Don't worry about the ickle birdies

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Rio de Janeiro

“BUT what about the ickle birdies?” wailed the ancient, off-blonde representative of the planet’s indigenous peoples in the shapeless, grimy, crumpled eco-sackcloth shift that is de rigueur this season among the female of the species here at the shapeless, grimy, crumpled Rio conference center.

“Don’t you care? Because of global warming the ickle wormies that the ickle birdies eat won’t hatch out at the right time for the ickle birdies to eat them and the ickle birdies will all die! Don’t you even care about all the millions of humans that are running away from all those droughts and floods and things? It’s all our fault!

She got up untidily and flounced out (insofar as it is possible to flounce convincingly while wearing hemp flip-flops and a shapeless, grimy, gray eco-sackcloth shift).

One imagines the ickle wormies would be happy about global warming if it saved them from the ickle birdies. But I’m being unfair to this gallant champion of the ickle birdies and humans. She did not really talk like an infant. But she might as well have done. For the intellectual content of what she said was little better than baby-talk.

On the whole, I liked the cut of her jib (though not of her sackcloth). She had had the guts to come to a press conference given by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the sole environmental group recognized by the UN that does not believe the ickle birdies and humans will come to much harm as a result of warmer weather.

She had been courageous enough to speak up for her point of view. Nevertheless, if one really cares, mere self-indulgent, hand-wringing emotionalism is not enough. Rational thought is essential.

It is hard not to be dismayed by the feeble-mindedness of the useful idiots who are the cannon-fodder of Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund and suchlike sinister, corrupt, stinking-rich, taxpayer-subsidized environmentalist mega-corporations that cynically profit from the doom-laden falsehoods they so artfully but mendaciously peddle to the ignorant and the innocent.

As I watched the indigenous person trying not to catch her eco-sackcloth shift on the door as she did her best to flounce out, I wondered – not for the first time – whether it would ever be possible to find arguments clear enough to pierce the dark, dense cloud of unknowing in which so many of the drones of the environmentalist movement seem to dwell.

And then I thought of Table SPM.3 and Figure 10.26 in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, as one does. An idea began to form.

Why is it that these true-believers truly believe the untrue and the unbelievable? Surely it is because they find it comfortable, and safe not to question whatever they are told is the Party Line (now excitingly rebranded as the “consensus”). To convince the shiftless, shift-wearing, sandal-shuffling enviro-zombs that the climate scare is nothing to be scared about, it will be desirable to demonstrate to them that what the scientific consensus holds to be true is in fact harmless.

This is where Table SPM.3 and Figure 10.26 come in.

Please write down on a piece of paper the IPCC’s current central estimate in Celsius degrees of the global warming that will occur by 2100 as a result of the carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere this century.

That’s what it’s all about, right? Warming that does not happen until beyond 2100 is not a problem because we shall have plenty of time to adapt and adjust. It is the notion of rapid warming this century that is alarming, because damage may arise before we have the time to react. Besides, if warming is slow this century, there is no good reason why it should accelerate in subsequent centuries.

So, is the IPCC “consensus” looking at 3, 4, 5 or even 6 Celsius degrees of warming by 2100 as a result of the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century?

Remarkably, no, it’s not. Nothing like. Be prepared for a welcome surprise.

Table SPM.3 in the Summary for Policymakers shows the manmade warming to be expected over the next 100 years on six distinct “emissions scenarios”. But the IPCC says each of the scenarios should be accorded equal weight, so we shall do just that by taking the unweighted average. It is 2.8 Celsius degrees.

But look more closely. Of this predicted warming, 0.6 C° is supposed to be locked-in or “committed” warming that will arise as a result of our past sins of emission. However, after a decade and a half without any statistically-significant warming, it is becoming questionable whether we can expect much warming as a hangover from the last century. In any event, if that warming really is “committed warming”, we cannot now do anything about it. So let us deduct it, for it is not policy-relevant.

That leaves 2.2 C° of warming predicted for the 21st century. From this we must deduct the contribution to global warming from greenhouse gases other than CO2. This is where the graphs in Fig. 10.26 are helpful. They are the size of postage-stamps, but they allow us to calculate that, on each scenario, the IPCC reckons non-CO2 gases will account for 30% of all 21st-century manmade greenhouse warming.

In reality, other greenhouse gases will contribute far less than this. The concentration of methane, the only significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas, has risen by just 20 parts per billion in the past decade, and that would cause a mere 1/350 C° of warming over the decade, or a quarter of a degree by 2100, so there is no need for what Jim Sensenbrenner calls a “cow-fart tax”.

Be that as it may, the IPCC’s implicit central estimate of the warming by 2100 driven by the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century is 70% of 2.2 C°, or just 1.5 C°.

Now retrieve your piece of paper. Was your central estimate of the IPCC’s central estimate anything like as small as that? If so, be careful. You have been thinking for yourself, and that is dangerous to your reputation, I can tell you.

Check the result by another method. First, recall the IPCC’s view that the radiative forcing from a change in CO2 concentration is 5.35 times the logarithm of the proportionate change. Multiplying this forcing by an appropriate climate-sensitivity parameter gives the warming to be expected over any chosen period.

By combining the data from Table SPM.3 and Fig. 10.26, one deduces (for the IPCC makes none of this explicit) that its favored climate-sensitivity parameter for the 20th and 21st centuries together, on each of the six scenarios, is 0.5 C° per Watt per square meter of forcing. However, we are concerned only with 21st-century warming, so one should reduce this to, say, 0.4 C° W–1 m2.

The CO2 concentration predicted by the IPCC for 2100, taken as the average for all six emissions scenarios, is 713 parts per million by volume, compared with 368 ppmv in 2000. So the CO2-driven warming of the 21st century, excluding any hangover of committed warming from the previous century, is 0.4(5.35 ln 713/368), or 1.4 C°. This result from Fig. 10.26 broadly agrees with the 1.5 C° implicit in Table SPM.3.

But wait. There has been no warming during the first one-eighth of the 21st century. So it could be argued that the equation should read 0.4(5.35 ln 713/392), or less than 1.3 C° of warming to 2100 caused by the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century.

Now for a real-world observational fact-check, just like what real scientists used to do. What has been the measured rate of warming since 1950? I choose that year for two reasons. First, it was from then on, as the world rebuilt itself after the Second World War, that manmade CO2 emissions became potentially significant. Secondly, 62 years have passed since 1950, and a complete warming and cooling cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation takes about that long, so that choosing that time-frame cancels out a major potential natural distortion.

The rate at which the world has warmed since 1950, taken as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre’s monthly temperature series, is equivalent to 1.2 C° per century. One would not expect much acceleration in this observed rate of warming, because even though Man’s CO2 emissions will rise quite sharply over the 21st century the consequent forcing and warming will respond logarithmically: each additional molecule of CO2 will have less warming effect than its predecessor.

If other greenhouse gases had indeed contributed 30% of the 1.2 C° warming since 1950, then CO2’s contribution was equivalent to just 0.8 C° per century. But if half of the warming since 1950 was natural (within the consensus range given by the IPCC), make that 0.4 C°/century.

The results of this inquiry:

Mean predicted CO2-driven 21st-century warming (SPM.3) 1.5 C°
Mean predicted CO2-driven 21st-century warming (10.26) 1.4 C°
10.26 adjusted for no global warming from 2000-2012 1.3 C°
Observed rate of warming per century since 1950 1.2 C°
Observed rate per century since 1950 from CO2 alone 0.8 C°
Observed warming rate from CO2 if half was natural 0.4 C°

Every line of this unalarming table is mainstream, consensus science. I have merely made explicit what is implicit but carefully unstated in the IPCC’s predictions. One can only get faster warming than this by assuming improbably large contributions from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and from previously-committed warming.

Notice that the observationally-based CO2-driven centennial warming rates in the table are below the rates predicted by the IPCC’s model-derived data and methods.

Nearly all current mitigation strategies concentrate exclusively on CO2. The table shows that the most warming we could possibly forestall by these strategies, even if all worldwide CO2 emissions had ceased in 2000, would be just 1.5 C° by 2100, and it may well be considerably less than that.

I did not get the chance to make this entirely consensus-based argument to the indigenous person in the sackcloth shift, but I have tried it on other true-believers here, and it does make them worry just a little less about the ickle birdies.

###

Here’s a video summarizing Rio+20

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
addr

Succinct and well put as always.
I liked the traffic-light tendency…”The Greens are too yellow to admit they are red.”

Mike

Environmentalism is a safe harbor for the intellectually challenged. The qualifications for being an environmentalist are less than that of being a couch potato.
These cretons at the summit are not a bunch of new age hippies, but rather a gathering of low achieving freeloaders that push through penal taxes on the public at large, to pay their high salaries, their exotic travels and all inclusive 5* summits.

mehere

On the one hand I count my blessings that I can vote for this man, along with Nigel Farage, by voting for UKIP.
On the other hand I despair that so many people in this country still vote for the tried and failed mainstream parties.

John V. Wright

Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts are the outstanding communicators of scientific honesty and integrity of our age. Their writings manage to combine scientific analysis with wit, erudition and humanity – which means they are accessible, enjoyable and educational to read. Monckton’s larger-than-life persona also makes him a hugely attractive media figure but, of course, he never appears on the BBC. This tells you all you need to know about the BBC.

Nearly all current mitigation strategies concentrate exclusively on CO2.
They don’t, but all you hear about is CO2. CO2 taxes and trading are based on ‘CO2 equivalents’. A large proportion of the international trade in carbon certificates is for schemes to reduce non-CO2 gases, particularly CFCs in China.
Currently here in Australia there is a bit of a kerfuffle about the carbon tax being applied to council dumps. This is because a molecule of methane is considered equivalent to 25 molecules of CO2.
Ignored by the media because it would confuse the masses, is that the problem is that these dumps don’t emit enough CO2. They way they can avoid paying the carbon tax is to capture and burn the methane they produce, emitting CO2 instead.

Peter Whale

You mentioned “The Cloud of Unknowing” This is the title of one of my favourite books written during the medieval period by an unknown cleric. Very apt referring to a person dressed in sackcloth who wants to send us back to the dark ages.

H.R.

Nice try, Lord Monckton, but there are some people that you just can’t convince that there are no monsters under the bed.
Thanks for the bulletin from the front line. No one else seems to be covering it.

What has to be recognised, is that the policies being put forward to protect the environment, were in so many cases, indistinguishable from classical Marxist-Leninist doctrine. That may appear to be a harsh assessment, but when you take a hard look at those policies, it’s plain to see. They just changed a few names, but the underlying policies being advocated were and are exactly the same.
Compulsive and obsessive control had to be exerted on all individuals, right down to what lightbulbs they were to be permitted to use in their own homes. It was about saving the very planet. Given such a historic mission, any dissent with the official orthodoxy was not to be engaged with, but instead ruthlessly suppressed by any and all means.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/
Pointman

wayne Job

Than you Lord Monckton your closing statement say’s it all ” The game is up”
Now that the knife has been plunged into this beast it is encumbent upon us to twist it where ever and when ever possible to ensure this dragon stays slayed.

Iren

I do so hope you’re right, Lord Monckton. However, as an Australian who’s about to be lumbered with a $23 per tonne carbon tax next week, I’m not quite so sanguine. And you don’t mention “sustainable development” which seems to be the new catchcry. Certainly, in my place of employment its on the top of the agenda at Board meetings, the new HSSE in fact. This is nothing more than an even less precise phrase for the same thing. Anything they want it to be.
I completely agree that what is needed is for the money tap to be turned off and, sad to say, this is more likely to be the result of the world economic turmoil than the powers that be returning to their senses. However, there are still far too many vested interests, useless and even harmfull money splashing projects and brainwashed politicians holding the reins of power. And, as you say, its bleeding into government at all levels. Like a huge ship, once it gains momentum its very hard to check.

Peter Miller

Well said, but that is the problem with the lumpen proletariat that make up the bulk of the CAGW cult; their mantra is: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.” They are being financially milked just as efficiently as their counterparts in extremist religious sects.
“It is hard not to be dismayed by the feeble-mindedness of the useful idiots who are the cannon-fodder of Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund and suchlike sinister, corrupt, stinking-rich, taxpayer-subsidized environmentalist mega-corporations that cynically profit from the doom-laden falsehoods they so artfully but mendaciously peddle to the ignorant and the innocent.”

Shevva

I’m with Walt Disney, can someone freeze me and wake me up when sane people are in charge.
Then again I could be frozen for a long-long time.

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley…CUTS though the carp with ACTUAL MATH

kim2ooo

indigenous peoples……
Unless you were born in Ethiopia…The Garden of Eden…or where-ever the center of civilization is supposed to have originated from?
Where the Lakota Sioux indigenous o the Dakotas? You’d have to ask the Ojibwas who the Sioux defeated and repossessed.
We are a migratory species.. .. We might be long term residents.

The Lord deserves a knighthood – oops he’s already a Lord, so how about a prize? Now THAT would be truly “Nobel”….[Some body just whispered to me that Big Al already has one – perhaps he might give it to the Lord as a gesture of good will?] /sarc

jeanparisot

I understand ickle birds actually like warm weather, please don’t worry them.

jeanparisot

Previous was Jean Parisot, not Jean

Russ R.

I’ve successfully used this approach–quoting directly from IPCC 2007–in past arguments with irrational and ill-informed “believers”.
I was at a party a couple of months ago, and encountered one such individual. She was a marketing and communications consultant who advised on sustainability and claimed to have been “personally trained by former US Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore to educate the public about the science and impacts of climate change” as part of his Climate Reality Project.
So, I asked her for her mid-point estimate (explaining that this meant picking a number which had a 50% likelihood of reality being either higher or lower) of how much sea-level was expected to rise by the year 2100.
She paused for a while, and said she wasn’t very good with numbers. So I told her to picture herself standing on a beach by the ocean and then I asked her how tall she was. Given time to visualize a suitable frame of reference, I again asked her for her mid-point estimate of how much sea level rise we should expect in the next 88 years. She responded “uhm… 200 feet?”
My jaw dropped a bit, and I asked her to confirm in case I hadn’t heard her correctly. She replied with greater confidence… “Yes, around 200 feet, give or take.”
I pulled out my Blackberry and searched for the IPCC AR4 projections and showed her that their complete set of estimates for all scenarios ranged from 7 to 23 inches… a fair bit less than the 200 feet she was worried about. I also mentioned to her the University of Colorado’s reference page on sea level that showed the rate of rise as 3.1 mm / year and explained that if the trend continued then sea level might be 11 inches higher by 2100.
At that point she stopped talking to me. But I wasn’t surprised… I seem to have that effect on girls at parties.

Durr

This man is truly brilliant. It’s a shame what the aforementioned “true believers” have done to his reputation in certain left-leaning circles simply because the truth hurts.

David Wright

Another masterful analysis. Lord Monckton should be compulsory viewing for students and politicians everywhere.

mfo

In an interview with The Guardian just prior to Rio+20 Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace said:
“If we do not get an outcome of substance then I think what we will see is a further acceleration towards disaster and for those of us who are concerned, my main message is that we have to put this struggle on a war footing,” he said. “As a Greenpeace person, I do not like to use the word war but I use it quite advisedly. To be brutally honest, Greenpeace and other organisations are winning some of the battles but we are losing the war.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/19/greenpeace-rio-20-civil-disobedience
Now that Rio+20 has ended in failure for the Greenpeace agenda Kumi Naidoo wants to target financial institutions and pension funds:
“Our aim is to get all banks to say we won’t make loans to oil, coal, gas and deforestation-related activity. We want to shut off the flow of capital. The time is right because the banks are at their most vulnerable in terms of public legitimacy.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/rio-20-greenpeace-war-finance-sector?newsfeed=true
Given the threats now coming from Greenpeace, they are playing into the hands of politicians who want to impose restrictions on freedom in the name of security. Threats are treated seriously by the FBI:
“Outlook
Continued targeting of perceived symbols of capitalism imperialism and oppression
Continued use and exploitation of communication technologies
Anticipate increase in activity leading up to 2012 conventions”
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/ACLURM026485-anarchist.pdf

I never get tired of listening to Lord Monckton. He has a clear understanding of what has been going on with the environmental & AGW movements over the years and can pick them apart as though it was child’s play. He operates with an intellect that is probably one or two levels above that of the average Joe — including our elected politicians in Washington and in state capitals. God bless him.

philjourdan

I guess baby talk is different in the UK. “Ickle birdies”? Cute.
And a very enjoyable read.

mfo says:
June 25, 2012 at 4:54 am

The answer is to fight fire with fire.
I regularly email companies telling them I am going to boycott their products because they do thinks I don’t like.
Recently, the supermarket chain I usually shop at put up a sign saying their seafood was endorsed as sustainable by the WWF.
My email in response was,
Dear sir/Madam,
I see that you now have the WWF endorse your seafood is sustainable.
I assume money changed hands to obtain this endorsement.
I view this as little more than extortion or protection money paid to keep a potential critic quiet.
I find this morally reprehensible and from now on will no longer buy seafood from your supermarkets, and should you extend this kind of endorsement to other product lines, I will no longer buy them.
This is unfortunate, because Coles is my preferred supermarket.
Regards

Rhys Jaggar

‘Why is it that these true-believers truly believe the untrue and the unbelievable? ‘
The most obvious reason, my Lord, is that society chooses to ostracise those who question the unquestioned mantras of the age, the centuries.
In my humble PhD days, when two medical charities paid me so poorly that they stimulated my lifetime risk of contracting cancer by about 6 fold (3 years of poor diet, weakening of the immune system, exposure to carcinogens and radioactivity etc etc), a mantra had grown up that a certain form of bovine cancer was an economic problem in Scotland. As a humble 1st year graduate student, it was not, I thought, my place to question what had been published in numerous ‘learned’ ‘journal articles’, there being more pressing matters to attend to, and hence, I opened my informal talk to my fellow graduate students with this mantra. One of my audience, who was a qualified veterinarian, said forthrightly: ‘Well, it’s not, actually’. It taught me aged 21 that lying was an Establishment trait, even in that most rigorous of disciplines, research science. The reason was obvious: that lie helped to cement continued research funding. I have noticed a rather distinct attitudinal difference toward lying by learned Professors and humble PhD students ever since……
In my days as an enthusiastic skier, that venerable organisation, the Ski Club of Great Britain, then run by families of no little standing in the UK, regularly informed its members that snowfalls would begin in November, that the biggest storms of the season would be in January and that as spring approached, things would become increasingly sunny and warm. You will understand that I was somewhat frustrated when for 4 or 5 years from 1982 onwards, the snow around Christmas time was somewhat thin on the ground, even in resorts situated at 1850m above sea level. It was also noticeable that every time I went ski-ing in March or early April (the Easter vac at Uni), that snow was plentiful, both on the ground and coming out of the air. Something strange was afoot. I spent the next 5 years researching and experiencing the weather and came to an understanding that held true for around 12 more years. I enjoyed fresh powder every time I went ski-ing for 7 years and helped friends avoid snowless regions also. I received no grants to do this research and profited to the tune of a couple of what were jovially referred to as ‘lardy cakes’ in the canteen of the medical research establishment I was then working in. I saw how the ‘global warming’ mantra was used to scare owners of real estate in the Alps and it interesting to note that there has not yet been an Armageddon of the ski resort industry in Europe. I was fairly brutally insulted when I shared my views on climate science on an SCGB blog in around 2008, which tells you that even in rather crusty, conservative organisations that mantras are more important than scientific analysis. No doubt, a few ‘well renowned’ scientists will change the mantra soon. I doubt it will be significantly different to what I said 5 years ago.
In my days as a fresh MBA graduate, I was asked to ‘do a strategic review’ of a company in a cash flow crisis. It was evident within 6 weeks that the biggest problem was the majority shareholder who was, in fact, my client. I used my penultimate communication to tell all and sundry the truth and then provided a ‘proposal’ to the Board which outlined ‘options’. Options I am happy to say were followed through on. It didn’t do my career any good telling the truth, though. I could have been CEO if I had lied to order. I chose not to.
When employed as a management consultant, I was asked to contribute on a project to do with ‘cluster development strategy’. I read to my great surprise that an Objective 1 region of the North of England was proposing to create 10 new life sciences companies each year. When I diplomatically opined, without threats, but in the humility of experience, that 1 was closer to the mark (3 would have been a stellar performance), I was seen as a threat and embarrassment, not a constructive worker. Fees were on the line, you see. My sound of silence on that project was noticeable, hoping to find more productive fare where truth might be more appreciated.
The reality of the world is that the acquisition of power is not always, not in fact very often, accompanied by a dedication to the truth. If it has not been, then the exposure of that lack is intensely threatening to those in power, hence it requires those of equal power to oust them, short of a long period of suffering on the part of those warriors fighting on courage and spirit alone.
You’ll find the same amongst some of your capitalist friends too I’m afraid.
It’s not capitalism or socialism that is the problem, it’s how they are applied. One espouses competition, the other co-operation. They are part of the same duality of truth. I prefer co-operation not because I am a socialist, but because I was always beaten up at school for no good reason. I couldn’t stop those ‘competitive’ people doing it, all I could do was try and find a way to avoid it. I always wished to work with people I broadly agreed with, because I don’t enjoy constant battles for the sake of it. Others are different.
I have met wonderful capitalists and wonderful left wingers. I have also met left-wingers who behave like fascists and capitalists with an unusual sense of philanthropy.
At the end of the day, it is all about what different people value.
Thing is, different people ascribe different values to the same things, so the conflict will forever be with us.
It’s just the outrageously unreal values which tend to have finite lifetimes of existence.

How apropos – ICAO airport codes* en route to Rio Summit: ” MAD GIG “!
.
.
.
* Madrid Airport, MAD – http://www.world-airport-codes.com/spain/madrid-4336.html
*.Rio De Janeiro Airport, GIG – http://www.world-airport-codes.com/brazil/rio-de-janeiro-6296.html
.

Kaboom

With the stated goal of 2 C temperature rise by 2100 we’re well ahead of schedule and should thus suspend all measures designed to throttle CO2 emissions until observations show that we are coming in above that goal.

IF CO2 were able to ‘capture or redirect’ Outgoing Longwave Radiation and somehow magically warm the planet, which is can NOT do, there would still be a decreasing ‘problem’ with increasing concentrations. It is doubtful the humans could ‘double’ the atmospheric concentration of CO2, but we certainly could NOT double the OLR. Since we are near the ‘absorption’ saturation, the entire paradigm is a fractured fairy tale from the tyrants handbook.

michaeljmcfadden

Regarding the cow-fart tax… I seem to remember that termite farts are a much larger problem? Do I have that correct? If so, wouldn’t massive deforestation help to starve the nasty li’l buggers? Well, no, I’m not really suggesting that as a solution, but it *is* an interesting aspect to how interactions can work in unexpected ways.
– MJM

MLCross

“the game is up”.
For Marxists, the game is never up. If they have actually lost this particular round of using CAGW to build political power, they are, at this moment, looking/inventing some new way of doing it. Where they will turn next is the issue for the 21st century. The game will be played again on a different field, with different players but it will be the same old game.

Gary

Alas, too much arithmetic “to pierce the dark, dense cloud of unknowing in which so many of the drones of the environmentalist movement seen to dwell.” Nice summary, though, even given some of the assumptions.

It’s not capitalism or socialism that is the problem, it’s how they are applied. One espouses competition, the other co-operation. They are part of the same duality of truth.
Rhys Jaggar, you make insightful observations, but you misunderstand capitalism/markets. The essence of capitalism/markets is that your opinion doesn’t matter. It’s the other guy who gets to decide who succeeds and who fails .
As someone once observed, “In the market, every dollar votes.”

How apropos – ICAO airport codes* en route to Rio Summit: ” MAD GIG “!
Had it been located in Helsinki, anyone routed through Singapore, would have been going from SIN to HEL.

dp

Lord Monckton, this paper comes within a few pejoratives of being brilliant. A movement is afoot to remove insults from the debate, and while yours are largely harmless and capable of bringing a smile, the bar has been raised, and by us, so it is ours to get over at each opportunity. And thank you for giving us another tool of logic and fact to work with in the ongoing debate.

Christopher … what have you and Anthony done?
Apart from a daft story that global warming is causing the sea level around California to rise (which admittedly may seem to be entire earth to some) … well there’s isn’t any news today.
Rio, must be one of the worst investments any News Editor ever made. What was the point in sending any journalists there?
The Guardian sums it up:
A catastrophe if global warming falls off the international agenda.
…. putting that through the GlobalWarmistdecrapifyer we get:
It is a catastrophe because global warming has fallen off the international agenda.
This calls for a celebration! We should organise a worldwide sceptic party. Anthony could organise this … just give us a date, add the words “Sceptic Party – bring your own bottle”, and then at the appropriate time add the words “It’s started … have fun” (and ideally turn off moderation for an hour).

Tad

Can you imagine going up against Lord Monckton in a debate? Scary!

DavidA

I like the paragraph that starts “It is hard not to be dismayed by the feeble-mindedness…”, spot on! Amazingly Christopher Monckton still gets labelled a denier despite continually accepting that CO2 will cause warming.

RockyRoad

It’s not capitalism or socialism that is the problem, it’s how they are applied. One espouses competition, the other co-operation. They are part of the same duality of truth.

…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. –Margaret Thatcher.
But a successful capitalism makes more money through the industry it generates.
So your statement claiming “duality of truth” of the two systems obviously fails.
Or put another way, of what value would there be in going to a Belmont Stakes if all the horses were co-operating to cross the finish line at the same time? In such a world, would there be any incentive to cross the finish line at all?
Aye, there’s the rub.

Anders Nygaard

I wonder why Christopher Monckton of Brenchley often feel the need to talk down to, or ridicule, other people in his writings. I fail to see how he contributes in a positive way, and why he is compared to people like Anthony Watts.

Addendum (I said there was no news … but this is hot off the press … and very pertinent to Scotland’s best known Sceptic)
UK Environment: Scotland world leader on climate change
Scotland’s reputation as a world leader in climate change has been reinforced at the UN Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Stewart Stevenson met with the Mexican Government to discuss the importance of climate change legislation for sustainable development, and he praised Mexico’s commitment to tackling climate change.

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/51526
Scotland, this banana republic of Global Warming nonscience, need your help!

mkelly

Rhys Jaggar says:
June 25, 2012 at 5:47 am
“It’s not capitalism or socialism that is the problem, it’s how they are applied. One espouses competition, the other co-operation. They are part of the same duality of truth.”
Bull crap. Even among socialist there is competition as to who can be the most pure of socialists. Cuba or China. Socialism gets human misery as a purposeful outcome.

“Regarding the cow-fart tax… ”
For a while it seemed this had been headed off in Australia, cows having some effective PR (unlike feral camels). Now it’s back. Move cattle onto a paddock before 1st July, take them off after 1st July, $47 per head is payable.
“I seem to remember that termite farts are a much larger problem? Do I have that correct? ”
Probably. “Termites may produce up to two litres of hydrogen from digesting a single sheet of paper, making them one of the planet’s most efficient bioreactors.” [Wikipedia]
“If so, wouldn’t massive deforestation help to starve the nasty li’l buggers? Well, no, I’m not really suggesting that as a solution, but it *is* an interesting aspect to how interactions can work in unexpected ways.”
LOL. However – you never know …
Termites will not only consume any cellulosic material, they will chew through soft plastics, plaster, rubber, sealants such as silicone rubber and acrylics, even some soft metals. It turns up in the mounds. They can work through minute cracks in concrete, One nail driven through ant-termite mesh and then pulled out is enough to create an entry. Just down the road from me they decided to attack the underground electric cables, ate the wrap and sleeving, first noticed when the lights started flickering.
The smart money is on the termites …

fredb

Re Anders Nygaard: +1!!! I agree, ridicule adds nothing to the debate and only makes people already in agreement feel self satisfied for scoring another point, while driving away anyone else trying to look at the facts. This article is a big loser as far as furthering the discussion goes.

RobW

CAGW is dead but sustainable development (thats NO development for those who do not speak eco-speak) with BIODIVERSITY from and centre as its poster child is the next GLOBAL CRISIS.
Don’t believe me just watch. The same tax schemes will be pushed to deal with the pending global collapse of biodiversity.

RockyRoad:
…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. –Margaret Thatcher.
There’s speaks the Lady who gave global warming credibility just because it suited her short term battle with the UK miners.
There speaks the Lady who wrecked the UK manufacturing sector and gave our economy to the bankers … who then gambled it leaving the UK one of the most indebted nations in Europe.
There speaks the Lady who made it a criminal offence to live … if you couldn’t afford it. And who were so contemptuous of the Scots that she tried this “Herodian” tax on Scotland first … and the Scots have almost never returned a Tory politician the British parliament since. And more than likely, she laid the hatred that is leading to the break-up of the UK.
The only way Thatcher was a success … was that she was marginally better than the abysmal labour politicians at the time.

Faux Science Slayer says June 25, 2012 at 6:10 am:
IF CO2 were able to ‘capture or redirect’ Outgoing Longwave Radiation and somehow magically warm the planet, which is can NOT do, …

IR Spectroscopy much?
(You’re swimming against the tide, son.)
.

Olen

A word to the warmers it is difficult to exaggerate something that is not happening and be believed. And worse to get caught.

The use of the word hangover is a work of art.
As for the girl in the gunny sack she even missed the image she was trying to make. When women used the cloth from grain bags to make their clothes the companies selling grain decorated the sacks to attract women who told their husbands to buy the grain in the sacks they liked. It was good business and pleased the women. For sure farmer’s wives and daughters never talked like that even as children.

kim2ooo says:
June 25, 2012 at 3:36 am
indigenous peoples……We are a migratory species.. .. We might be long term residents.

Some people are self-appointed indigenes. Sorta like Elizabeth Warren.
FYI, she got an early birthday present:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/elizabeth-warrens-birthday-gift-from-gop-an-ancestry-com-account/

Russ R.

“I wonder why Christopher Monckton of Brenchley often feel the need to talk down to, or ridicule, other people in his writings.”
He’s a smart enough guy to realize he’d have greater impact if he’d refrain from belittling others, and would stop making reference to the English Lord thing.
The most effective communicators cut out anything that distracts from the main message.

Martin Clark says:
June 25, 2012 at 8:14 am
One nail driven through ant-termite mesh and then pulled out is enough to create an entry. Just down the road from me they decided to attack the underground electric cables, ate the wrap and sleeving, first noticed when the lights started flickering.
The smart money is on the termites …

Raise pangolins and rent them out to the utility company.
I’ll help you start a rumor that they’ve been successfully trained to eat cane toads, too…