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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly DirkH says: December 4, 2012 at 10:03 am
LOL! Yes I like the reference to children as well. Good catch.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
December 4, 2012 at 9:58 am
I don’t know if that made it into a real(tm) paper, but the best reference is a vintage Mörner interview in http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html where he says:
As for images, see his presentation to Parliament at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
If anyone has confirmation about this “correction factor,” please post it here.
I met Prof. Mörner at one of the Heartland climate conferences in Chicago, he gave one of the more dynamic talks there trying to squeeze the 30 minutes he thought he had into 20. Quite a character.
Lord Monckton Totally agree I have four higher degrees and my father was a well known atmospheric physicist (published 3 papers in Nature and was a student with Einstein in the Max Planck Institut Fur Physik in 1935-37) who told me in 1997 that AGW was a tax scam (did not even bother explaining the physics), It was so obviously absolute XXXX as far as he was concerned. I am 100% that you will be re-vindicated historically. I was a 16 year kid at the time. LOL
Actually the whole AGW scam is a bit like communism we all though when young that it might be a great idea until the Russians said it does not work! Bring Mac Donalds and now of course adamantly it is admitted by the vast majorities everywhere. Im sure Marx would be revolving in his grave.
P. Solar says, December 4, 2012 at 9:57 am : “Can you back that up with a link to their policy you claim to be quoting? You seem to be confusing “anyone can apply” with anyone will be accepted.”
======================================================
Guess, what sort of experts will be accepted…
Here is the link: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/news/ipcc-working-group-iii-calls-experts-to-review-assessment-report :
“Expert Review of IPCC Assessment begins
The Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ calls experts to review the latest draft of its contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report to be published in 2014. The IPCC seeks to include expert knowledge from voluntary reviewers across regions and sectors to arrive at a comprehensive assessment of climate change mitigation options. The review period extends to 14 September. Registration for access to the draft is open.[…]
All three IPCC working groups are seeking wide participation by experts in the review of the drafts, encompassing the range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views, expertise, and geographical representation.
Interested experts are invited to register at: http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/ar5review/registration/“
Also a good one: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100409114737AAud4RB
Simon. “Climate Scientists” play with models (most of them anyway) the only people who understand climate and weather are meteorologists and atmospheric physicists. I have yet to meet ONE meteorologist who believes in AGW (100% anyway). Unfortunately for you meteorologists do not see any significant changes in weather or climate events over the past 100 years. Because we only live 80-110 years at most we will not see “climate change” which occurs over 1000’s, 10000’sor even 100000’s years…
More like Septic Science…
richard says:
December 4, 2012 at 6:32 am
As I am not a scientist I would like someone in simple terms to explain the following,
The moon in the daytime with no GHGs gets to 250f in a few hrs and at night time the temps plummit.
By comparison it seems the earth is kept cooler by GHGs in the daytime and at night time with GHGs we see a slow cooling. Maybe a bad comparison but I notice the desert with low moisture content leads to high daytime temps and at night rapid cooling to freezing- similar effect as the moon.
So greenhouse effect, is this merely the ability of the earth with GHGs to slow down cooling.
Another mitigating effect is the speed of planetary rotation. The moon has a much slower rotation than the earth – 27 days plus some, compared with the Earth’s approximate 24 hours. Thus no area on this planet experiences the same degree of direct insolation as a comparable area on the Moon. Likewise, no area has the same span of time to cool. The effect is to limit diurnal swings in temperature even without GHGs in the picture. Get rid of the atmosphere and oceans entirely and we would still be on a planet with lesser temperature extremes than the Moon or Venus – both of which have very slow rotations, Venus especially. We are closer akin to Mars, whose atmosphere is much thinner than any place here and fairly ineffective as an insulator, but has a rotational rate (about 40 minutes longer than earth’s) that helps average out insolation during the diurnal cycle.
John Cook never was a successful cartoonist, and has obviously totally forgotten any science he may have accidentally learnt at Uni.
trafamadore
Ric Werme cites a comment of Nils-Axil Morner that might be what you refer to in your comment “The Morner that tilted a sea-level graph on its edge to make the point that sea level is not rising? That Morner?”
Please inform whether or not Werme gives the the instance that you refer to in your remark quoted here. Please do this as a matter of courtesy to the rest of us, so that we can have some basis for judging your remarks as to accuracy and verity. Thank you.
Robin Hewitt says:
December 4, 2012 at 8:53 am
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….
Oh dear, I think I should be offended! – I was actually pretty good and very keen on Physics – and indeed would help my ‘Ace’ math/physics friends how to go about solving their devious math problems – even though I could not actually do the math myself! One of said friends indeed went on to become a math ‘genius’ etc. I meanwhilst, ended up becoming a geologist and engineer, despite being able to understand most of the 70’s age physics with relative ease! I still struggle with math for some of my work related problems, but with computers these days – it’s a lot easier.
The point I wanted to make is that – in all my life, and my considerable work experience – I have always found that I am pretty good at seeing problems and solutions in a practical and pragmatic manner and give direction – but thereafter it’s best to leave it to someone else to sort out the math! I don’t consider it to be a failing that I can’t do the math – as I know that some people literally can’t see the wood for the trees, no matter how many degrees they have!
Regarding Morner’s “tilted graph”, here’s another link (see Figure 10). Basically Dr. Morner did this to show the satellite altimetry in it’s original, “uncorrected” form. Regarding the “adjustments”, an IPCC member told him “We had to do so, otherwise it would not be any trend.” Another example of “the team” fiddling with data to fit their agenda.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:M5B1sRvpAI0J:www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiXs526YaooAlxy6TcFE7mkMecuulYdg1gtmGxXP1x-x8lS8GC-_08u2MTn-SL_q4o4IhKQGtjXkfT8H7sViyr2C0TAFmDLdWXeX3O3l2M6aVpQkGEj5wknvZhKpuCX3MohQSLq&sig=AHIEtbRCG-c8UcLua6OScgr3xH6wvsd_EQ
Simon says:
December 4, 2012 at 10:44 am
“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.”
Rude, infantile? So he starts an article about how the other team are being rude and infantile by being…. rude and infantile? Spectacular own goal.
Nah, he was just pointing out a fact. For instance, most trolls who come here immediately brand themselves as total idiots who know nothing about climate. It is highly likely that you number amongst them. It’s a fact.
In a debate with any of your so-called “authorities”, Mr. Monckton would win hands down. He beat your Richard Denniss without breaking a sweat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=207lg-1GWAE
All Denniss could muster were some weak analogies and appeals to authority.
andrewmharding: “On a more serious note they went on to describe how the Great Tit’s food of various insects was being wiped out by AGW and it was predicted that when, not if, the average global temperature went up by 6 celsius the species would become extinct.”
Last year I crossed Europe on my motorbike, almost up to the border with Ukraine, beginning in mid-July. On previous trips, the usual pattern was to stop about every 100 miles, top up with fuel, have a coffee, and take the crash helmet into the loo, to clean the bugs off, and bring a wet paper towel back to the bike to wipe the bugs off the screen and headlight.
Well it was so cold on the trip, I didn’t have to clean my visor once (or screen, etc., obviously), until I dropped into Hungary, where the bug life was normal for mid-summer (at least for a few days, then the cold arrived there too, and instead of it being 40 – 45 deg C during daytime, it struggled to get to 24 deg C, and night time temperatures were just above freezing mostly – and a miserable time was had by all, as due to the cold and unrelenting wet, everybody was literally going moldy).
Unlike my previous visit, plum and pear crops were very late (as in weeks, and I managed to experience a highlight of the trip as a result – the large cherry sized Hungarian plum variety, which makes a fantastic plum liquer, as well as some particularly awesome plum cake), and wasps were notable by their absence, until I left in mid August.
On my way back, the only day that involved what I would call ‘normal’ mid-summer bug numbers, was a day round Luxembourg in particularly nice weather. It was the only place I had to stop and clean the visor.
It is cold that does the bugs in, not heat, and if the temperature went up 6 degrees, we would all be able to live on deep fried or chocolate dipped insects, let alone the vast numbers of resulting plump and overfed Great Tits..
trafamodore;
Working on this post would take all week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fate of the world hangs in the balance. Can you not spare a week of your time to save the world? Give it a shot, I’m begging you. Your single critical comment of a single one of the major points has already been shot to smithereens. Surely is there is so much wrong and the fate of the world depends upon it you can muster up more than just a drive by snark?
Faced with facts that falsify his position, a fool continues to argue. A man stands up and admits his mistake. A coward runs away.
ferd berple says:
December 4, 2012 at 7:41 am
That sure removes a lot of constraints!
I pledge to
+ consume no more than Al Gore
+ be as truthful as Al Gore
+ amass no more wealth than Al Gore
+ be as faithful in my marriage as Al Gore
+ …
Genius! The simple way to reduce the stress of meeting high standards is lower the standards!
(/sarc, for the humor impaired)
when you have a carbon tax, as australia has, it is vital the MSM & CAGW propaganda tools such as SS keep ramping up with scares. our latest from the Murdoch media:
4 Dec: Herald Sun: Staff writers & AAP: Perth’s sea level on the rise three times the global average
SEA levels on the Perth (Western Australia) coastline are rising at three times the global average, the latest State of Australian Cities report shows.
In a statistic that federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese described as “disturbing” and “extraordinary”, readings since 1993 have indicated sea levels are rising by between 9mm and 10mm per year.
The global average is around three millimetres per year.
With temperatures rising and rainfall falling, environmental changes are having little effect on the numbers of people moving to Perth, with the city population growing by 2.6 per cent since 2001 – making it the fastest growing capital in the country…
FACTBOX:
Perth has the highest proportion of residents who feel that their city has a quality natural environment (79 per cent)…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/perths-sea-level-on-the-rise-50-days-over-35c-in-2011/story-fndo486p-1226529899246
impossible to argue with liars — there is only one truth against thousands of lies.
Tim contact me please
thanks
[snip]
My brief experience with the-website-that-cannot-be-named, is that the owners/moderators don’t appear to think that they have any peers. A case, perhaps, of “I AM peer-review.”
It is ultra-ironic that, given the non-open environment and the censorship of scientifically skeptical views at Cook’s blog, that John Cook will co-chair an AGU session this afternoon titled: ‘Facebook, Twitter, Blogs: Science Communication Gone Social ‘The Social Media 101’ ‘.
Speakers at that session will include some well known names: Michael Mann, Michael Tobis and Zeke Hausfather.
I plan on attending the session. : )
John
PS – I just finished attending a different AGU session where both Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes spoke on the session topic ‘Communicating Climate Science’Seeking the Best of Old and New Paradigms’.
My takeaway from Mann’s talk is that he is mainly focused on himself as a highly important part of the ‘battle’. He maintains his research is objective and it was the facts of reality that forced him to the Hockey Stick conclusions. He maintains he was unjustly ‘attacked’ solely because his findings just happen to support a very serious AGW concern and he does not think he was ‘attacked’ due to scientific problems with his scientific work products.
My takeaway from Oreskes’ talk is she thinks the actual climate science research shows a very much worse CAGW problem than what is supported by all the national science institutes, scientific societies and the IPCC; she thinks they are all too scientifically ‘conservative’.
My impression was that The AGU audience appeared at least partially sympathetic to both of them; no skepticism was openly expressed in the question session.
John
andrewmharding says:
December 4, 2012 at 9:57 am
“I know this is not relevant to this serious topic but I thought it would bring a smile to some faces.
The Daily Telegraph had an article on the back page today under its “Nature Notes” with the heading “Climate Change wipes out great tits”
Does this mean the end of 36FF’s or pert ones or did the DT mean “Great Tits” as in the feathered variety, I did read on and fortunately it was the latter.
On a more serious note they went on to describe how the Great Tit’s food of various insects was being wiped out by AGW and it was predicted that when, not if, the average global temperature went up by 6 celsius the species would become extinct…”
Great tits cope well with warming
H/T http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
anyone endeavouring to find the science to back up the Perth sea level rise claim might find the info somewhere in the following:
Australian Govt: Dept of Transport & Infrastructure: State of Australian Cities 2012
State of Australian Cities 2012 was launched by The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, on 4 December 2012…
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/mcu/soac/index.aspx
PDF: State of Austn Cities 2012: Perth
Sea level rise around Australia has been equal to and in some cases greater than the global average of approximately three millimetres per year. Since 1993 Perth, along with Darwin, has experienced the highest rates of sea level rise among our major coastal cities measuring nine to ten millimetres per year (tidal gauge measurements at Hillarys Western Australia), well above the global average…
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/mcu/soac/files/factsheets_2012/Perth_Final_Factsheet_FA.pdf
Anthony Albanese MP: Speech at launch of State of Australian Cities 2012
Green Building Council of Australia, Melbourne
While the global average rise is three millimetres per year, Perth is experiencing a quite extraordinary annual rise of between nine and ten millimetres per year.
It is interesting to see how cities are gradually adapting to climate change through the development of green infrastructure, but the report also describes the magnitude of the task ahead.
***At least two-thirds of Australian superannuation investment fund managers have not recognised the impact climate change will have on investment portfolios…
http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/speech-at-launch-of-state-of-australian-cities-2012
***Superannuation is where much of Australians’ pension funds reside. smart people have reverted their funds to Cash Option, to keep the fund managers from wasting it on CAGW nonsense.
andrewmharding
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20425314
It’s a virus that’s killing the Tits
“let alone the vast numbers of resulting plump and overfed Great Tits..”
what can one say !!! 🙂
Down here (Australia), the worst days for flies and other flying insects are invariably the hot ones. Again we have the fact that if there is a change in temps, it has been warming of minimums, not hot days getting hotter. So.. more warm days = many more flying insects.
You ever ridden into a flock of bogong moths? YUCK !!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogong_moth