Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.
The following are among the blog’s numerous falsehoods and libels:
1. On at least four occasions we are referred to as climate “denialists” – a term as unscientific as it is malevolent. We do not deny that there is a climate, or that it changes, or that the greenhouse effect exists, or that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enhance that effect and may cause some warming. We raise legitimate scientific questions about how much warming Man may cause, and about whether attempted mitigation can ever be cost-effective.
2. It is claimed that our “preferred route” to air our “grievances about global warming is via “opinion letters published in the mainstream media” rather than via peer review. Yet most of the signatories named by the blog as having “no climate expertise” have published papers in the reviewed literature. To take one example named by the blog, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm has published some 550 papers, nearly all of them in the reviewed literature, and nearly all of them on sea-level rise, which he has been studying for 40 years.
3. It is claimed that our arguments are “unsubstantiated”. Yet our letter offered a great deal of substantiation, as will become evident.
4. Tom Harris of the Climate Science Coalition, one of the letter’s organizers, is described as “best known for grossly misinforming … university students about climate change in a Climate and Earth Science class he should never have been teaching”. The only sources given for this grave libel are a farrago of childish falsehoods on the “Skeptical” “Science” blog and its sole citation, an error-ridden screed circulated by the dishonestly-names “Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism”.
5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. The minuscule warming over the period is within the margin of uncertainty in the measurements and is, therefore, statistically indistinguishable from zero.
6. It is claimed that we were wrong to say there has been no statistically-significant global warming because the oceans have warmed. However, the standard definition of “global warming” is warming of the near-surface atmosphere. Also, measurements to date are inadequate to tell us reliably how much – if at all – the oceans have warmed in recent years.
7. It is claimed that we were wrong to say that computer models are now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects. Yet we had pointed out, correctly, that a paper by leading climate modelers, published in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008, had said that 15 years or more without global warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models’ projections and real-world observations and that, therefore, the models were proven incorrect by their creators’ own criterion.
8. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is a distinct possibility. Yet some scientists have indeed pointed out what we said they had pointed out, though our use of the word “some” fairly implies there is evidence in both directions in the literature.
9. It is claimed that we used “careful wording” in saying that there is an absence of an attributable climate change signal in trends in extreme weather losses to date. Yet we were merely citing the IPCC itself on this point.
10. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. Though it is trivially true that temperature maxima have increased with warming, there has been no trend in land-falling Atlantic hurricanes in 150 years, and there has been a decline in severe tropical cyclones and typhoons during the satellite era.
11. It is claimed that we “falsely” accuse the U.N. Secretary General of “making unsupportable claims that human influences caused” tropical storm Sandy, and that “in reality, Ban Ki-Moon did not say climate change caused Hurricane (sic) Sandy”. Yet he had said: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane (sic) Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.” We had rightly written: “We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”
12. It is claimed that we are “a list of non-experts”. Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.
One day, the useless “Skeptical” “Science” blog may perhaps have a curiosity value to historians studying the relentless, lavishly-funded deviousness and malice of the tiny clique who briefly fooled the world by presenting themselves as a near-unanimous “consensus” (as if consensus had anything to do with science) and mercilessly bullied anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs. The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won.
The committed require proof that they are overly certain, while the skeptical require only reasonable uncertainty to be uncommitted. This is the problem: a change of position requires quite different things for either side.
It’s as if warmists and skeptics were, respectively, dogs and cats: dogs regard all food-like objects to be edible until digestion proves otherwise, while cats consider mere appearance to be insufficient for any food-like object to be their supper.
Meow.
Anyone that pushes “AGW” is a nonbeliever in science, a skeptic of real fact. “Greenhouse Gas” as a concept was proved wrong in 1906 by Max Planck pg.
Everyone knows SS is a waste of bandwidth. Just ignore them, they are for the faithful only.
Quoting: We do not deny that there is a climate, or that it changes, or that the greenhouse effect exists, or that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enhance that effect and may cause some warming.
This is the entire problem. We have warmists who believe in global warming. We have sceptics who believe in global warming. Therefore we have a broad media consensus that GHGs cause global warming. The differing views within this consensus can never be reconciled with each other or with the laws of physics BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH WRONG. By default the carbon crimes continue with the sceptics as guilty as the warmists.
Stay Cool!
Well done, as usual
Someone poiunted out years ago that if it’s in the name, then that’s likely the only place you’ll find it. Romantic comedies are rarely romantic or funny, the Progressives cling to tired, worn out ideas, and “Skeptical Science” doesn’t trust you to come to that conclusion yourself by reading the content.
Lord Monckton says: “To take one example named by the blog, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm has published some 550 papers, nearly all of them in the reviewed literature, and nearly all of them on sea-level rise, which he has been studying for 40 years.”
Working on this post would take all week.
But, to the point of the second of 12 points, SkS didn’t say the signatories hadn’t “published papers in the reviewed literature” (although, Monckton, he hasn’t, right?), what SkS said was that they “air their grievances about global warming … through opinion letters published in the mainstream media.”
Um. What part of Harris’ writing an opinion letter to the secretary of the UN did he miss?
SkS point is that these “experts” should be answering the “debate” using science and peer review, the way that science experts usually do for a living.
But I think it’s remarkable that, to set the tone and trying to establish the legitimacy of his cosigners, Monckton refers to Mörner in this point. The Mörner that tilted a sea level graph on edge to make the point that sea level was not rising? That Mörner?
He could haven’t picked a better example to demonstrate SkS’s problem with his experts.
Christopher Monckton says: “12. It is claimed that we are “a list of non-experts”. Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.”
=====================================================
An “expert reviewer for the IPCC’s” is not necessarily a real expert.
According to the IPCC procedure, ANY person can register as “expert reviewer for the IPCC’s” on-line on their website and get a copy of the report to review.
“Expert reviewers” are simply volunteer reviewers, their reviews are not binding, and I guess, most of them will be thrown away without reading.
The only ‘trouble’ with SS is that so many deluded, useful idiots quote it as some type of ‘reference’ when discussing climate matters.
I tune out, mostly, when that happens; they then claim that I am discomfited by it’s perspicacity 😉
“The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won.”
How come it doesn’t feel like we won? Every time I turn on the radio I hear some distinguished professor attributing the extinction of some small critter to climate change. This is followed by a heartfelt plea for all of us to cut our CO2 emissions. When will they quit?
trafamadore says:
December 4, 2012 at 8:39 am
Being a case in point.
The case I now rest (as others will tear him a new one)
Top notch post. Thank you!
There is another possibility…
Perhaps there are two kinds of climate scientists. Those who like the challenge of explaining chaos and those who really wanted to be particle physicists but couldn’t quite do the maths, opting instead for a less demanding branch of science. Basically anyone who might accept them.
If your job requires you to understand things that are beyond your ability, you have a problem.
If you want clever people to do the work for you, you could do worse than expound a ridiculous theory and wait while they prove you wrong. When it is all sorted out, you show that your theory was the beginning of the process and share the accolades.
If you can pick up a few fat grants and the odd Nobel prize along the way, all the better.
Richard & Phil,
This posting is about the
“ . . . malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.”
I did not see the Moon mentioned therein and, so I am surprised to find myself writing about it! What is measured thereon is a surface temperature, commonly called rock. Reference to Earth temperatures is usually an air temperature taken a few feet above the surface. However, explaining daily temperature changes on Earth needs to focus strongly on convection, not the so called GHGs.
Note that a “desert with low moisture content leads to high daytime temps and at night rapid cooling” is a statement that confuses several issues. Air masses that form above deserts are not devoid of moisture (unless it is a very cold desert – think Antarctica). In a subtropical region, say the USA’s southwest, where the solar input is high and water bodies few, the land heats and the water evaporates. In absolute terms, the humidity of the air is not actually low. In relative terms, it is. These things are discussed in basic earth-science texts under the headings of Air Mass source regions and their characteristics.
Ah God, Christopher, I love your very truthful bones. Had the privilege of seeing your presentation on the cost of the pointless exercise of pursuing anthropogenic CO2 reduction strategies at Keele University last year; and the honour of you replying personally to me, via email.
Facts. They hate facts. They cannot ABIDE facts. But, of course, facts and the stream of history will ultimately do for their mendacious and childlike agenda. There are already significant ‘wobbles’ in the powers-that-be over the ‘team story’, even though ‘carbon’ taxes are required to achieve their agendas. You can fool some of the people all of the time etc.
Hats off to my fellow UK-based contributors, Kev-in-the-UK and UK Sceptic – we all laugh merrily at the achingly embarrassing coverage from BBC ‘journalists’. But the time is approaching for the BBC. And – there will be blood. It is now a question of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.
Trafamadore
I can see that you have not looked into Nis-Axil Morner’s credentials as a sea level expert, at which study he spent a lifetime. Also see his postings on his studies of the Maldives, starting in the 60’s. There are other surprises in store for you, concerning what he has to say concerning sea level studies as done by the global warmers, which see, if you have a mind to get informed. You would do well to start looking and thinking for yourself instead of parroting the phrases of the propagandists. By the way, what is the latest word on the Maldives? I can tell you. All of a sudden the sea level stopped rising when they got themselves a new president. The panic mongering drove away investors, so now the sea level there is falling. How about that! Whom do you believe? I believe Morner.
Like AGW, the only thing that will eliminate the deviously named SS, is a long and protracted cooling. I would rather live with their lies, than survive the world malstorm, that cooling would bring. Warming by comparison is a pleasant walk in the park. GK
Ferd Berple- We see this effect on Venus with its high CO2 atmosphere, where the planet is rotating so slowly that days and nights last the better part of a year. Yet on Venus there is almost no difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. This is because CO2 “back-radiation” doesn’t just carry the energy back to the surface. It carries it sideways from the sunlit side of the planet to the nighttime side of the planet, making the night less cold.
I thought that Venus was classed as a new planet and as such the mantle had not hardened so interior heat -vast- over the whole planet was rising. I read that it is thought that the whole surface erupts, basically the earth in its earliest days, explaining the heat temps.
I can’t stop laughing at the euphemisms for “it falling apart” in this greenpeace article and I hope others appreciate it:
“We are well into the second and final week of the UN climate talks in Doha, but the outcome is still far from certain. Almost all major negotiation topics remain and we see little progress on overarching objectives. Ministers arrived this week to pick up the mantle. They must improve the negative trend.” http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/doha-climate-talks-ministers-must-improve-neg/blog/43245/
Hide the decline? Improve the negative trend! It’s amazing the nonsense they people talk.
Global Warming most certainly does exist. Ever since man learned to make fire, as soon as temperatures didn’t suit him he would burn wood, coal, gas, or oil to warm his surroundings. Now there are over 7 billion people on the planet, each heating their domiciles, their office buildings, their shopping centers by burning wood, gas, coil, or oil, or converting electricity into heat. And all this heat escapes into the world at large. No matter how small an effect, it most certainly does contribute to the “average” temperature of the planet. No humans: no burning: no added heat.
Yet the earth doesn’t melt nor have run away heating. Why? Because the collective effect of all those people warming themselves (and therefore the world) is small in relation to the overall energy budget of the planet, and obviously the planet’s “thermostat” can handle that additional heat.
At what point do you worry? How much extra heat can be liberated by all those people before the permafrost melts and glaciers melt and sea levels rise? This is were imagination runs wild because nobody knows. For me the fact that the planet is here after 4.5 billion years with a stable climate that’s rather pleasant after surviving asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, floods, volcanism, etc. means it is far more robust than a few puny cavemen sittings around a campfire can alter.
Presumably, Monckton brings up the number of SS’s regular readers into double figures.
I wonder why?
And here is something else just off the press.
And if the lack of warming continues into next year we have another paper.
Global FAIL.
A real “Mann” would sue skeptical science for libel ;). However there is no need to do so as they foolishly shoot themselves in the foot for making absurd claims. More importantly when is the MSM going to start doing their job and expose these frauds.
philjourdan says: “Does anyone actually read SkS any more?”
—————————————
Unfortunately I’ve often seen warmists on sites like The Guardian “rebutting” an inconvenient comment by linking to SkS. No doubt some of the uninitiated will be swayed by their drivel – especially given the misleading title of the site.
5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”.
It is worse than that! To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets.
Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since April 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to October)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
However we can go back 18 years to show no statistical warming, even on data sets not mentioned above, and no cherry picking of dates is needed either as another blogger has shown on a different blog, parts of which I will copy below. Thanks!
spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.
1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162
Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)
1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262