    The models are doing just fine.

  461. dp says:

    Turns out morality and science are not a guaranteed pairing:
    http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/professor-admits-faking-aids-vaccine-to-get-19m-in-grants/

    How wide spread is this brand of grant-driven morality in the sciences?

  462. dbstealey says:

    PJ Clarke says:

    “The models are doing just fine.”

    Thanx for that assertion, PJ. But in fact, no model was able to predict the current 17+ year halt in global warming. Not a single one of them. They all failed.

    Believe in models if you like. But if climate models could predict something as complicated as that, then they could certainly predict what will happen with the stock market or the commodities markets, which are much less complicated… and then the modelers wouldn’t have to come begging to taxpayer for grant loot any more.

    Climate models just don’t work, period [or 'full stop', if you like].

  463. Allan MacRae says:

    PJ Clarke spouts falsehoods on December 26, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Absolute nonsense sir – you do not know this subject and are full of lies.

    I have no time to correct your BS – go and do some work on the subject.

  464. dbstealey says:

    bobl says:

    “PJ Clarke asserts that because one run of one model produces a 21 year pause that global warming is not falsified.”

    Ah, yes. I notice that now we are at 21 years. Recall that the alarmist claim was that if global warming halted for 17 years, it would be statistically significant. But that was then, as they say, and this is now…

    So now it is a brand new number: 21 years. And we can be absolutely certain that if global warming does not resume over the next 4 years, then the goal posts will be moved once again by the religious acolytes of the climate alarmist crowd. Because the alarmists simply cannot accept the fact that we are observing natural climate variability in action.

    So why not go on record, Mr PJ Clarke? Are you willing to state, right here and now, that if global warming does not resume by the 21 year mark, that your alarming conjecture has been falsified? That you were, and are, simply wrong in your belief about ‘catastrophic AGW’ [cAGW]?

    Or is cAGW a religion with you, as many of us suspect?

    The ball is now squarely in your court, PJ. It is time to put up… or shut up.

    [If PJ does not respond, then of course we know which option he chose.]

  465. bobl says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    ********************
    I might add that 21 years is perilously close to where the last period of warming equals the length of the hiatus, and we must conclude once and for all that natural variation out does CO2 warming by orders of magnitude. If we in fact get cooling during the descent into the next sunspot minimum well then it’s gotta be all over for CAGW.

    PS does anyone know where to find raw, unadjusted temperature data? I want to see the measured trend without the 11 year filters.

  466. Dbstealey

    I understand there is empirical evidence. It seems more of a religion to state otherwise. Perhaps you can explain why you believe I and millions of others around the world are mistaken in looking at multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data and concluding that humans are causing a measurable proportion of global warming?

  467. Brian H says:

    And what is the back-record of the 1, 2 or 3 models not yet falsified? And what ECS range do they use? The rest of the models are clearly junk and should never be referred to again, of course.

  468. HenryP says:

    bobl says
    but let’s hope the cooling is shallow.
    bobl asks
    PS does anyone know where to find raw, unadjusted temperature data? I want to see the measured trend without the 11 year filters.

    henry@bobl, margaret harding

    going by my own data, global cooling will not be so bad, if you consider that things will be similar from 2016-2045 as it was from 1927-1957
    Mind you, it really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

    I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.

    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……

    therefore
    We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
    We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
    We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.

    (Already hit by flooding now: Indonesia, Philippines, and now Brazil)

    @bobl

    I took all my data from http://www.tutiempo.net (chose your city, and see if it has climate (Klima) data)

    Note that you seldom get a complete record of data. When I found a month with less than 15 days data, I rather looked up the average for that month of the preceding and following year and took an average of that.
    For example, here is data from New York: Note that most years are already put in an average annual temperature.

    http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/744860.htm

    You can copy and paste the results of the first 4 columns in excel.
    In this particular case you will have to go into the 12 months of the years 2002 and 2005, to write the results of the average monthly data [for each month of those two years] and see in which months data are missing and from there apply the correction as indicated by me + determine the average temperature for 2002 and 2005 from all twelve months of the year.

    If you do it right, you should come to the same results for maxima, means and minima [for New York] as what was reported by me in my three tables here:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    Good luck.

  469. dbstealey says:

    Margaret Hardman says:

    “Perhaps you can explain why you believe I and millions of others around the world are mistaken in looking at multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data and concluding that humans are causing a measurable proportion of global warming?”

    Margaret, in science measurements are essential. They are everything. Otherwise, all you have is an unsupportable conjecture, which may or may not be true. So I am going to ask you a very uncomfortable question, which goes right to the heart of the entire debate:

    Can you cite one measurement that is identified as human-emitted GHGs causing a specified degree of warming per unit of emission?

    Please make your “data” [your word] measurable and testable. That is: it must be shown conclusively that the unit of human CO2 emission [whatever you choose as your unit] is equal to whatever fraction of a degree of global warming you wish to show. Note that speculation is not sufficient, nor are unsupported assertions. Measurements, please.

    You and “millions of others” believe that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Your job is to verify that conjecture with testable real world measurements. Can you? If so, you will be the first.

    And we’re still waiting for Warren to answer this query:

    NAME ONE (1) GCM that predicted that global warming would stop seventeen years ago.

    Name one, Warren. Just one will do.

    If Warren skedaddled because he is unable to hold up his end of the debate, then maybe PJ Clarke can step in as his tag-team pal, and answer that question. Since PJ also asserts that computer models can predict the climate. That is, if PJ hasn’t skedaddled, too. ☺

  470. A C Osborn says:

    Margaret Hardman says: December 26, 2013 at 11:30 pm Dbstealey
    Perhaps you can explain why you believe I and millions of others around the world are mistaken in looking at multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data and concluding that humans are causing a measurable proportion of global warming?

    Can you please provide the ” multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data” so that we can understand your absolute belief in it and maybe join you?

  471. PJ Clarke says:

    A crude attempt to reframe the debate. Take the acronym AGW and tack the subjective, unscientific word ‘catastrophic’ on the front. Define your terms, please, what amount of temperature rise would be ‘catastrophic’, in your opinion?

    So why not go on record, Mr PJ Clarke? Are you willing to state, right here and now, that if global warming does not resume by the 21 year mark, that your alarming conjecture has been falsified? That you were, and are, simply wrong in your belief about ‘catastrophic AGW’ [cAGW]?

    Given that in the NASA data, last month was the warmest November on record, and the still-accumulating heat in the oceans I’m not convinced that GW ever really went away.

  472. PJ Clarke says:

    Mr Stealey – Can you cite one measurement that is identified as natural forcings causing a specified degree of warming per unit of change?

    FTFY. The point is, known natural forcings cannot explain the increase in global temperature since 1950-ish, whereas the scientific case for AGW can be summed up in a paragraph. We know there is a greenhouse effect, we know that human emissions and deforestation have increased the amount of greenhouse gases, mainly but not exclusively CO2 (CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 also up) in the atmosphere. We know how long they will remain and we know how these cause a radiative imbalance ( a difference in the incoming and outgoing radiation) or ‘forcing’ and we have a good estimate (around +-10% uncertainty) of the size of this imbalance. It amounts to about an ‘extra’ 2.5 Watts per square metre, offset to some extent by manmade aerosols and natural negative forcings, giving a net change of around 1.6 Watts/m2. May not sound like much but multiply it by the surface area of the globe and that is a lot of extra energy in the system. None of the above is remotely controversial.

    Thermodynamics tells us that an object in radiative imbalance will increase in temperature until the imbalance is removed. Rather than the futile exercise of trying to measure exactly the attribution of the global warming between the various forcings, to three decimal places, the key question, it seems to me, is what other effects will be triggered by the warming and whether these will have a positive or negative feedback – how ‘sensitive’ the planet is to the increased energy. This is less certain, however the paleoclimatic evidence indicates that feedbacks are overwhelmingly positive, leading to a best estimate of around 3C for the equivalent of a doubling in CO2.

  473. Thank you for not answering my question, db. In response, do not take my answer as ignoring your question. When you answer mine, I will respond properly to yours. I guess Hell will freeze over first.

  474. The trolls are hard at it, but their increasing desperation is evident in the increasing stupidity of their argument. Margaret Hardman says she believes in “multiple lines of evidence” for catastrophism, but fails to mange to mention even one. She then wilfully misstates my argument in the head posting. I had not said catastrophism was a religion but a quasi-religious superstition. I had not said that because it was a superstition scientists should be more moral: I said that science in the absence of a commonly-accepted moral yardstick that religion can provide is prone to the corruption that has been evident in the global warming scare.

    PJ Clarke refers to a doctored graph in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in a desperate attempt to maintain that, as he fatuously puts it, “the models are doing fine” when, self-evidently, they are not. The original graph that I and other expert reviewers were allowed to see showed clearly that global warming was trailing along at the very bottom of the models’ various predictions, and altogether outside some of them. That graph was replaced by the doctored graph, and we were not given any opportunity to review the doctored graph before it was published. This is just one instance of the reasons why there is no basis for any claim that the IPCC is “peer-reviewed” in any accepted sense of that term.

    PJ Clarke then takes issue with my paper concluding on the basis of an analysis by Dr. Rachel Pinker that most of the radiative forcing from 1983-2001 was attributable to a naturally-occurring diminution in global cloud cover. He says that Dr. Pinker herself had challenged my finding. Actually, she had only challenged a fictitious account of it given to her by a paid publicist. When the BBC subsequently sent her my paper, she was not able to fault its conclusion. He also says several other “scientists” had challenged my paper: but they had not dared to do so in any peer-reviewed journal,, where their nonsense would have been subjected to scrutiny.

    For good measure, PJ Clarke falsely says the absurd paid propagandists Cook et al. had published a peer-reviewed reply to the criticism by Legates et al. (2013) of their trumped-up conclusion that there was a 97% consensus that most of the global warming of recent decades was manmade. Legates et al had demonstrated by reference to Cook’s own datafile that the consensus was actually 0.3%, not 97%. The document by Bedford & Cook linked to by PJ Clarke was not the answer to our paper proving the consensus to be 0.3%: it was an answer to an earlier paper by Legates, Soon & Briggs (and not by Monckton of Brenchley as well).

    The trolls have had a more than usually decisive spanking in this thread. If they want anyone to take them seriously, they must step up to the plate and raise their game. They should try doing some real research, publishing some real papers and telling the truth, rather than clinging to whatever handy fabrication has been passed down to them in the form of the Party Line.

  475. Warren says:

    Dbstealy: you pose a non problem. The trend line dawn through atmospheric temperature data shows continued rise in global temperature into the 21st century. The myth you repeat is based on cherry pinking an extremely hot year,,,2007…in which the effects of El Niño dominated the weather…as your starting point. In addition, the IPCC or any scientist worth his salt is comparing trend lines over at least a 25 year period, vs the trend lines predicted by the models. On this basis, the models reproduce the historical trend line in the 20th century.

  476. Warren says:

    Margaret Hardman: you will have zero impact on dbstealey by referring him to the IPCC reports. He, and many others on this site, , don’t accept these, or any other “multiple lines of data” you refer to as proving AGW. Ask him if he accepts the greenhouse effect on Venus, with its 96% CO2 atmosphere as causing Venus’s extreme temperatures. I imagine he don’t even worry that 200 of the Worlds most prominent Scientific Organizations have published positions supporting AGW, or that NO Scientific Organization has published a position disputing AGW. These facts just make him mad, but not contrite.

  477. Myrrh says:

    In a piece lauding the search for truth in science based on moral integrity…

    There are two science facts which immediately show that any claims made for carbon dioxide in the AGW religion have no basis in reality. The first most obvious one is that carbon dioxide is always shown to lag behind rising and falling temperatures by hundreds of years.

    What can any possibly provide in the properties and processes of carbon dioxide that show it has magic powers to drive temperatures 800 years before it itself deigns to increase?

    The second is not so obvious, it is a deliberately designed sleight of hand to confuse those who have no idea of the traditional physics about the atmosphere. AGW has misappropriated a basic physics teaching, essential to understanding for meteorologists, and created a new meme ‘greenhouse gases raise temperatures 33°C from the -18°C the Earth would be without them’.

    This is the original:

    Temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, mainly nitrogen and oxygen and varying amounts of water, is -18°C

    Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere in place, but without water, 67°C.

    It is the atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen which raise the Earth’s temperature from the minus 18°C it would be without them.

    Think deserts.

    The comparison is with the Moon without an atmosphere, at minus 23°C.

    Nitrogen and Oxygen are the real greenhouse gases, stabilising the Earth’s temperature from the extremes of heat and cold the Moon is subject to.

    This 67°C stability is created by the nitrogen and oxygen thermal blanket atmosphere these provides around the Earth and the cooling these provide in taking heat away from the Earth in the real gas convection cycle; preventing heat from escaping too quickly as a blanket and in convection expanding when heated and so becoming lighter than surrounding air rising to the heights where cooling it becomes heavier again and sinks, so the creation of winds.

    Water with its very high heat capacity brings this 85°C increase by nitrogen and oxygen from the minus 18°C without our atmosphere, back down to 15°C through the Water Cycle. As it takes away the additional heat from the surface in evaporation and returns in cold precipitation.

    How can this be ignored? This is basic meteorology.

    Proof positive that the ‘AGW greenhouse effect’ premise is nothing but a deceit.

  478. HenryP says:

    Warren says
    On this basis, the models reproduce the historical trend line in the 20th century.

    henry@ warren, margaret

    Warren, it seems to me that you are only interested in lecturing, not in an exchange of information. In this blog we are all pupils and teachers to each other. Did you see that in AR4 2007 the trend on minima was declining, rather than going up, as per the whole AGW theory?
    This will be my final attempt to engage with you and if I do not get an intelligent answer I will give up on you.

    Historical? It is hysterical. Hysterically tragic, since nobody first studied the natural pattern in the data, in the first place, so they could “exclude” that in their search for man made global warming.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/

    I repeat: have made a compilation of the 4 best sets that I believe in and you can also add my own which all show a warming trend from 1979 and a cooling trend from 2001.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2002/trend
    so we have 5 data sets that all see a global cooling trend from 2001.

    here is an additional plot looking at sea surface temperatures only (since a lot of the energy from the sun ends up in the oceans)
    Yopu can see that we have reached the top of global warming. From now onward, it will only go down.

    Now true enough, only my own data set looks at maxima and minima. This is a failure on the part of all of climate science and I blame them all, not only the people who made the models.
    Clearly maxima tells you what trend to expect. I knew that there would be a little time lag of 5-6 years from 1995 before we would see a general cooling trend because looking at maxima is like energy in which is not the same as energy out (means).
    But most of all, for those who honestly believe in AGW, is the lack of interest in looking at minimum temperatures. Namely, AGW theory proposes that there is a delay in (radiative) cooling due to more GHG. That means that something changes from inside to outside.That would also mean that we should see an increase in minimum temperatures, pushing up means. That is simply not happening, which you can clearly see from my own data set and which everyone would be able to see if they would just get off their butts and do some work

    .http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

    So, Warren and Margaret, I hope you will finally see how silly you are, quoting the majority who think they know and not listening to those who really know.
    Global cooling is coming.
    Live with it.
    \

  479. Warren says:

    PJ Clark: With respect to your comment “the models are doing just fine”….Agreed. The arguments against the models are mostly ‘they didn’t reproduce the last 17 years of no temp rise”. You can see my recent response to Dbstealey on that score. A comparison of the various model’s predictions of Atm temp vs time over the 20th century using assumptions of no human caused co2 emissions vs actual human caused CO2 emissions show a clear pattern shape like the hockey stick. The other argument ive seen is that they are simply created by duplicating the past, so they are worthless for the future. ALL physical system models require calibration of its output to the empirical data, and error band estimates. To state that back testing of models shows they are a sham is to be ignorant of how all modeling of complex physical systems is done, and that error band estimates are part of the methodology. I admire you if you can continue a reasoned dialogue on this topic- but don’t count on success in convincing everyone on this website..

  480. Steve Keohane says:

    Models do exactly what they are programmed to do, no more no less . Since climate models are produced by the First Church of CO2 Worship, what do you expect the output to be?

  481. Ron Richey says:

    Hey Warren…. you’re back.
    Sorry about the “boob” comment. I wasn’t name calling, it’s just that I was a boob a lot too when I was young like you – full of vigor, enthusiasm etc.. You know. So I was relating what I thought you were going to go through to what I painfully learned many times long ago.
    Anyway, so what’s your educational and work backgriound? I have no advanced science or math skills at all, so I listen a lot more than I talk here. I really enjoy the learning though.
    Best,
    Ron Richey
    PS: Did you read any of those papers everyone submitted for you?

  482. I see the trolls are now congratulating each other on the supposed success of the climate models. Well, the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, reported here every month, shows that since 2005, a period of just on nine years, the modeled central estimate has exceeded observation by more than a fifth of a Celsius degree. The modeled low-end estimate is also above the observed trend at all points.

    It must now be gravely doubted whether we shall see even as much as 1 Celsius of global warming this century, let alone the 3 Celsius the mad scientists predict. If the warming is only 1 Celsius or less, then its effects will be net-beneficial, in which event every cent we are now spending on trying to make global warming go away will have been wasted. A more rational approach is needed.

  483. Warren says:

    RonRichey: thanks for your comments
    I’m 71 years old, have a masters degree in engineering from Cornell university, and spent a large portion of my 45 year career as vp of engineering for a large us corporation.

    The last 10 years of my career I was on the board of a Washington, D.C. ClimAte policy organization, representing my industry.

    I e been teaching climate science in retirement
    I’m traveling right now but if you can wait, I’ll try to answer the rest of your questions later

  484. Mark Bofill says:

    “The models are doing just fine”
    “The arguments against the models are mostly ‘they didn’t reproduce the last 17 years of no temp rise”.

    You guys don’t ask for much from your models, do you. Personally, I prefer that when a model projects a trend, I like for that trend to be reflected in reality. More importantly, when the math is done and we come up with confidence intervals, I really like it when reality stays bracketed nicely inside them.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/ar4-hows-it-going/

    I mean, for goodness sakes, what’s the use of paying attention to temperature projections from models that show trends that haven’t actually happened for the last two decades? You guys do realize of course that back in 2000, if I’d claimed that the models weren’t going to have anything to do with observations for decades at a time I’d have been scoffed at, right?

    Saying that ‘the models are doing just fine’ is wilful blindness, sorry. Maybe AGW theory is correct, maybe every horrific prediction we’ve ever heard is on it’s way. Maybe climate sensitivity is high after all, and CO2 is the major knob. Maybe, maybe not. But at this point we can be pretty darn sure of at least one thing. The models most certainly are not ‘doing just fine’.

  485. Paul Martin says:

    And Christmas-morning bells say ‘Come!’
    Even to shining ones who dwell
    Safe in the Dorchester Hotel.

    And is it true…?

    Some of us got the reference.

    A belated Happy Christmas from the 102mph gusted NW Wales, having just had our mains power restored.

  486. Babsy says:

    Dearest Warren,

    Are you a civil, mechanical, electrical. or some other discipline, engineer? If you’re a mechanical engineer I would like to ask you how you and I could set up an experiment in which we measure the temperature of a volume of air in a closed container, then inject CO2 into this closed volume, and measure the rise in temperature. We measure that temperature rise and the science would be settled. What do you say?

  487. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    I’m 71 years old, have a masters degree in engineering from Cornell university,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I call bullsh*t. No one with that level of technical training would get so completely over his head on simple matters like comparing model predictions to observational data. Not to mention repeating claims that have already been thoroughly debunked upthread as if they were the start of a brand new conversation and what had already been discussed never existed.

    The only way this clown has a masters degree in engineering is if he has completely and totally put it aside in favour of advocacy for personal gain. I note his claim to have been just that, on the board of a Washington DC climate policy organization representing his industry. In other words, a paid lobbyist. What industry do you suppose he represented? My guess would be Big Wind or Big Solar.

  488. A C Osborn says:

    Warren says: December 27, 2013 at 9:08 am
    RonRichey: thanks for your comments
    I’m 71 years old, have a masters degree in engineering from Cornell university, and spent a large portion of my 45 year career as vp of engineering for a large us corporation.
    The last 10 years of my career I was on the board of a Washington, D.C. ClimAte policy organization, representing my industry.

    Sorry, it’s a nice try but I find it very hard to believe you.

    You say you are from my generation and yet you can’t remember the very hot summers of our youth, when the Tar on the roads melted, which it did not do during the 90s and 2000s. (Must be different Tar)?
    You can’t remember the very very cold winters and boring cool summers of the 70s when some of those Climate Scientists were talking “Ice Age”?
    You can’t remember US Submarines at the actual North Pole in OPEN WATER?
    You were not educated about the History of the North West Passage and Vikings in Greenland?
    You were not educated about the Medieval Warm Period, which is now clearly shown as World Wide and not just Northern Europe?

    You say you are an Engineer and yet you believe the output of Models over actual Data?

    So do you actually believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or like most of the people on this web site in Global Warming/Cooling because we are still Recovering from the Last Major Ice Age and rebounding from the Little Ice Age?

  489. Mark Bofill says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 27, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Warren;
    I’m 71 years old, have a masters degree in engineering from Cornell university,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I call bullsh*t. No one with that level of technical training would get so completely over his head on simple matters like comparing model predictions to observational data.

    While I don’t see much point in calling people liars, I’ll admit I’m wondering along the same lines here.

    Look, as an engineer, how can you possibly say that models that project results that differ from observations at a near 2 sigma difference are just fine? Frankly, I wouldn’t dare make an argument like that to my boss. I wouldn’t have the stones. He’d look at me and say, what? Are you drunk or something? Then he’d put me on leave I think.

    If you want to argue that the multidecadal trend of the models is right and that natural variability or whatever was underestimated in the models, that’s fine. That still doesn’t mean we can blithely say the models are fine, since they are about to bust out of their confidence intervals. Also, until somebody figures out why the models are off, suggesting that the longer term trend is valid is just a bunch of hand waving.

  490. A C Osborn says:

    davidmhoffer says: December 27, 2013 at 9:42 am
    You forgot BIG OIL, but there are so many who have jumped on the bad wagon to rob Tax Payers and the 3rd world denizens of their money and life that it could be almost any group.

  491. HarveyS says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    ” I note his claim to have been just that, on the board of a Washington DC climate policy organization representing his industry. In other words, a paid lobbyist. ”

    Yep and I did call him out for been a paid troll.
    I am still waiting for my money from ‘Big Oil’ or the ‘Koch Bro’s’.

    @Warren,@PJ Clark,@Margaret. Sorry as others have pointed out the models are not doing just fine, they are in fact garbage. But then data and facts are not your strong points, there is plenty of data on this site alone that shows why they are not.

    In fact you like appeals to authority so much go look Dr Judith Curry’s site she tells the same story. I am damn sure she knows more about climate than you 3 put together.

    If you are going to come here and say they are, then point to data/facts that show that they are correct. But don’t come back with just your belief, we know what that is and it proves nothing.

  492. dp says:

    Unbelievable – Warren came in here, got into your heads and owned you people and you let him drag the conversation far far away from Monckton’s OP. If this were my blog I’d be strongly tempted to delete the entire conversation save for the OP and start over.

    Stop trying to be more right on the internet. There’s no future in it. It’s enough to just be right.

  493. Ron Richey says:

    Warren,
    Yes, get back to me. Family and business consume most of my time but I’ll check back as often as possible. With your history and experience you should be able to wade right through all those papers submitted to you in this thread.
    Drive safe,
    Ron Richey

  494. RichardLH says:

    Warren says:
    December 27, 2013 at 5:25 am

    “The trend line dawn through atmospheric temperature data shows continued rise in global temperature into the 21st century.”

    So your intellectual position is that a linear trend line (I presume from the context) to be a valid predictor of the future and the past.

    And it does not worry you that it also means that the ‘Little Ice Age’ would thus have been the HIGHEST temperatures seen for hundreds of years before the 1800s?

    I suppose that continuing the observation back far enough in time to the Romans would mean that Caesar invaded Briton by crossing the ice in the Channel then?

    Linear trends are a lie, to yourself and everybody else. Nature is never linear.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720

  495. HenryP says:

    Warren is travelling, and don’t expect any sensible answers from him, anyway
    I hope he does live in DC, though
    Just like new and old England, the climate runs opposite the global wave there
    meaning they get a lot more precipitation (during a cooling period)

    Just imagine Warren shoving heaps and heaps of snow, even late in Spring…..
    LOL

  496. Steve Keohane says:

    A C Osborn says: December 27, 2013 at 9:49 am

    Warren says: December 27, 2013 at 9:08 am
    [...]

    Sorry, it’s a nice try but I find it very hard to believe you.

    You say you are from my generation and yet you can’t remember the very hot summers of our youth, when the Tar on the roads melted, which it did not do during the 90s and 2000s. (Must be different Tar)?
    I concur with your perceptions.
    My mother saved the bacon fat in a special container that sat on the kitchen counter from the early 50s to the mid 60s when we lived in northern Indiana and north of Boston. This was used as a cleaner to remove tar from our feet from what melted on the roads, and inevitably came home. Shoes were to be avoided unless school was on or there was snow on the ground. Besides, playing in the melted tar would ruin shoes.

  497. Mark Bofill says:

    I get that Warren is traveling, I’ll content myself with this last comment for now. What with the emphasis on peer reviewed material earlier in the thread, I’d like to link this:

    Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years(Fyfe, Gillett & Zwiers)

    It’s been noted in the literature that the models don’t appear to be on track, for those who care about such things.

  498. Ulric Lyons says:

    Monckton of Brenchley writes:

    “And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong.”

    I don’t see how believing in the unproven can help one discern fact from fiction, if anything the opposite. The deep green smoke signals that emanate from the Vatican mark an ideological shift from the Hell that God made, to the Hell that man made, which is too good to be true as it’s peer reviewed. They swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker, out of the fire and straight into the frying pan.

  499. dbstealey says:

    davidmhoffer responds to “Warren”:

    The only way this clown has a masters degree in engineering is if he has completely and totally put it aside in favour of advocacy for personal gain. I note his claim to have been just that, on the board of a Washington DC climate policy organization representing his industry. In other words, a paid lobbyist. What industry do you suppose he represented? My guess would be Big Wind or Big Solar.

    That has the ring of truth.

    Warren says:

    “I’ve been teaching climate science in retirement”

    No, Warren. You have been emitting globaloney propaganda. Since you are incapable of posting simple, testable measurements of human emissions on global temperatures, then all you have are your beliefs and your baseless assertions.

    Tell us where you will be “teaching” next, Warren, and maybe one of us will grace you with our presence. If it is I, you will be asked the same question about measurements. And if you cannot produce actual, empirical measurements, then your bluff is called — just like it was here.

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

    Next, PJ Clarke comments:

    You can see my recent response to Dbstealey on that score. A comparison of the various model’s predictions of Atm temp vs time over the 20th century using assumptions of no human caused co2 emissions vs actual human caused CO2 emissions show a clear pattern shape like the hockey stick.

    Oh, piffle. How many hokey sticks do you want? You can count numerous identical hockey stick shapes here. Your cherry-picking of one short time period is risible. And, as I asked upscreen:

    “…why not go on record, Mr PJ Clarke? Are you willing to state, right here and now, that if global warming does not resume by the 21 year mark, that your alarming conjecture has been falsified? That you were, and are, simply wrong in your belief about ‘catastrophic AGW’ [cAGW]? Or is cAGW a religion with you, as many of us suspect?

    PJ doesn’t answer. Well then, religion it is with PJ.

    One more time: If the believers in cAGW cannot find actual measurements of the supposed ‘human fingerprint’ in global warming, after so many $Billion have been spent looking for it, then the obvious conclusion is this: if AGW exists, it is simply too minuscule to matter. And if that is the case, then society should not waste one more dollar on the bogus cAGW claim.

    [Regarding 'catastrophe', PJ needs to understand that human activity may indeed produce some minuscule warming. But since 'AGW' is too small to measure, it can and should be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. Hardly a "catastrophe" by any definition.]

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

    Warren continues digging:

    ” I imagine he don’t even worry that 200 of the Worlds most prominent Scientific Organizations have published positions supporting AGW…”&etc., etc.

    Warren me boi, that is nothing but an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy. Just because a hanful of board members invents a position means nothing at all. How do you know they didn’t get some sort of benefit from doing so? T^here is big money supporting the cAGW scare, and there are plenty of people for sale, in may cases for peanuts. Not one of those bought and paid for organizations has polled all of their members, either, nor can any of them produce any measurements of the so-called ‘human fingerprint’ in global warming.

    Global warming is natural, as you can see — if you would only open your eyes and look. Click on the link above, and you will see thousands of years of identical global warming episodes. How many ‘hoickey sticks’ can you count? Study up on the climate Null Hypothesis, Warren [if you're not studyin up on what "AR" means]. You will begin to understand that current observations are no different from past observations. What does that tell you?

    For someone who pontificates and asserts, without any supporting scientific measurements, it is clear that Warren doesn’t even know the basics! Warren had to ask about AR [IPCC Assessment Reports]. How lame is that??

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

    dp says:

    “Unbelievable – Warren came in here, got into your heads and owned you people and you let him drag the conversation far far away”

    A couple observations, dp: first, it is Warren who got ‘owned’ here. Or didn’t you notice? We’re still waiting for some real world corroboration of his beliefs. And second: some of us like putting people like Warren, Margaret, and PJ in their place. ☺

    …oh, and I almost forgot about Margaret Hardman. …heh.

  500. davidmhoffer says:

    From one of Warren’s first comments in this thread:

    Warren says:
    December 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    Also, your request for me to provide my scientific reasoning for AGW is welcome, but there’s not time or space on a web forum for anyone to do it justice. There are many excellent science books, but if you want a top notch explanation, I recommend a series of 12 half hour lectures by Physics Professor Wolfson of Middlebury College, published on DVD by the Teaching Company. For $20 you get clear explanations, many good charts, and a small book with recommended reading and references, and summary points

    An admitted industry lobbyist promoting a for profit DVD who has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot grasp the basics of data analysis yet claims to be an engineer.

    Oh he’s already shoveling stuff HenryP, but it ain’t snow.

  501. davidmhoffer says:

    LOL.
    I couldn’t help myself, I went and found the Teaching Company web site and read the intro to Wolfson’s lecture series. It is nothing but the standard talking points, and can’t even get them right. I could debunk half a dozen claims in the first paragraph, as could anyone with even marginal familiarity with the issues. It is puff piece propaganda from one end to the other.

    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1219

  502. HenryP says:

    Ulric says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1514788
    henry says
    Ulric, we have been all through that and we are all agreed here now that it is not possible for something to come forth out of nothing.
    Hence, we have to have respect for both the believers and the unbelievers.
    It is also important to note my comment here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1513612

  503. PJ Clarke says:

    One more time: If the believers in a natural explanation for global warming cannot find actual measurements of the supposed ‘natural fingerprint’ in global warming, then the obvious conclusion is this: if natural warming exists, it is simply too minuscule to matter.

    FTFY again. db Stealey’s abject failure to find a natural forcing that explains the measured warming of the last 50-60 years is a thing to behold. Leprechauns perchance. Such a belief in an unseen and unmeasured influence on the planet is indeed very reminiscent of a religious belief. On the other hand not even the Spencers, Christys and Lindzens of the world disagree with the real and measured radiative imbalance caused by the manmade increase in greenhouse gases. There’s plenty of evidence summarised neatly in the sections of the IPCC reports that deal with detection and attribution and it indicates that the planet is responding to this manmade warming influence pretty much as the science says it should. It’s not good enough just to state that the planet is ‘recovering’ from the LIA. There has to be a physical driver of the warming. The complete silence when challenged to put a name or even a quantity to this natural driver is really quite telling.

    Not so say hilarious.

  504. ralfellis says:

    Box of Rocks says: December 26, 2013 at 8:29 am

    Acementhead says December 24, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    Church. Would that be the same Catholic Church that burnt Giordano Bruno to death just over four hundred years ago?

    Yeah its also the same Catholic Church that brought you the enlightenment……
    ___________________________________

    Which merely demonstrates how poor our education system is.

    The Enlightenment was forged during the dark days of the Reformation. The Reformation was a 100 year-long battle between the Enlightened Protestant Lutherian Church, and the Dark Age Catholic Church. It was the Protestant Church that eventually won this bitter and hard-fought battle, and allowed the the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason to begin. And it was this new Age of Enlightenment that allowed Royal Society to be founded and the Industrial Revolution to commence – and so the entire modern world around us rests on the foundations of that hard-won battle of the Reformation.

    And I’ll give you a clue that I am right and the gentleman above is wrong – the Royal Society and the Industrial Revolution were forged in the Protestant north, and not in the Vatican-ruled south. Wren, Petty, Boyle and Newton would not have lasted two minutes in Catholic lands – just as Giordano Bruno was burned to death when he strayed too far south. Surprisingly, the linchpin of the entire Reformation movement was the Dutch Princes of Orange, the Huguenot princes from French Provence who moved (were exiled) to Holland and fought the main battles of the Reformation. And of course the final victory of the Reformation was when England had a Dutch king, William of Orange, who defeated the French Catholic army.

    .

    Ladies and Gentlemen. At this joyous festive period, let us take two minutes out from our busy lives to remember and honour the five million brave souls of the Protestant Reformation, who selflessly gave their lives so that we could have the freedom to think and debate without the threat of burning that hung over the free-thinkers of the Dark and Middle Ages.

    Here are just a few of the many millions of brave men and women, who selflessly gave their lives so that the world would have a free, enlightened, scientific and technological future. I hope that their names will live on, in the hearts and minds of all free men and women.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

    Three cheers for the real truth – of gnostic science.
    Three cheers to the Princes of Orange.
    Ralph

  505. RichardLH says:

    PJ Clarke says:
    December 27, 2013 at 11:27 am

    “The complete silence when challenged to put a name or even a quantity to this natural driver is really quite telling.”

    I can give you a guide as to the magnitude if not the origins.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720

  506. dbstealey says:

    It would be hard to find more cluelessness in one statement than this:

    “…abject failure to find a natural forcing that explains the measured warming of the last 50-60 years…”

    It ranks right up with Warren’s ignorance of what the IPCC’s “AR” means.

    Clearly, PJ Clarke has no understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis. He may have never even heard of it, based on his statement here.

    Earth to PJ: it is all natural forcing. There is no identifiable and measurable ‘fingerprint’ of a separate human activity.

    If what is claimed is science, then there must be identifiable measurements, attributable specifically to human emissions. But there are no such measurements. It is all assertion, and True Belief.

    I have been asking literally for years for someone, anyone, to post verifiable, testable MEASUREMENTS, which are directly traceable to humans’ effect on global temperature.

    But no one has ever posted any such measurments. That is because there are no such measurements. So PJ continues the unbroken string of non-answers.

    Clarke also tries to turn the onus of proof around, to make scientific skeptics try to prove a negative:

    “Such a belief in an unseen and unmeasured influence on the planet is indeed very reminiscent of a religious belief.”

    It is, of course, the climate alarmists’ religious belief in their non-existent “fingerprint” that amuses real scientists. If there is such a “fingerprint”, then PJ needs to post measurements of it. Simple as that. But without specific, testable measurements, skeptics know that PJ is winging it with his baseless assertions.

    If PJ Clarke wants credibility here, he will either:

    a) post verifiable measurements of humans’ effect on global temperature, or

    b) admit that he has no such measurements.

    There is no c). If PJ can’t do a) or if PJ won’t do b), then he still has zero credibility. He is just another True Believer, hoping and praying that his faith will move mountains. Earth to PJ: it won’t.

    [Oh, and PJ: thanx for posting your fabricated realclimate chart. Anyone can gin up a bogus chart like that. RC does it all the time.]

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

    RichardLH,

    Thanks for that WFT chart, which shows that human activity cannot be discerned from natural. Here is another WFT chart, which shows the same global warming pre-1940′s, that we recently observed. Note that there is no difference in the two step changes, indicating once again that they are natural, and not caused by human activity.

    Next, here is another WFT chart, showing that the recent global warming is moderating.

    Here is a chart by über-warmist Phil Jones himself, showing that the step changes in global warming are natural. What was recently observed has happened repeatedly. Thus, if there is any warming due to human activity, it is too minuscule to measure. Or to matter.

    Finally, to preclude accusations of cherry-picking, here is a much longer term chart. When global temperatures are viewed in whole degrees, instead of tiny fractions of a degree, it is not nearly so alarming. In fact, it is not alarming at all.

  507. Mark Bofill says:

    dbstealey,

    [Oh, and PJ: thanx for posting your fabricated realclimate chart. Anyone can gin up a bogus chart like that. RC does it all the time.]

    Actually, I think that one was ginned up in AR5. If memory serves they greatly expanded the uncertainty envelop on the models as compared with the AR4 graphs without ever explaining what it was all about. … I think. …. I’m going to go dig into that, seems like Climate Audit had a post about it.

  508. Mark Bofill says:

    Yeah, this was it:

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/

    Course, I don’t know where real climate got their graph from, so it might be a different issue.

    So many misleading graphs, so little time.

  509. dbstealey says:

    Thanks, Mark. I like Ross McKitrick’s comment:

    The uncertainty envelopes from AR4 model projections really are the ones that matter for assessing model performance over the past decade, and the meaning that can be attached to IPCC claims of “certainty”. So it would have made sense for them to show them to the reader, not resort to the obscurantist spaghetti graph… It would not have occurred to me to suggest that they… double down on text that claims the observations match the models.

    Very few of the IPCC’s shenanigans get by Mc&Mc.

    So, the models don’t match the observations. Whodathunkit?

  510. Gunga Din says:

    Thanks to Anthony and the ModSquad for allowing this thread to go outside the normal bounds. (I know can’t do it to often.) I don’t know if anyone followed my links but I’m sure that I’m not the only one who was able to say things on both sides of “the God issue” that would normally be outside of site policy. I’ve “bit my tongue” more than once. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has.
    (And thank you again, Anthony, for the Apollo 8 post. I’m sorry your little gift went into “The Twilight Zone”. Glad I saw it before it did.)

  511. PJ Clarke says:

    So, let me see if I have this correct: we have a known warming influence – and yes it has been measured, but we are assured, by the rather unpursuasive method of argument by pure, unevidenced assertion, that the observed warming, predicted by the models is in fact all a result of natural forcings. The physical mechanism behind these natural forcings – powerful enough to shift the temperature of an entire planet – remains a mystery: un-named and unmeasured, but it is definitely natural:- while at the same time every scientific society on the planet has come to the exact opposite conclusion.

    Sure sounds more like faith than science. I leave you True Believers to your incantations….

    bye for now.

  512. SAB says:

    As a founder member of the First Church of Utter Determinism, I have to say that this is not such an easy answer to the problems of humanity as you might imagine.
    Really.
    I would like to engender a Centre for the Study of Global Alarmism. Its brief would necessarily be very wide, including the (reflexive sounding) study of Centres for Study. And maybe whether de-Centralised Study is possibly or even necessarily less Alarmist. Assuming that less Alarmism might be desirable. Alternatively, maybe a certain amount of chronic Alarmism is a good thing – maybe it could be managed positively, so that bunches of sad traumatised people could get together to gee themselves up a bit by blaming something or other without causing problems for the sane folks/ the rest of civilisation. If we persuaded them that Wild Geese were the source of climate change/plague/pestilence/famine/human evil/spots, we could fund them generously if they’d all agree to go on a Wild Goose chase, and send us back messages about how they were doing… Occasionally maybe we’d have a better idea, and guide them towards evil purple frogs, or (without being ‘three-headist’ about it) people with err, three heads. The Centre for the Study of Global Alarmism could be tasked with modelling the behaviour of these lunatics sorry enthusiasts and predict IN A SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE MANNER how long it would take a ‘consensus’ to emerge that maybe it wasn’t real after all, and how many times the enthusiasm could be re-ignited before it died completely and everyone went back to their day jobs.

    Just don’t let them tangle with those three kings over there, following a star – now that might really be worth something.

  513. steve a says:

    “See, the thing about a moral compass is, if you take it out and check it from time to time, you don’t have to wait for history to tell you you’re facing the wrong direction.” – Jon Stewart, April 17, 2013

  514. RichardLH says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 27, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    “Here is a chart by über-warmist Phil Jones himself, showing that the step changes in global warming are natural.”

    I regard the use of linear trends of any length as being a sign of desperation, not analysis.

    Especially as there are perfectly good periodic functions available. Only two full data cycles of 60 years and possibly not even half of the 100+ year one, but periodic none the less. And don’t get me started on FTs for analysing only 2 periods with large ‘noise’ contributions!

    Notice the rise from the 1800s as shown CANNOT be CO2 driven, it starts to occur way too early, At best CO2 can only be an accelerant of the later part. A partial recent contributor at best.

  515. Warren says:

    Baby’s: thanks for your question. An experiment such as you describe would show a rise in temperature and pressure in accordance with the gas laws; the amount of rise would depend on how much CO2 is injected; the addition of 400 ppm of CO2 (current CO2 level in the atmosphere) would have a very small effect, however, because it represents only a tiny increase in the total amount of gas in the container. But since the atmosphere is an open system not a closed container, the experiment is not relevant to the atmosphere. But more importantly, none of this has anything to do with Climate Change. The relevant scientific issue for climate change is the Greenhouse effect, which is the blocking of infrared thermal radiation from the earth by certain gases in the atmosphere—-water vapor, CO2, methane, and a few others. the Natural Greenhouse effect is responsible for the roughly 33celsius warmer temperature of the earth vs what it would be without an atmosphere, mostly caused by water vapor in the atmosphere. It is the 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere –280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 ppm currently –that has increased the amount of Greenhouse effect incrementally during the 20th century, and caused the incremental rise in global avg temperature seen in the 20th century. The physics of how water vapor, CO2, methane, and other global warming gases restrict the outflow of thermal radiation through the atmosphere is explained in most physics books, and I would be glad to try to explain if you want, although there is plenty of explanation to be found in any source on the physics of the greenhouse effect.

    Thanks again for your question.

  516. Warren says:

    PJClarke: you’ve made a perfect summary.

  517. bobl says:

    Maragaret Hardman says:
    Perhaps you can explain why you believe I and millions of others around the world are mistaken in looking at multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data and concluding that humans are causing a measurable proportion of global warming?

    That’s a hard one, because I failed mind reading 101, but since you ask, i’ll speculate. The warmist position on cAGW is based on a number of lines of reasoning which seem plausible in themselves, much like Alchemy must have seems plausible CO2 is a GHG therefore it must raise CO2 vs Lead is heavy and gold is heavy therefore I should be able to turn lead into gold.. CO2 is a GHG (Undisputed) that Arhennius proved warms a volume by retarding radiation escape. This is a reasonable hypothesis, however Arhenius assumes a pure environment, insulated, not turbulent, unable to convect radiate or transform heat energy to other forms. Most Proponents in my experience can’t get past the fact CO2 is a GHG therefore it must warm the planet. This biasses the belief that the hypothesis must be true…. It’s just gotta be… It’s a travesty we can’t find the warming that just gotta be there because Arhenius Sevante said so.

    The climate though is not a test tube, Arhenius warming is an accepted fact on both sides of the debate, but then it gets interesting. The Climate has multiple negative feedbacks, lapse rate cooling, convection (driven by the lapse rate) , Direct radiation, latent heat of evaporation, latent heat of fusion, Thermal capacity (particularly of water), clouds, which the models do to some extent incorporate, although noted Meterologist Kinimonth believes the estimate for evaporation is grossly underestimated. There are also a myriad of smaller feedbacks that are not modelled. Storms, conversion of thermal to kinetic energy in many forms, conversion of thermal to potential energy, conversion of thermal to electrical and electromagnetic energy (Lightning, Solar panels), conversion of thermal energy to entropy (Weathering and chemical decomposition), conversion of thermal energy to chemical energy (a huge one – eg photosythesis), conversion of heat energy to sound (eg like the bangs and pops that are emitted when your roof expands). While each one is tiny they add up to a considerable amount of energy extracted from the climate and are all temperature driven and negative, none are modelled. There are modes of energy extraction we haven’t even thought about yet, for example you absorb photons in your skin as sunlight converts cholesterol to vitamin D, that is light intensity sensitive. All around us energy, particularly heat is being converted from one form to another and yet the climate models ignore it.

    Consider a lemon

    CO2, Combines with water and light, and heat energy to create a lemon through photosynthesis, I then take that lemon and insert a copper and aluminium electrode and Whala, I can extract electricity from the lemon, the world is truly amazing

    I therefore speculate that the Warmists don’t think deeply enough about the actual processes that go on, they produce simple models of the major sources and sinks and declare that there is an imbalance, in a living and adapting world. When these necessarily simplified models don’t work (as our current models don’t) they then go back to point 1 …. But Arrhenius said there must be warming…. it’s true there must, but instead of looking at the process for where that warming energy might have been lost, they invent a framework to support that initial conclusion, the heat went into the deep ocean where no thermometers can reach it or to the deep antarctic where no thermometers reach either.

    As for multiple lines of evidence, there simply aren’t any, all the actual data points to an unalarming warming sensitivity to CO2 of between 0 and 1.4 degrees per doubling. Most of the warmist faith seems to rely on this simple confirmation bias, Arrhenius said it should warm, it’s gotta be somewhere. No it doesn’t, it may be extracted as fast as it is added.

    A Christmas light worth of energy per square meter, to me as an Engineer really doesn’t seem to be too hard to dissipate, perhaps the grass absorbs it as it grows faster, perhaps the extra heat evaporates more water,perhaps the cloudiness increases or then perhaps it disappears and magically reappears in the deep ocean. Skeptics, like myself simply say, you know what… let’s admit WE DON’T KNOW,

    Climate science also contradicts itself, for example, if the earth’s warming of 33 degrees is driven by CO2 which is at 85% energy saturation, then how come you expect the remaining 15% of CO2 energy absorption to warm the planet by up to 78 degrees (13 doublings of 6 degrees) or even 39 degrees (13 doublings of 3 degrees) – isn’t it more likely that the temperature will increase in line with the past, IE the 17% rise in absorption from 85 – 100% would cause something less than a 17% rise in temperature – IE something less than 5.6 degrees even if the atmosphere were 100 % CO2? This is distributed over 13 doublings, the 33 degrees difference from blackbody of the atmosphere precludes a sensitivity of more than 5.6/13 = 0.43 degrees per doubling, a result that shows nett feedback is negative!

    Margaret, clearly CO2 must lead to some warming, but whether it’s 0.1 degree per doubling or 3 degrees per doubling depends on how that extra energy exits the system, on that we have no idea, none, except for some simplistic and clearly unrepresentative computer models.

    In the end I don’t know why these things are ignored (remember Mind Reading 101 fail), i just know they are. Confirmation bias is my guess at the motives, for some reason (probably varied) warmists just want warming to be true.

  518. dbstealey says:

    From the link above, posted by PJ Clarke:

    “New estimates… new calculations… models are used… lower than the previous IPCC estimate… we estimate to be accurate… compared to previous estimates.” And so on.

    PJ, if you believe that those are empirical measurements, then there is not much hope for you.

    There is not one single measurement showing: ∆human emissions = ∆degrees of global warming in that paper, or in any other pal reviewed paper, for that matter. It is ALL conjecture. The fact that there is big, big money behind the AGW scare is something that should always be kept in mind. Money creates an ulterior motive, and the more than $100 BILLION in grant money that has been shoveled out to ‘study global warming’ is an enormous incentive for the unscrupulous to fan the flames of the “carbon” scare.

    PJ, so far all we observe is natural climate variability. Lately [since the 1800's], humanity has been fortunate enough to be living in a true “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. If that is cAGW… Give Us More!! You can freeze if you like. We prefer it to be pleasant.

    For everyone else: PJ’s posted link contains nothing but assumptions, which are composed of estimates, which are based on computer models. There is not a single actual measurement of the so-called “fingerprint” of AGW in their pal-reviewed paper.

    That is the problem with the alarmist belief system: it is based on estimates, and on models, and on beliefs, and on projections, and on assertions, and on SWAGs. But they cannot post an actual, empirical measurement, because there are no such measurements!

    I trust that makes the problem crystal clear: alarmists expect society to buy into the belief that the is a serious “carbon” problem brewing. But when pressed, no one in the alarmist camp has been able to post any actual scientific measurements. And without any measurements, their true belief is hardly science. Is it?

    The alarmists’ true belief begins and ends at the most basic step: a Conjecture. There is no AGW Hypothesis [which would provide for testability]. There is no Theory of AGW [which would make possible repeated, accurate predictions]. And of course, there is no Law of AGW.

    There is only True Belief. But the more data we collect, the clearer it becomes that everything we are currently observing shows only natural variability; nothing more. As stated here many times: it is possible that AGW may exist to a minuscule degree. But if so, it is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. Certainly, no Policy decisions should be made regarding the tiny fraction of a degree that AGW may, or might, or could possibly cause.

    Finally, on balance all of the real world data collected so far shows that CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas, which is greatly beneficial to the biosphere. No one has ever been able to document any global harm due to CO2. Thus, “carbon” is harmless. [If PJ disagrees, I invite him to post any evidence that he might have, showing global harm due directly to the rise in CO2.]

    PJ Clarke has lost this debate, and now he indicates that he is tucking tail and vamoosing. So maybe now the rest of us can discuss the actual science, based on actual, real world measurements — rather than on the True Beliefs of the climate alarmist contingent.

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

    Warren says:

    “PJClarke: you’ve made a perfect summary.”

    Perfect for Witch Doctors, Warren, who do not have any use for the Scientific Method. But, to each his own…

    Warren continues to dig his hole:

    “The Natural Greenhouse effect is responsible for the roughly 33celsius warmer temperature of the earth vs what it would be without an atmosphere, mostly caused by water vapor in the atmosphere. It is the 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere –280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 ppm currently –that has increased the amount of Greenhouse effect incrementally during the 20th century, and caused the incremental rise in global avg temperature seen in the 20th century.”

    Nonsense conclusion. Warren makes it sound like the increase from 3 parts in ten thousand, to 5 parts in ten thousand is critical. It isn’t. CO2 has been as high as 10 parts per 10,000, with no adverse effects. Warren is just trying to scare people. But real world observations show that the current climate has been duplicated many, many times over the millennia. There is no difference between the current rise in global temperature, and past global temperature increases. And of course, the CO2 level has been much higher [and lower] in the past — with no global consequences either way. There is simply no long-term correlation between T and CO2. None. [Numerous examples available; just ask.] And thus, another nail is hammered into the alarmist coffin.

    Warren cannot show that this climate is any different from previous climates, and since Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is the best explanation, it follows that the current climate is due entirely to natural variability, and not to CO2 levels. Warren will have to show conclusively that the current global climate is anything unusual. But as we see, he cannot show that the current climate is unusual or unprecedented, because it has all happened before, very routinely. Therefore, CO2 has nothing measurable to do with global temperatures. How many times do we have to post the scientific evidence for that? [If anyone needs it, ask, and I'll post it again.]

    Warren needs to stop falsely yelling “Fire!!” in a crowded theatre. That has always been a despicable scare tactic. So stop it, Warren! It makes you a bad person. There is no ‘cAGW’ fire. And there never was.

  519. bobl says:

    Warren,

    Thank you, a little wrong but getting there

    the Natural Greenhouse effect is responsible for the roughly 33celsius warmer temperature of the earth vs what it would be without an atmosphere, mostly caused by water vapor in the atmosphere.

    If this is so, then we must also recognise that 85% of available energy in CO2 absorbtion spectrum is already intercepted, leaving only the remaining 15% of incident energy to cause warming (15% against 85% is a 17% increase on 85%). So how then can you support the conclusion of the models ( 2 – 4.5 degrees per doubling, 26 – 58.5 degrees for 13 doublings to 1 atm CO2 concentration).

    Measurement: 33 degrees for 85% ( 0.38 degrees, per percent energy intercepted)
    IPCC Models: 58.5 degrees for 15% ( 3.9 degrees per percent energy intercepted)

    How then can you accept that the change of 17% in one element of that 33 degree offset is going to cause warming at 10 times the rate of the initial atmospheric warming from blackbody to blackbody+33 degrees. You said you were an Engineer, if that’s true, then how do you live with that inconsistency – as an Engineer, I cannot. If you are an Engineer of the non-railway kind, and can accept that, then you are in my opinion a very poor Engineer, and I’d really like too know what bridges you built so I can avoid them, and who your public liability insurer is

  520. RichardLH says:

    dbstealey says:
    December 27, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    “There is no ‘cAGW’ fire. And there never was.”

    That goes too far. The (good quality) data is not of sufficient length yet to decide if AGW is or is not a valid and proven conclusion. There are, however, still valid hypothesis that do not require it to be of be the magnitude sometimes claimed.

  521. davidmhoffer says:

    bobl;
    Climate science also contradicts itself, for example, if the earth’s warming of 33 degrees is driven by CO2
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    The estimate of 33 degrees is arrived at by comparing the effective black body temperature of earth calculated via Stefan-Boltzmann Law at 255K to the measure average surface temperature of 288K. However, that 33 degrees is attributed to the sum of all ghg effects in the atmosphere. The dominant effect if from water vapour. Depending on which study you want to accept, somewhere in the range of 80%.

  522. dbstealey says:

    RichardLH says:

    “The (good quality) data is not of sufficient length yet to decide if AGW is or is not a valid and proven conclusion.”

    Richard, please note that I have always made a clear distinction between cAGW and AGW. At present, AGW is not a testable hypothesis. It is still only a conjecture.

    AGW may exist, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. The problem is that so far, it is too small to measure. That may change. Or not. But as of now, there are no testable measurements showing the human ‘fingerprint’ [if any].

    But, “catastrophic” AGW?? The alarmist crowd hangs their hat on that one, because without it there would be no “carbon” scare. Thus, no reason to panic. Not even a reason to even become unduly worried.

    If the warmists would simply agree that maybe AGW is a non-scare, we could all be on the same page. But they will not do so, because then their influence would diminish to nothing. And that is something they cannot live with: impotence.

  523. John@EF says:

    steven mosher said on December 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    It an essay about truth the monktopus not only misquotes Keats, but he gets the meaning exactly backwards. I find that ironic. Further the point of science is not “truth” in its religious or philosophical sense. It’s far more pragmatic than that. The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.
    =========
    Overwhelming predilection is hard to break.

  524. Pat Frank says:

    Warren, you haven’t made a single “climate science” argument over the entire course of your argument here. It’s all been argument from authority. So, you’ll pardon my skepticism that you’ve been “teaching climate science.”

  525. Warren says:

    PJClarke and Margaret Hardiman:: Thanks for your commentaries. I am also saying goodby because there’s no point in devoting further time to this small but true believing cadre of skeptics. No one ive found (other than you) accepts the contemporary Climate Science as expressed in such Journals as Science or Nature, the IPPC Assessments, or in some cases even the basic physics of the problem. And the overwhelming consensus among the professional scientific organizations of the world (ZERO disputing AGW) doesn’t seem to raise second thoughts about their own position. To the shouts of loud Hoorays from the site, I give up.

  526. Bill H says:

    CO2 is logrhithmic and thus any warming that could occur has already happened.

    Water vapor is 950 times more powerful than CO2 yet it is ignored..

    Temp and CO2 trends have decoupled thus proving the theoretical link falsified.

    The IPCC fifth assessment report draft shows all models as failures and all within 8 years of the original predictions.. Thus the theory has been placed into prediction and the predictions failed!

    Yet the faithful hold on to their religion in hopes of allowing the liberal control agenda to be firmly set in place despite the evidence…

  527. Mark Bofill says:

    Look Warren, spare us the martyr performance. You came here looking for an argument. You found your argument. You didn’t make a very persuasive case. That’s all.

    For my part, the only thing that really offended me was the tripe about the models. It doesn’t make me a true believing skeptic or anything merely because I take issue with people who make claims that are demonstrably false.

  528. davidmhoffer says:

    Warren;
    To the shouts of loud Hoorays from the site, I give up.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You may be surprised. I’d welcome you to stay. In fact, I did so several times up thread. I invited you to participate in some of the threads devoted to in depth analysis of climate science papers. Seems like you’ve declined. I invited you to discuss the science on several matters. You declined. You made assertions that myself and others responded to with explanations and links to data and various papers, and invited you to discuss them. You declined. You provided no evidence, discussed no science, engaged in nothing but argument from authority. When it was pointed out to you that the very scientists you purport to agree with are themselves admitting that the models are invalid and searching for reasons why, you changed the subject. As you did every single time someone made a valid point that you had no response to.

    If you would bother to accept my invitation, you’d see just how hotly the science is debated on this site. But none or so blind as those who will not see. Your loss.

  529. dbstealey says:

    Mark Bofill & davidmhoffer,

    I agree, doubled and squared.

    Warren says: “…the overwhelming consensus among the professional scientific organizations of the world…” &etc. …the usual Appeal to Authority fallacy.

    Warren has simply lost the debate, that’s all. But rather than being a class act, Warren goes off in a huff. If he had been able to answer any of the questions asked of him, then Warren would have had at least a semi-credible argument. But he had no answers — only his baseless assertions.

    Warren is typical of the alarmist cult. He Believes, and he really believes that alone is sufficient.

    Maybe it is… for Warren. But for true scientific skeptics, there is the need for verifiable, testable science. Neither Warren, not PJ, nor Margaret has ever posted any such evidence.

    Thus, they have all lost the debate. Now, they will retreat to their alarmist blogs, and give their one-sided accounts.

    But the reality is that none of them have posted any testable, measurable evidence to support their belief system. They have all failed to post any convincing scientific evidence.

    But they can still do so! IF they want to. The ball is still in their court. Because skeptics are always ready to be convinced — with real, verifiable evidence.

  530. john robertson says:

    @dp 7:54, True but warren was entertaining, most regulars here recognize The good lord’s points, most of us are sceptical of CAGW because we did ask a “Warren” ;”But is it true?”
    I was appalled and annoyed by the angry,asinine answers I received.
    The everybody knows, nonsense,which I have come to understand means no one has thought about it.
    So troll baiting is a fine winter solstice sport, each and every authoritarian statement of knowledge reveals a precious ignorance.
    Margret, Climate a** and Warren turned up to reinforce Moncktons description of their behaviour, so hardly hijacking the thread, they are 1/2 the thread.

  531. bobl says:

    John Robertson,

    As I said in a previous post, it’s ironic that they should choose a thread on scientific integrity, to emerge with arguments of little scientific iintegrity, and no “lust” for the objective truth, in doing so they have proven the good Lord’s point for him. I find it interesting that just when I nailed Warren with his own facts about the 33 deg supposed GHE (actually gas law) warming, that’s the time he chooses to wrap his tail under and run away, of course without answering the question first.

    I am a bit suspicious that M might have a fan club, and we’ve just met the groupies.

    @davidmhoffer…

    Regarding atmospheric blanketing effect, as I understand it, about 23 degrees is due to the lapse rate and about 10 attributed to GHE. My post, attributing it all to CO2 was grossly simplified for Warren’s consumption, since he is convinced that all the 33 degrees was due to GHE, then I used his own logic to expose the fact that the IPCC reckons the 15 % warming left in CO2 is predicted to cause 10 times the warming his own assertion says it caused in the past, this approach simplifies the math and makes the point even if the sensitivity number it delivers is too high. Giving him the true math would have been a leap for him, and discussion would have been stuck on the amount of warming attributable to GHE, despite the fact that even using the grossly overstated GHE of 33 degrees, the IPCC is claiming it’ll happen at ten times that rate in the future without evidence to back that claim.

    You are clearly correct though, if we attribute CO2 and feedbacks only 10 degrees of the 33 dehree total warming for 85 percent absorption, then in fact the historical warming rate is only 10/85 per percent energy intercepted – about 0.12 degrees per percent IR interception, and if we attribute only 80% of the GHE component to CO2 and feedbacks, (as you assert) sensitivity falls out at 8/85 or about 0.095 degrees per percent IR intercepted by CO2. On this basis a 100 percent absorbing CO2 atmosphere would deliver 0.095 x 100 or 9.5 degrees total GHE, when added to the 2 degrees contributed by ozone etc, comes out at 11.5 degrees total.

    Based on this difference between blackbody and average temperature the maximum warming for a entirely CO2 atmosphere (at 101.3 kPa) is 1.5 degrees which converts to about 1.5/13 or about 0.12 degrees per doubling since there are about 13 doublings to get from 400 PPM to 100% CO2.

    Note, I do know that a 100 % CO2 atmosphere isn’t 100 % absorbing, but it’s close enough for our purposes.

    Would be happy to explore this further with you if you’re interested.

  532. davidmhoffer says:

    bobl;
    about 0.12 degrees per percent IR interception
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Uhm… not certain I am understanding you correctly, but if I am…. no. Absorption of IR is 100%. In fact, it is 100% millions of times. A photon emitted at surface in the IR spectrum has no free path to space. It must be absorbed and re-emitted many many times before it finally works its way up to an altitude where it has a free path to space.

    RE: WARREN
    For those who are upset and feel that the discussion with Warren hijacked the thread, sorry, that wasn’t my intent, nor I think, was it of any of the others who engaged with Warren. But engaging with people like Warren is important. Without them, this is just an echo chamber. Sometimes a warmist drops in and scores a point or two. That’s a very important part of the debate. People like Warren serve a twofold purpose. One is that we just might be wrong, and we need actual debate to test our beliefs. The second is that it is illuminating to see how people like Warren think. Having the discussion with him prepares us for discussions with people whose positions are not yet entrenched because we know more about the propaganda people like Warren are throwing at them.

  533. rtj1211 says:

    ‘And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.’

    I think that religion is only something of longevity if its fundamental tenets are inherently unamenable to scientific busting of the hypotheses. The only person who can truly answer whether Jesus’ mother was a virgin receiving an immaculate conception from God has been dead for 2000 years. If there is any written testimony, it still wouldn’t prove things. It is a central tenet of Christianity. The only people who could have witnessed Christ ‘rising from the dead’ have been dead an equally long time. There was no video technology, DNA fingerprinting and no TV stations to record conversations with a resurrected Christ for posterity.

    The crisis religion is going through now is, perversely, due to science catching up with many of its previous mores. IVF technology, Stem Cell technology, for a start. Religions which deny the benefits of such technologies are likely to become niches. Most normal people will want to benefit from them. The internet changes the nature of the clergy, making them no longer a unique fount of wisdom but having to compete with anyone with a broadband connection and a well-rounded mind.

    Religion will need to fundamentally reformulate itself around the realities of security technology, internet technology and the power of physics, astronomy etc etc. The world described in the Bible is not like the modern one.

    Whether it will do it, or whether new organisations will come in to fill the void, who knows??

    I don’t see those born in 1990 or beyond bowing down to the old order, though.

  534. dp says:

    Engaging people like Warren is as important as engaging squirrels who steal your bird seed. Nothing important can come from it. Don’t fool yourself that you are doing the good work of keeping the climate pool clean in this contest. They are many and you are few. They are motivated and funded to divert you to a lost cause and this entire thread is evidence of their success. You’ve been had. Epic fail predictably followed. Smack your forehead and move on. Don’t do it again, stupid really is as stupid does, stop giving Warren Anthony’s audience.

  535. bobl says:

    davidmhoffer,
    Lord M didn’t seem to worried.

    Re, your point, yes a photon is remitted many times but at certain wavelengths there is a dip in the emission spectrum, a portion of the photons emitted by the surface never make it back out to space. at the absorbtion lines for CO2, the atmosphere is about 85% opaque. If the photon is merely reemitted as you say, then the atmosphere would be transluscent, the emission would still be the same, on average, no IR would be converted to heat and there would not be a greenhouse effect. But its not, at these frequencies some of the photons are indeed extracted and converted to another form. As the CO2 concentration increases the atmosphere would become more opaque and the energy extracted in the absorbtion bands increases. But this process has its limit, once all the outgoing IR in the absorbtion band is removed, there can be no more warming, that is simple energy conservation.

    The warmists have made up an excuse to get out of this connundrum too, that is to permit the energy absorbed to exceed 100 percent of that in the absorbtion band, but my understanding of the physics says they are wrong, unless one allows the atmosphere to exceed 101.3 kPa, IE CO2 adds to the bulk of the atmosphere, oxidising carbon doesn’t do that, because for each CO2 added there is one O2 removed.

    In any case, by any mechanism, there is no justification for expecting that future GHE will occur at a greater rate (with respect to intercepted energy percentage) than past GHE which can be estimated to be some amount less than 33 degrees.

  536. bobl says:

    Hmm, interesting thought occured to me writing that last Post, while burning hydrocarbons exchanges a CO2 for an O2, many natural processes like vulcanism don’t, those processes add to the depth of the atmosphere and cause gas law (lapse rate) heating and GHE so volcanic CO2 is doubly bad for the planet…. too bad it’s “Natural” eh!

  537. Alfred Deakin of the Commonwealth of Australia says:

    Wow, Christopher – you sure know how to write up a storm. What a response. You really are the greatest showman in the whole debate. Keep up the good fight and Merry Christmas from a fan.

  538. dbstealey says:

    dp says:

    “Engaging people like Warren is as important as engaging squirrels who steal your bird seed. Nothing important can come from it.”

    Wrong, dp. The good that comes of it is letting other readers see the opposing arguments. You may understand the debate, but some of those just tuning in might be swayed by Warren’s anti-science nonsense.

    That is the real value of WUWT: everyone gets to see all sides of the debate, and they can then make up their minds. That’s also the reason that alarmist blogs censor skeptical opinions. They do not want readers to see any other point of view but their own.

  539. Once again, many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread, even the trolls. They should know that if they are able to come up with genuine arguments they will be heard with respect.

    Those who have argued for Protestantism or against Catholicism have missed the point of the head posting, which was that men of religion are united in their belief that it is right to act morally and to seek and state the truth. That is a belief: it cannot be proven scientifically. And yet without that belief there is a danger that science itself will not function properly. The global warming scare, and the behavior of some of the trolls here, shows what can happen when there is no moral belief in the value of truth itself.

  540. bobl says:

    Exactly the point I made earlier, undoubtedly the churches set common standards for behaviour and morals, regardless of whether you belive the religious mantra. On this they have done a common good, despite a somewhat bloody history.

    Now I am not a religious believer, I would describe myself as agnostic I suppose, but I do see the good the church has done in setting behavioural standards for societies. It underpins the west’s success, and science has flourished due to that basic tenet – seek the truth. Thank you for the article, it was great “food for thought”.

  541. HenryP says:

    “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
    -Romans 5:1-2

    The love of God in you says this: It’s not what you do that makes you important, it’s not what you have that makes you important, and it’s not what people say about you that makes you important. It’s just the simple fact that you’re God’s beloved child. He says, “I love you and I’m well pleased in you. I take pleasure in you. All of this is for you, your brothers, and sisters, whom I love and adore.”

    It seems too simple. I know God loves me. Well, I suppose he loves me…if I do this, if I accomplish that, or if I have this. He loves me if I’ve completed enough things on his love list.
    But, it’s not like that. That’s what grace is – the unmerited love, pleasure, and favor of God on you, regardless of what you do, what people say about you, what you have, what you accomplish or don’t accomplish in your life.

    Nothing brings peace like God’s grace-filled love in our lives.
    There’s a part in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus talks about loving your enemies who hate you, and turning the other cheek. He finishes by saying, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We could interpret that to mean that there’s a list of rules that we need to follow perfectly, but what Jesus is saying is to “be shalom.” Be at peace. Be perfected in the sense of being made whole, being made new, being a new creation.

    Prayer: Dear Lord, pull up the roots of our fears, failures, and hopelessness. Replant me in the good soil of your love, making me whole, complete, at peace, and able to grow and flourish in your kingdom on earth. Thank you for the love you have for me – unearned favor from you that has nothing to do with my accomplishments or my failures. I have peace through your grace-filled love in my life. Amen.

    Note that according to my various calculations we have 7 years left before the main droughts in northern America at the higher latitude >40 will begin. I am sure it is enough time for us to sound the alarm bells, as I am sure global cooling will become more and more apparent, as we get nearer to 2021.

    I am wishing all WUWT staff and commenters, whether believers, atheists, agnostics, cAGW, AGW or non AGW, or NGC (natural global cooling), a prosperous 2014.

    May you find the truth / Truth that you have been looking for.

  542. pax says:

    “Those who have argued for Protestantism or against Catholicism have missed the point of the head posting, which was that men of religion are united in their belief that it is right to act morally and to seek and state the truth.”

    But sir, the data is against you – overwhelmingly so. Just to take one data point: Atheists are around 10% (VERY conservative) of the US population, yet less than 0.5% of the US inmates are atheists. I’m sure someone can tie themselves up in knots and come up with some convoluted explanation for this – just like when CAGW believers try to explain away blindingly obvious data that goes “the wrong way”.

    In some ways I envy people like Lord Monckton. He knows how it feels to believe things, truly believe, for which there is no supporting data. This must give an unique window into understanding how someone can believe, truly believe, that the models perfectly predict measured temperatures, even when looking at the graphs with their own eyes, and even when the scientists themselves admit that they do not. Us heathens without the believer gene can just grab another beer from the fridge and watch it all unfold without ever having the faintest clue about what on earth is going on inside these peoples’ skulls.

  543. Box of Rocks says:

    James Abbott says:
    December 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    Another convoluted tirade weaving fantastic imagery from the noble Lord – sent down from his high tower in the land of Nid.
    But its Christmas – best time of the year for some nuts.

    So James who is your god and have you made peace with him?

  544. Ron Richey says:

    “Engaging people like Warren is as important as engaging squirrels who steal your bird seed. Nothing important can come from it.”

    It did for me.

    I’m not a scientist and I am not very smart. But I own, and have owned my own businesses for the last 45 years. What I have learned in the last half century is that I detest government agencies who take, and then waste, the money that I pay them every year…it’s substabtial as you all know. It’s also how I became interested in AGW, (local, vocal activists wanting more of my money). I did the best I could fighting the propaganda and new laws but lost a lot battles from ignorance and a lack of scientific facts. Then I stumbled on WUWT. Game changer. Took a while. But I learned. So, in my circle of family, friends, employees, and business associates I am now capable of defending the position of not wasting money on a wrong belief in cAGW. It has had a noticable, local influence.Not because I am smart, but because I have basic facts, and have learned the play book of the other side. And, that, is the benefit of engaging the “Warrens” on this web site. I have learned more from the comments than the articles. No offense to Mr. Monckton, or to Warren. I also figure there are a lot of others out there like me who visit a lot but don’t say a lot. So, my compliments and thanks to all the regular contributors here at WUWT. As Tarzan would say; “Learning good, propaganda bad”.
    Ron Richey

  545. Richard D says:

    You may understand the debate, but some of those just tuning in might be swayed by Warren’s anti-science nonsense. That is the real value of WUWT: everyone gets to see all sides of the debate, and they can then make up their minds. That’s also the reason that alarmist blogs censor skeptical opinions. They do not want readers to see any other point of view but their own.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well said!

  546. davidmhoffer says:

    bobl;
    If the photon is merely reemitted as you say, then the atmosphere would be transluscent, the emission would still be the same, on average, no IR would be converted to heat and there would not be a greenhouse effect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    But at the IR frequencies, the atmosphere is opaque. Further, the GHE is not dependent on conversion of IR to heat. At equilibrium, the effective black body temperature of earth is precisely the same after CO2 doubles as it is before. The difference is that the atmospheric air column becomes colder at the top and warmer at the bottom. The GHE is entirely dependent on a redistribution of the energy fluxes in the system.

    Consider a glass bowl half full of water. Put a mark on the bowl at the water level. Now take a spoon and stir the water until it is spinning around in the bowl very quickly. Pull the spoon out, and note the level of the water in the bowl. It will be higher. Now, is there more water in the bowl? Obviously not, in fact we could argue that there is less water in the bowl as some of it stuck to the spoon. While the level of the water at the edge is higher, the level at the centre is lower but the average is the same. This is a rather imperfect analogy on a lot of levels. I recommend the series by Ira Glickstein on this site for a more detailed examination of the processes.

  547. james griffin says:

    Well written, thought provoking and too close to the truth to be aired in a mainstream media who have taken journalism into the gutter. There was little point in previous generations sacrificing themselves for free speech and democracy when we have to suffer the biggest scam of modern times.

  548. A few responses.

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    December 27, 2013 at 4:50 am

    “Margaret Hardman says she believes in “multiple lines of evidence” for catastrophism, but fails to mange to mention even one. She then wilfully misstates my argument in the head posting. I had not said catastrophism was a religion but a quasi-religious superstition.”

    Interesting that you say I mistate your argument since you have mistated mine. I did not use the word catastrophism, nor did I say I believe in multiple lines of evidence. Here are my words: “Perhaps you can explain why you believe I and millions of others around the world are mistaken in looking at multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data and concluding that humans are causing a measurable proportion of global warming?” I use the word “concluding”.

    As for mistating the religious aspect. Here is what I think any sensible person would take as a key statement in your piece: They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.” It is difficult to interpret in any way other than to conclude you wish to argue that acceptance of anthropogenic global warming or even catastrophic warming is faith based. Nowhere in your piece can I find the term quasi-religious superstition although you use it in two comments. If it is what you meant then you should have said so at the time.

    You go on to add: “I had not said that because it was a superstition scientists should be more moral: I said that science in the absence of a commonly-accepted moral yardstick that religion can provide is prone to the corruption that has been evident in the global warming scare.” It does not follow that absence of religion necessarily leads to absence of morals. It does not follow that adherence to religion leads to acceptance of morals. I am sure you disown the crimes committed and covered up within the Catholic church in historic times. I do not accept that the “absence of a commonly-accepted moral yardstick that religion can provide is prone to the corruption that has been evident in the global warming scare.” There are many religions to which one can subscribe and many have different morals to yours. Does that mean scientists who are, for example, Moonies, Mormons, Scientologists, Jews or Muslims are necessarily corrupt? I don’t believe you mean this and I don’t believe you meant to write what you did. If you did then it is disquieting.

    Finally, I notice you decide to use the word “troll” as in “The trolls have had a more than usually decisive spanking in this thread.” My understanding of the word “troll” is someone who disagrees with me. In that case, I am happy to be a troll.

    Warren says:
    December 27, 2013 at 5:39 am
    “Margaret Hardman: you will have zero impact on dbstealey by referring him to the IPCC reports.”

    Agreed.

    HenryP says:
    December 27, 2013 at 8:03 am
    “So, Warren and Margaret, I hope you will finally see how silly you are, quoting the majority who think they know and not listening to those who really know.
    Global cooling is coming.
    Live with it.”

    Henry, I’ve listened but remain unconvinced by the arguments of those you tell me “really know”. I am, first of all, confused as to which piece of the ‘science’ presented on this site I am supposed to accept. There are a good many hypotheses presented but none of them appear to be part of the complete weft of science and its laws and principles as they are commonly understood. This isn’t quoting the majority – it is looking at science as a whole.

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 27, 2013 at 9:42 am
    “Warren;
    I’m 71 years old, have a masters degree in engineering from Cornell university,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I call bullsh*t. No one with that level of technical training would get so completely over his head on simple matters like comparing model predictions to observational data. Not to mention repeating claims that have already been thoroughly debunked upthread as if they were the start of a brand new conversation and what had already been discussed never existed.”

    David, you have summed up my bemusement with the regular posters at this site. When presented with an argument supported with evidence, usually from peer reviewed science, the consensus on this site is to find reasons to disbelieve it no matter how watertight that evidence is. Perhaps you and others here can read the literature properly.

    HarveyS says:
    December 27, 2013 at 10:02 am
    “@Warren,@PJ Clark,@Margaret. Sorry as others have pointed out the models are not doing just fine, they are in fact garbage. But then data and facts are not your strong points, there is plenty of data on this site alone that shows why they are not.”

    I suppose it depends on what your criteria are but I suspect that unless they are a perfect fit, you will not be convinced. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that most of the models are doing just fine. Agree to disagree.

    “In fact you like appeals to authority so much go look Dr Judith Curry’s site she tells the same story. I am damn sure she knows more about climate than you 3 put together.”

    She probably does, but I can’t remember appealing to authority.

    dbstealey says:
    December 27, 2013 at 10:47 am
    “A couple observations, dp: first, it is Warren who got ‘owned’ here. Or didn’t you notice? We’re still waiting for some real world corroboration of his beliefs. And second: some of us like putting people like Warren, Margaret, and PJ in their place. ☺

    …oh, and I almost forgot about Margaret Hardman. …heh.”

    No more than I’d expect from dbstealey. Nice to see you are more concerned about the truth than bloodsports.

    bobl says:
    December 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm
    “Consider a lemon

    CO2, Combines with water and light, and heat energy to create a lemon through photosynthesis, I then take that lemon and insert a copper and aluminium electrode and Whala, I can extract electricity from the lemon, the world is truly amazing”

    Truly amazing. I would, however, recommend you learn a little more biology before you tell me again that CO2 combines with water and light and heat energy to create a lemon through photosynthesis. As you must know, a lemon is a long way away from being created by photosynthesis. For a brilliant popular book on the subject, read ‘Eating The Sun’ by Oliver Morton. I predict you will learn how truly amazing the world is.

    Warren says:
    December 27, 2013 at 7:16 pm
    “PJClarke and Margaret Hardiman:: Thanks for your commentaries. I am also saying goodby because there’s no point in devoting further time to this small but true believing cadre of skeptics.”

    Warren, there is always point. Firstly, there are more people who lurk here or who visit here out of genuine interest in what the truth is who will see, one, that there are alternative explanations for what is presented here if there are those, like yourself, you choose to post them, and, two, who will be dismayed and possibly influenced by the manner in which some commenters here choose to deal with the arguments proposed by people like PJ or yourself. Not everyone is totally committed to being a contrarian as far a climate science is concerned. I came here first as an agnostic on this matter. I checked with other sources, printed, web based and so on, to see whether what is presented here is correct. Upon that basis, I made up my mind. I am sure I am not unique. I can understand from the treatment you have had that you aren’t willing to continue and I respect that.

    john robertson says:
    December 27, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    “So troll baiting is a fine winter solstice sport, each and every authoritarian statement of knowledge reveals a precious ignorance.
    Margret, Climate a** and Warren turned up to reinforce Moncktons description of their behaviour, so hardly hijacking the thread, they are 1/2 the thread.”

    Written without an iota of irony. I turned up to challenge Monckton’s description of the behaviour of climate scientists – indeed the characterisation of scientists in general, by extension of his argument that only religion, and presumably only his religion can provide the necessary moral framework. It is an assertion that I do not accept. I am lead to understand that Lord Monckton welcomes the challenge. He has not answered it adequately in my opinion, since, as I say at the top of this lengthy comment, he has misstated my argument.

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    December 28, 2013 at 3:05 am
    “Those who have argued for Protestantism or against Catholicism have missed the point of the head posting, which was that men of religion are united in their belief that it is right to act morally and to seek and state the truth. That is a belief: it cannot be proven scientifically. And yet without that belief there is a danger that science itself will not function properly. The global warming scare, and the behavior of some of the trolls here, shows what can happen when there is no moral belief in the value of truth itself.”

    Upon what do you feel you are able to judge one’s moral beliefs? Or, put another way, which Gospel tells the truth about Jesus’s life? I don’t want to hijack the thread to get that answered, more to pose a philosophical question about religious truth. The Gospels have differing details.

    Finally, to James Abbott.
    This is a long shot but does Rivenhall mean anything to you?

    I shall end here. The asserted equivalence between religion and science (name your branch, I’ve seen it used in relation to evolution, consciousness, climate and much else besides) is a rhetorical device used to make it easier to dismiss the science. After all, if it is shown (erroneously) that the science is faith based, well, you don’t have to worry about the actual science itself, its laws, principles, data, equations and the rest. You can wave it away as just another belief. As someone versed in the classics, Monckton knows this.

  549. Richard D says:

    Steve Richards says:
    “””””””””””””””””””””””‘
    Cattywampus, shoo fly….

  550. TB says:

    bobl says:
    December 25, 2013 at 8:40 am
    @Warren,
    You clearly don’t understand feedback, you just parrot what you think you understand from a book. Let’s look at some negative feedbacks.

    “1. the suns rays hit the ground, the ground heats up, the ground radiates most of that heat back to space through the IR transparent spectrum region of the atmosphere, the radiation is proportional to the cube of the temperature of the surface, a classic negative feedback.”

    No not a feed back-back at all – but a natural law. S-B, as you know.
    FYI: A feedback is something that amplifies or attenuates an effect. What you describe are just transformations of energy from one form to another and they do not feed-back to have an effect on energy that follows afterwards.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “2. The surface heats up from the sun, depending on the temperature of the surface the rate of evaporation increases, evaporation consumes 2250 Kj of energy per kg of water evaporated – negative feedback.”

    No, not a feed-back – but a natural law – LH.
    A feedback is something that amplifies or attenuates an effect. What you describe are just transformations of energy from one form to another and they do not feed-back to have an effect on energy that follows afterwards.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “3. the heat of the surface rises, Ice at the poles melts, 333Kj of energy is absorbed per Kg of ice melting – negative feedback.”

    No not a negative feed-back – a natural Law.
    A feedback is something that amplifies or attenuates an effect. What you describe are just transformations of energy from one form to another and they do not feed-back to have an effect on energy that follows afterwards.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I could go on, but I wont.

    No please, don’t, as you’ve got it wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Negative feedbacks don’t subtract, they divide, so while the direct effect of CO2 is say 1 degree, the negative feedbacks absorb or otherwise remove 80 percent of that, they divide it by 5. leaving 0.2 degrees. The IPCC and your book though say the Net effect feedback rather than dividing by 5 multiplies by 3. To get to the IPCC and your books number after negative feedbacks are applied requires a positive feedback overriding the negative feedbacks in play, and a further multiple of 3. 3×5 is 15, so to meet the IPCC and your books overall gain of 3 there needs to exist exist positive feedbacks of 15, that’s a loop gain of 0.95, which is near as impossible.

    A Feed-back is a feed-back. It causes an amplification/attenuation in the original driver. Eg Solar reflected increases due build up of snow/ice fields. Eg warming increases due increase of CO2 outgassing from oceans, which in turn causes more outgassing as the earth moves to a more favourable orbit re NH insolation, further fed-back via an increase in (absolute) WV content. Whatever the amplification/attenuation may be eg. x1.5, x2.2 or x0.5 or x0.02.
    A true feed-back is a loop of the SAME driver and not a conversion of energy via natural physics.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Being an engineer I know lots about feedback. it gets even more complicated than this, but that’s the basics.

    Being a retired Meteorologist – I know lots about the weather/climate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Your precautionary argument is also poor. We are currently pulling out of a little ice age which occured in the 1800s. That point was about 0.7 degrees, below current. The little ice age, caused hunger, disease and death that killed half the population of Europe. We are a mere 0.7 degrees away from that. More CO2 and warmth increases our food supply, while less CO2 and warmth reduces it, till in conditions like the LIA crops fail, further you would take away the very tool humans use to survive cold, – reliable energy. In which direction lies safety, clearly the precautionary principle tells us that we must err on the warm side, and we must be prepared for similar conditions to that already experienced in the LIA in the future with a reliable, çheap energy supply.

    We are not pulling out of an IA at all as the LIA wasn’t one. IA’s are caused by orbital characteristics (Milankovitch cycles) and the last perturbation actually favoured NH warming (Holocene Climatic Optimum). The LIA was caused by a combination of low solar (enhanced -AO during winter) causing southward spill of Arctic air over Europe + enhanced volcanic activity increasing albedo.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You did not comment on my other points demonstrating the inconsistency of IPCC sensitivity estimates to historical facts.

    Warren, you are at a crossroad, you can either blindly follow your faith in others, or you can become a responsible environmentalist by checking the facts for yourself and making up your own mind, issue by issue, greens lie to you just like everyone else in order to get their own way. I don’t ask for your belief, I ask only that you be critical and check the math for yourself. If you can’t or won’t then I am sorry, for you will remain ignorant.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I would say the same to you on Warren’s behalf, if I may be so presumptuous.

  551. Richard D says:

    Well, let’s look at feedbacks.

    Positive Feedback is a response of the system is in the same direction as the initial disturbance, thus exaggerating the disturbance. Examples: Blood Clotting, Childbirth

    Negative Feedback is a response of the system is in the opposite direction as the initial disturbance, thus counteracting the disturbance. Examples: Thermoregulation

    Popular climate science calls for positive feedbacks. This is junk science with no basis in reality not unlike much psychology and virtually all sociology.

  552. andywest2012 says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 28, 2013 at 3:05 am

    And many thanks to you for thoughtful post and spawning such an interesting thread, plus for your courageous stance against the negative culture of CAGW.

    But morality stems from understandable cultural evolutionary processes, which have resulted in religions plus other social entities. To act morally does not therefore have to via belief, nor is morality the exclusive domain of religions, and it can be scientifically shown to be an evolutionary advantage. This is the real reason why (in the longer term) it tends to triumph.

    There is danger in resting the ultimate case for truth (and fighting CAGW) on religion and belief. Both religions and secular memeplexes share the same characteristics; this is ultimately what prompts comparisons like the one you make in your own post (‘they have gotten religion’). Both entities have upsides and downsides, and while CAGW may have net downsides, using a different (religious) memeplex as an ultimate bulwark against CAGW simply transfers the problem to a similar social entity, which isn’t gauranteed to remain net beneficial.

    Truth stands on its own feet and works because it is the most successful strategy; it needs no props from religion. It would be far better to apply the knowledge from cultural evolution that will tell us how both religions and secular memeplexes like CAGW work; then use this knowledge to fix or manage those that have net downsides .

  553. Lord Monckton,

    You said upthread: “The furtively pseudonymous “climateace” lists the nonsense on my Wikipedia bio, complaining that I have said I can cure various diseases. No, I have said I am researching a possible cure for various infectious diseases. I only said that much so that potential patients could come forward. Several of them are now better, so researches continue. Does “climateace” really wish that these cures had not taken place?”

    Having seen a clip on the dreaded BBC where you say that your rememdy has cured HIV, malaria and multiple sclerosis (the last of which has not be demonstrated as infectious yet) along with a printed report that you claim to have cured colds and flu, I would like to know how true these things are? Are there any results that should be communicated to the medical world now. After all, it would be morally wrong to keep this to yourself when millions are infected with HIV and a cure is desperately being sought.

  554. A C Osborn says:

    Margaret Hardman says: December 28, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Notice Margaret did not answer a single question with one piece of data, just pronouncements.
    That is precisely what I expected when I said they were like Adam Berlingo, he did exactly the same thing, he came he pronounced from authority, provided no data other than rehashing IPCC dogma and the left on his high horse.
    It is all they have to offer.
    They are great “talkers” and come across as reasoned and reasonable, but actually offer nothing, I find it very sad.
    But it is new method of “attacking” a post.

  555. Margaret Hardman quibbles that I had said she believes in “multiple lines of evidence” for catastrophism when she says she believes in “multiple lines of evidence” that Man has had a measurable effect on global temperature.

    Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that the global warming of less than 0.7 K since 1950 has any anthropogenic component. So small a rate of warming (equivalent to 1.4 K/century) is well within natural variability: in the 40 years 1695-1735, at the end of the Little Ice Age, temperature in central England and inferentially worldwide rose at a rate equivalent to 4 K/century.

    Even if there be a small anthropogenic component – and few of us here would deny that possibility – it does not provide any justification for the serial telling of lies by the scientific and political establishment that was the subject of the head posting, and still less justification for the profitable catastrophism that is evident among scientists, academics, governments, and journalists. If Ms. Hardman does not in fact take the catastrophist view, perhaps she would say so in terms and explain why, in that event, it matters at all even if Man has had a small effect on global temperature.

    I notice that Ms. Hardman does not attempt to assert that any of the several dozen official lies I briefly mentioned is not a lie. It provides still less justification for the profitable catastrophism that is evident among the governing class.

    Ms. Hardman goes on to deny that I had mentioned quasi-religious superstition in the head posting. But here is what I said: “Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down. They have gotten religion, but they call it science.”

    Ms. Hrdman goes on to say it does not follow that absence of religion necessarily leads to absence of morality. Yet I did not say it did follow. She persists in missing the main point of the head posting, which was that on the climate question many scientists are acting immorally by making up scare stories without sufficient foundation, and that the belief that there is a moral obligation to seek and to tell the truth is just that – a belief. Men of religion hold that belief, and, in that sense, even an agnostic may recognize that religion has a utility. But it is all to evident that many of the “multiple lines of evidence” of which Ms. Hardman continues to fail to mention a single instance are based on untruths, some of them calculated and deliberate, and all of them profitable.

    Ms. Hardman then wanders off the point by asking whether I condemn crimes committed within the Catholic Church in historic times (for some reason she seems happy to indulge crimes committed in other churches or religions, or crimes committed by unbelievers, who killed more in the 20th century than any other group in that or any age).

    Ms. Hardman does not like my statement that “The trolls have had a more than usually decisive spanking in this thread.” A troll is someone – paid or unpaid – who attempts to derail a thread by malicious disruption or by the recitation of flat untruths, or by mentioning that they have “multiple lines of evidence” without quite getting round to specify any of them. The trolls know who they are, and we know who they are.

    Ms. Hardman’s own pretext for not being specific is as follows: “There are a good many hypotheses presented [on this site], but none of them appear to be part of the complete weft of science and its laws and principles as they are commonly understood. This isn’t quoting the majority – it is looking at science as a whole.” Hand-waving will not do. If Ms. Hardman thinks Man has had a measurable influence on global temperature, then let her state her evidence for her belief. She may or may not be right in her belief: on the evidence I have studied, the matter could be argued either way. But on this site anyone who tries to argue for one side or another by referring vaguely to “multiple lines of evidence” without naming even one of them is marked down as a troll. So come on, Ms. Hardman: list your evidence – and not the IPCC reports, for they are not peer-reviewed in any acceptable sense of that term. You say the evidence is “watertight”: so, please also explain why you regard it as watertight.

    Next. Ms. Hardman says she has seen “plenty of evidence” that “most of the models are doing just fine”. Perhaps she would be kind enough to provide a list of all runs of all models, identifying clearly all those runs that have predicted as their central estimate that there would be no global warming for nigh on 13 years (or even, on the RSS dataset, 17 years). I do not know of any, but perhaps she can enlighten me.

    I have looked at the output of the 34 models relied upon by the IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report, for which I was an expert reviewer (though, unlike in true peer review, the authors of the report were not obliged to take any account of anything any of the reviewers said). That output, summarized in figs. 11.33ab of the second-order draft, predicts that global warming will occur at a near-linear rate equivalent to 2.33 [1.33, 3.33] K/century from 2005-2050. However, there has been no warming at all in the nine years since 2005. At all points, the trend-line on real-world, observed temperatures falls below the least predicted trend. Worse, as of the last month for which data are available, the global lower-troposphere anomaly data have fallen below the outputs of all of the models displayed in Figs. 11.33ab. As things now stand, none of the models is “doing just fine”.

    Ms. Hardman objects that I and others ask for evidence rather than the mere recitations of superstitions belief that Warren provided as a substitute for rational scientific discussion. Well, she had better get used to the idea that science is not a belief system.

    Finally, Ms. Hardman asks, “Upon what do you feel you are able to judge one’s moral beliefs?” We are expressly forbidden to judge that. However, when a small coterie of politicized, profiteering “scientists” whip up a scare by telling lies, a few dozen of which I summarized in the head posting, it is legitimate to draw the conclusion that they do not share the belief of men of religion and of goodwill everywhere that telling lies is morally wrong, and that there is a moral imperative to tell the truth. True science, like true religion, seeks the truth: and, to the extent that it genuinely seeks it and fairly and honestly speaks it, it behaves morally.

    Unlike religion, however, science is not a belief system. These days, there are a few scientists who do not even believe there is a moral obligation to seek the truth, and there are many more who choose to look the other way when they see the immoral few putting the reputation of science at risk with their increasingly desperate falsehoods.

    That is why the catastrophist lies that Margaret Hardman seems so uncritical of are still so sedulously peddled to this day. However, as she and others will learn in due time, the models that provide the chief pretext for the lies have failed because the immoral few incorporated within them laws, principles, data, and equations that were not at all scientifically justifiable or plausible. As Dick Lindzen said in the UK Parliament a couple of years ago, the probability that the weather in 2050 will be warmer than today is 0.5. If he is right – and, on the evidence to date, his central estimate is spot on – look at figs. 11.33ab of AR5 and see just how far askew the models may yet prove to be.

  556. Annie says:

    Thank you for this article Lord Monckton. I hope that you had a very Merry and Happy Christmas.

  557. James McCown says:

    I don’t understand the need for a religious discussion on this thread. Chris Monckton has written an excellent analysis of the warmist politics but the introduction of religious views only allows the warmists to use it as a red herring.

    Religious views are based upon faith in the unseen. Whether or not they are valid is something everyone must decide for themselves but it is certainly not an issue that science can resolve. The leftists/warmists like to use peoples’ religious views to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with them about any non-religious issue, such as climatology or economics.

    I had an extended discussion on the subject of climatology with a philosophy professor who was a socialist and a warmist. Until she met me, she had never encountered anyone except one student who disbelieved the warmist mythology. She was quite shocked and amazed that someone like me with a PhD in economics was a skeptic. She said her student who also disbelieved in the warmist mythology did so because her minister told her not to believe it.

    Chris, it’s up to you and the other religious people who are also skeptics, but I think we should leave religion out of this debate.

  558. andywest2012 says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says: December 29, 2013 at 3:40 am

    “True science, like true religion, seeks the truth: and, to the extent that it genuinely seeks it and fairly and honestly speaks it, it behaves morally. ”

    Regarding true science, I agree. The enterprise of uncovering reality (and communicating said reality too, because science cannot really progress without communication) is sabotaged by any falsehoods. Hence practising true science is also moral, in that uncovering and communicating truths about our environment and existence, free of falsehoods, is ultimately an altrustic act.

    But there is no such thing as a true religion. Religions are just orthodox cannons of self-sustaining narratives, and while they generally hold some altrusitic values these are all different, and many hold much too that is at best arbitrary and at worst damaging. Most religions and those who practised them are long forgotten, but their tenets are arrived at primarily by differential selection, not a search for truth, though each one has called itself ‘true’. They tend to have their own (non-agential, non-sentient) agendas, and insomuch as they have an (evolutionary) purpose, this is social alignment, itself a huge benefit yet generally encompassing a range of behaviours not all of which would be viewed as moral by, say, a competing religion. In other words their truths are relative, though promoting falsehoods would generally be a selective disadvantage.

    Secular memeplexes, even those originally spawned by science like CAGW, evolve in the same manner as religions; they are also self-sustaining narratives. This lends insight into the ‘relative truths’ that come into play. Like you Christopher, I do not believe that many scientists should be doing what they are doing in the name of CAGW. Yet while some folks in any large human enterprise are dishonest, for many adherents be they scientists or layfolk it is precisely the ‘morality’ imposed by their belief in the CAGW culture that is pressuring them into their actions. This is not ‘an excuse’, but if we do not look at the known science that lends insights into how these social phenomena work, we will never understand how truth landscapes can change or how entities like CAGW can get so out of control and so damaging; hence we will never be able to reign them either.

    Outside of true science there are no absolute truths, and science can ultimately explain the social phenomenon of CAGW just as it can explain everything else.

  559. andywest2012 says:

    James McCown says: December 29, 2013 at 8:41 am

    I can see where you’re coming from. Yet from my perspective the common social mechanics of CAGW and religions would bear much more investigation and likely reveal very useful insights that might help in reigning CAGW. For the reason of this commonality and also for those you give, I do however agree that backing resistance to CAGW dominance via religious morality, is not optimal and best left aside.

  560. HenryP says:

    andy west 2012 says
    Outside of true science there are no absolute truths, and science can ultimately explain the social phenomenon of CAGW just as it can explain everything else.

    henry says
    so how do you know the science is true?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512916

    (note how the nazi’s used their “true” science, “eugenics”, to justify genocide)

  561. andywest2012 says:

    HenryP says: December 29, 2013 at 9:32 am

    The culture associated with Eugenics was a memeplex, same as CAGW is a memeplex. Both leave true science far behind, and do so via differential selection of allied narratives, which is the same mechanism that supports religions. Eugenics was loosely allied to right-wing politics in various countries and later became strongly coupled to Nazisim and anti-Semitism, especially in Germany as you note. Much science on difficult and complex fronts consists of faltering steps; Eugenics was spawned from the study of evolution, which has come a hell of a long way in 150 years but still has fundamental issues to resolve (e.g. the decades long selfish-gene versus group / multi-level evolution debate), and obviously had made much less progress by the 1930s. In short you can’t always know the science is true in such complex domains until very long in retrospect. Doesn’t mean the truths don’t exist or that science can’t uncover them, but huge caution and healthy skepticism should be exercised when folks start applying the apparent results from these complex domains into driving societal behaviour. That in itself is a sign that science may have gotten left behind and instead spawned self-sustaining narratives, which can arbitrarily evolve. Something from a much less complex domain, e.g. encouraging clean water usage having discovered the cholera bacteria, is a lot more connected to reasonably uncovered reality and very much more unlikely to go wrong or spawn arbitrary cultural evolution.

  562. TB says:

    Richard D says:
    December 28, 2013 at 5:20 pm
    Well, let’s look at feedbacks.

    Positive Feedback is a response of the system is in the same direction as the initial disturbance, thus exaggerating the disturbance. Examples: Blood Clotting, Childbirth

    Negative Feedback is a response of the system is in the opposite direction as the initial disturbance, thus counteracting the disturbance. Examples: Thermoregulation

    Popular climate science calls for positive feedbacks. This is junk science with no basis in reality not unlike much psychology and virtually all sociology.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I described the +ve climate feed-backs in my OP.
    They are not made “junk” science” via a wave of the hand.
    It is established science, built on for ~150 years.

    It is the case that feed-backs are overwhelming +ve.
    It also has to be the case or how would the Earth ever have got out of an Ice Age?

    Ever been in a warm period even.
    Think about it… The Earth is in a just favourable orbital zone around a Sun with just the right temperature/irradiance from our star.
    We have just the right atmospheric GHG’s to keep us at a nice 15C ave temp rather than –18C.

    When the NH moves to a less favourable orbital characteristic the planet cools. So we go from just right to too cold (NH at least).
    Is it not common sense that the greatest natural feed-backs are +ve?
    If there were more –ve ones we would tend to oscillate between just a little warmer than IA conditions and colder than IA conditions. At best.
    Maybe It’s a part of the mystery of why we seem to have this “Goldilocks” syndrome as an inherent part of the Universe.

  563. HenryP says:

    @andywest

    This blog (WUWT) is mostly about discernment of good and bad science. But just as there is good and bad science there is also good and evil religion. I did find some links that puts the eugenic laws from Hitler as having originated from Nordic mythology / religion, going back to the times of the Vikings
    However, If you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth (science)/Truth (true religion).

    just to share with you how that process of pursuance of truth begins, see my own 2013 Christmas story.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/12/10/my-own-true-christmas-story/

  564. dbstealey says:

    Lord Monckton writes excellent counter-attack @3:40 above. Thanks for setting the record straight.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    AC Osborne says:

    “Notice Margaret did not answer a single question with one piece of data, just pronouncements. That is precisely what I expected when I said they were like Adam Berlingo, he did exactly the same thing, he came he pronounced from authority, provided no data other than rehashing IPCC dogma and the left on his high horse. It is all they have to offer. They are great ‘talkers’ and come across as reasoned and reasonable, but actually offer nothing, I find it very sad.”

    AC, the same can be said of TB, who has now appeared on this thread. TB is about as far from a scientific skeptic as the others you mentioned.

    Skeptics look at every new claim with a jaundiced eye, because human nature is duplicitous. There is an element of self-aggrandizement and self-serving in most new scares, whether it’s Alar on apples, or African killer bees, or catastrophic AGW. Skeptics are here to help weed out the unsuportable claims — and the climate alarmist crowd hates that! They would much rather that everyone take their assertions at face value, instead of looking at likely motivations.

    TB and the otyhers come from the position of believing that “carbon” is evil, and that it must be either regulated and taxed, or if possible, eliminated. But in reality, “carbon” can only be taxed, and taxed heavily. But has any tax ever gone down, or gone away? If a “carbon” tax is ever implemented, it will grow, and grow. Recall that the income tax was promised to be capped at 1% of income. How’d that work out? Just like the Social Security promises. A “carbon” tax will be no different. Worse: the totally corrupt UN will connive to get its sticky fingers into Western wallets [while leaving the Russians, Indians and Chinese completely alone].

    Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Those like TB, who have a preconceved notion based on a true belief, are convinced that the rise in CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000, will lead to unstoppable global warming and climate catastrophe.

    But there is no scientific evidence that supports their belief. None at all. In fact, all the evidence shows that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T, not vice versa. Real world evidence also shows that while harmless, beneficial CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures are not following. The planet is simply recovering from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene. Global warming is not accelerating; quite the opposite: it has stopped. Naturally, after the LIA cold spell the planet will warm back up. But there is no empirical evidence showing that human emitted CO2 has anything to do with it.

    If the climate alarmist crowd would look at all the real world evidence from a scientifically skeptical position [the only honest way to look at it], they would realize that 100% of their predictions have been wrong! The planet’s behavior is not at all unusual. If anything, it has been exceptionally benign over the past century and a half. The entire AGW claim is nothing but a giant head-fake, by people with an ulterior motive. None of the scientific evidence supports their wild-eyed claims — which amount to: “Take our word for it.”

    I suppose it is asking too much for someone like the anonymous “TB” to think like an honest skeptic. All of his posts come from the point of view of a True Believer; someone who has arrived at his conclusion, and now he must find anything that might support his conclusion. But like Warren and PJ Clarke, he cannot find any empirical, testable evidence to support his conclusions. All of their comments amount to nit picking and cherry picking. They completely ignore and avoid discussing the real world, empirical evidence that skeptics post.

    President Eisenhower was right, the government scientific community has lost its moral compass, as has the academic community, and most professional bodies. They have been bought and paid for. Scientific truth is no longer a priority. Big money has corrupted the lot of them. And the few courageous ones who express the truth are quickly marginalized, or eliminated from employment outright. I don’t know the answer. But TB, Warren and PJ are certainly symptoms of the rot.

  565. Mary Wilbur says:

    Corruption, cheating, as a means of getting ahead isn’t limited to the financial world. Unfortunately, scientism isn’t illegal. No one gets fined or sent to prison. Too bad.

  566. andywest2012 says:

    HenryP says: December 29, 2013 at 11:11 am

    I’ve read WUWT almost since its inception and value very much the activity of discerning good from bad science here. I agree too that religions can support productive and unproductive behaviours. But I can’t really agree regarding the definition of seeking God’s face because I see not the slightest evidence for a God. I do see evidence that the characteristics of religions are what one would expect from cultural evolutionary processes, along with lots of evidence that folks have once thought many things are worhsipful, such as ancestor spirits as represented by skulls, animal spirits, the sun, the moon and a whole host of arbitrary characters including the planet itself as represented by Gaia. But I will read your story with interest, and in the spirit of Christmas return one. This is my climate-sceptical novellette ‘Truth’, which featured on Judith Curry’s review of Cli-Fi works last Christmas:
    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/273983
    (free download at the book portal Smashwords in various formats)

  567. HenryP says:

    andy west
    because I see not the slightest evidence for a God
    henry
    You think it is reasonable to believe that everything you see around you came forth by accident? Life did not come forth by creation (a plan) but by accidental evolution. You believe in Murphy’s law (Murphy’s law = given that there is a chance that something will happen, then, if there is enough time available, eventually it will happen). You refuse to accept that the creation of the whole universe was part of God’s plan for us to be born. Now I will ask you: never mind the question about how life came into being and how incredibly small the chance is that you are alive today, just by looking, for example, at the amount of sperm cells in one ejaculation. What about the next question: where does matter itself come from? Where did all the atoms that form the person that you are and the earth that you are living on and the air that you are breathing,came from? If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing. Good for you if you believe in the BigBang theory. But the question still remains: where did all the matter that forms the universe, originate from? You see what the problem is? It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because it is not logical. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose!

  568. Lord Monckton

    Since you remind us of what you said when you failed to mention that you really meant a quasi-religious superstition, perhaps I can quote the whole section:
    “Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.

    They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.”

    You very clearly compare science with religion, to the point of ramming it home four times in the second paragraph. That you now want to back out of it hardly limits the impact of that paragraph. The previous one does not say the scientists have a quasi-religious superstition. You say their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from… It is hard to believe you did not mean that scientists had gotten religion but they call it science.

    You also state “Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that the global warming of less than 0.7 K since 1950 has any anthropogenic component.” In another comment upthread you say: “Talking of which, “Warren” says 99.8% of scientific papers “support” anthropogenic global warming. Well, I support it myself.” Welcome to my world.

    You further state: “I notice that Ms. Hardman does not attempt to assert that any of the several dozen official lies I briefly mentioned is not a lie. It provides still less justification for the profitable catastrophism that is evident among the governing class.” Others have done that, not that you seem to acknowledge their efforts in correcting you. If you need to resort to a Gish Gallop then be prepared for people to ignore you.

    You feel I missed the main point. I don’t accept your point and several official investigations have shown that your point is misguided. Nevertheless, you chose to use the idea of religion providing morality on which to hang your piece and I chose to criticise the religion = science = religion assertion that you made, whether you now choose to try to argue otherwise. I was not the only one who explained that morality is not the preserve of religion and I pointed out that religion has sometimes had a different view on morality. I also do not feel you proved the point that reli