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.
John Brookes says:
December 5, 2012 at 2:23 am
If asked now, he’d have to change his answer to yes, because now there has been statistically significant warming since 1995.
I do not agree. Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Then punch in 1995 for a start and 2013 for end date.
Then Hadcrut4 gives 0.097 +/- 0.113.
Hadcrut3 gives 0.073 +/- 0.123.
In both cases, the error bar is larger than the initial slope meaning Phil Jones would say there was NO statistical warming for 18 years.
Since a skeptical science site will not even back you up, please tell me how you came to your conclusion.
Henric:
I see that at December 5, 2012 at 12:05 pm you still rely on smears.
Morner is a great scientist and you have provided nothing which disputes his greatness.
You are merely an anonymous troll whose rightful place is on SkS.
Richard
JazzyT,
Let us look at a centuries-long time span. That way, all accusations of cherry-picking are rendered moot:
http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg
Note that recent global warming has not accelerated.
Note that the same intermittent warming steps have occurred in the past, well before CO2 began to rise.
Note that the natural global warming recovery from the LIA has remained on the same long term trend line.
What must we conclude from those facts? We must conclude that any warming due to the recent rise in CO2 is too small to measure. For all practical purposes, it is no different from zero.
Therefore, the entire AGW argument fails. AGW may exist, but if so it is too minuscule to measure, and if it cannot be measured it is nothing more than an evidence-free conjecture.
You may not like the obvious, inescapable conclusion: the rise in CO2 does not matter. But there it is. Scientific veracity does not care if you like it or not. AGW is nothing more than a conjecture. The ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — has been deconstructing the failed AGW conjecture for many years now. AGW believers are squirming around in increasing desperation, trying to rationalize the fact that global warming stopped in the 1990’s.
Most of us here think the planet is telling the truth, and the purveyors of the AGW scare are greatly exaggerating it based on evidence-free assertions, for their own self-serving reasons. What say you?
Richard: I have added valuable information about Mörners achievements + added links to original source as evidence. Being heralded by skeptics should rank high in this lie-full world. No smears. Maybe Monckton listed that achievement as one of his, 460 or so, missing papers (Yes, smears)
Henric,
Like all climate alarmists, when you cannot post verifiable facts, you make an ad hominem attack. I have not been following this conversation, but really, what do your numbers matter? Facts are what matter. You seem to be very short on facts.
Regarding sea level rise, this MSL marker, cut into the rock in 1841, shows only a tiny 2.5 cm sea level rise over more than 170 years.
Do a search of the WUWT archives and you will find lots of articles on sea level rise. Just like the AGW scare, sea level rise is another false alarm. SL rise is not accelerating. If you believe it is, then post your facts here. But I suspect that you have no facts, which explains your repeated ad hominem, fact-free comments, typical of climate alarmist true believers.
From David Ball on December 5, 2012 at 7:41 am:
Pretty weak to dismiss an entire argument based on one poster who does not represent the argument well. Truth is the daughter of time, and she will tell.
Seriously, you think it’s only one?
We know greenhouse effects are logarithmic vs concentration, CO₂’s GHE is saturated, we’re not going to see any further temperature increases from any CO₂ increases that we are expecting to see.
We’ve seen evidence for other things besides increases in GHE from CO₂ increases that accounts for the late 20th century warming, like cloud cover variation (one, two). We’ve found much evidence of several negative feedback mechanisms regulating the global temperature. Etc. And that’s without considering how the surface temperature records have been so manipulated that it’s questionable whether the 20th century yielded ANY warming.
So now that it’s obvious we have nothing to worry about with the CO₂ increases and no temperature increases from their share of the total GHE, it’s ceased being a threat, we have a bunch of would-be geniuses declaring there is no GHE, the threat never existed?
What is now basic science has shown us over time the truth of the GHE. We’ve assembled an impressive arsenal for the climate wars, and are winning on the science front. Hate to tell you this, but closing your eyes and pretending the opposition’s basic weapon never existed has never been a winning strategy. Even more so since it is now one of our weapons as well.
Greg House says:
December 4, 2012 at 10:35 pm
D Böehm says, December 4, 2012 at 9:24 pm: “CO2 probably has an effect. But it is minor; too minuscule to even measure. Unless, that is, you have some empirical measurements…”
============================================================
So, no empirical measurements are known to you, but nevertheless “CO2 probably has an effect”. Interesting.
________________________________________
There is some evidence via theoretical physics and the Atmospheric Transmission spectrum however the effect of CO2 is small especially when compared with that of water as I have shown in these two comments.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1040071
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transfer-and-ghgs/#comment-1041066
Gail Combs,
Thanks for the links. Everyone has their own position on the subject of AGW. My position is that I don’t know.
Greg House wants a definitive answer. So do we all. That is why I used “probably” instead of ‘certainly’. I am open to any and all facts. While on the one hand, people who know more than I do [like Prof Richard Lindzen] take the position that a GHE exists, I take the “show me” position.
I think AGW exists, but that it is much smaller than even experts like Lindzen believe — as shown by Lindzen’s constant ratcheting down of his sensitivity estimate over the last decade or so.
Finally, as kadaka’s link shows, any further warming from increased CO2 is unlikely due to the fact that the CO2 IR window is already saturated. Every increase in CO2 is another coat of paint.
So while CO2 has a warming effect, that effect has hit its asymptotic ceiling. Otherwise, there would be at least some acceleration in global warming following the recent ≈40% rise in CO2. Not only has there been no acceleration; global warming appears to have stopped some time in the 1990’s.
Warming may resume at some time, but it is pretty clear that the cause(s) are natural, and not due to AGW. I will change my mind if verifiable cause-and-effect measurements can be produced, showing conclusively that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. But so far, no such measurements exist. The CO2 effect is saturated.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
December 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm
You realize you sound just like the alarmists did at the start of the whole AGW fiasco. Appeals to authority when you have no understanding of what is actually proven (not hypothesized) in the literature. If you look closely (and you should) much of what is being touted about Co2 is not based on solid evidence. Co2 FOLLOWS temperature in all known records. Who has his eyes closed?
D Böehm says:
December 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm
The temperature and Co2 divergence going on right now, should be evidence enough that the theory is wrong.
David Ball,
You seem to have missed my point: the CO2 effect mattered at 20 ppmv. It mattered a lot less at 100 ppmv. At 394 ppmv, it doesn’t matter at all. The effect is used up. Saturated. That is why, despite the 40% rise in CO2, there has been no corresponding rise in temperature.
And then, I could be wrong. All it would take is a series of measurements showing a verifiable, testable cause-and-effect relationship between a rise in CO2 and a subsequent rise in temperature.
In science you can never be proven right, you can only be proven wrong. But so far, no one has produced the empirical measurements necessary to prove that CO2 still matters. I don’t think it does. At all.
I would be interested in being proven wrong, because then I would learn something.
And you seem to have missed my point. It is being proven wrong right now.
Ask yourself what possible difference could saturation make if Co2 is a result of temperature change.
J. Philip Peterson says:
December 5, 2012 at 12:27 am
I have a good friend that I have been debating global warming with for some time…..
_____________________________
You might want to read A.J. Strata (NASA Engineer) essay on the error bars in temperature: link As a mathematician he should understand error bars around a data point.
Anthony’s paper on the US surface stations: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
WUWT on Errors in Estimating Mean Temperature.Part I and II
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/errors-in-estimating-temperatures-using-the-average-of-tmax-and-tmin-analysis-of-the-uscrn-temperature-stations/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/12/errors-in-estimating-mean-temperature-part-ii/
These articles from Joanne Nova really illustrates the problem:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/dont-mention-the-peer-review-new-zealands-niwa-bury-the-australian-review/
The death of the thermometers problem:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/on-the-march-of-the-thermometers/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/the-station-drop-out-problem/
And then there is: these graphs:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
To put it bluntly the temperature record stinks. It has been mutilated beyond recognition and certainly can not give the precision they are claiming.
Another set of very telling graphs that can be used to determine if the temperature record agrees with other climate indicators.
The October Northern Hemisphere Snow record. This would be the month most sensitive to cooling/warming. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-nhland/201210.gif
The length of the Arctic Ice melt season: http://i45.tinypic.com/27yr1wy.png
The Köppen–Geiger climate classification system. The system is based on the concept that native vegetation is the best expression of climate. Thus, climate zone boundaries have been selected with vegetation distribution in mind. It combines average annual and monthly temperatures and precipitation, and the seasonality of precipitation
This is a map of the changes in boundaries in the US mid west over the last century: http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
And the information on weather that never makes a splash: http://iceagenow.info/
Forget sea level rise it is whether or not we can grow the crops that feed us that is the real issue. Warming means Canada and Russia can grow grains. Cooling means they can not.
Is anyone aware where the term Greenhouse Effect came from?
David Ball says, December 5, 2012 at 5:06 pm: “Is anyone aware where the term Greenhouse Effect came from?”
=========================================================
My guess is that some people in the 19th century thought that the inside of a greenhouse was warmed by IR back radiation from the glass walls or glass ceiling, because glass was opaque to IR. So they called alleged warming by the IR back radiation of certain gases in the atmosphere a “greenhouse effect” and those gases “greenhouse gases”.
Then the whole notion of “warming back radiation” was debunked in 1909 by American physics professor R.W.Wood (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html).
@Henric
I’m pretty sure your English is a lot better than my Swedish, but just in case, here goes.
Jag läste länkan. Det stod att Mörner “anordnat universitetskurser om slagrutor där studenterna pådyvlas sedan länge motbevisade myter …. “
Enligt den anklagelse, är han kanske lite vrickad när det gäller slagrutor.
Ja, och sen, då?
Vad har det med havsnivå att göra? Det betyder inte att hans meningar om havsnivå är värdelös. Bara en granskning av hans forskning kunde visa det.
Att avslå hans arbete på grund av hans egenheter är bara argumentum ad hominem.
I read the link. It said that Mörner “organised university courses on dowsing in which the students had long-refuted myths foisted on them.”
From that accusation it seems he is a bit of a loony in regard to dowsing.
So what?
What does that have to do with sea level? It doesn’t mean that his work on sea level is worthless. Only an examination of his research could show that.
To reject his work because of his eccentricities is simply argumentum ad hominem.
@ur momisugly Roger Knight
So maybe most sceptics do believe in Global Warming after all.
(Of course, I didn’t say they didn’t. I just pointed out to eco-geek that “not denying” is not logically equivalent to believing or affirming.)
Greg House says:
December 5, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Good guess, and I admire the courage you have to respond. Keep reading WUWT? and the answer will be posted in due course. Hint; it is more recent than your guess.
David Ball says:
December 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm
And you seem to have missed my point. It is being proven wrong right now.
_________________________________
What is being proven wrong is the idiotic statement that “CO2 is the control know of the climate”
The fact they can not get the weather forecasts correct for more than a few days and that only because they use PATTERNS shows the climate scientist are just blowing smoke.
The science is still at the discovery stage.
Could CO2 have a very very minor effect in the range D Böehm is talking about? Yes but that effect is going to be swamped out by H2O.
These three graphs say it all:
http://www.randombio.com/temperatures6.png
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/energy_wavelength.gif
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
And you can also toss in this one:
http://www.shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2006/thermochron.gif
If I had to guess I would bet on H2O, tectonic plates* and the sun as seen on earth as the control knobs. CO2 is a flea in a room full of elephants.
*Configuration of continents, mountains and volcanoes
Someone wrote;
“I’m in this to defend real science from pushers of hyped-up pseudo-science, not to switch to a different type of nonsense. The enemies of my enemy… Are stark raving loonies I probably wouldn’t associate with under other circumstances.
KevinK says:
December 4, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Case in point.”
Just for your info; this particular stark raving loonie (KevinK) works in the aerospace field and has participated in the design, manufacture and successful deployment of many of the commercial Earth imaging satellites that produce the stunning images from companies like Digital Globe, etc. I have many decades of engineering experience. Including optical radiation and it’s properties and the management of heat inside satellites. The simple fact is it is very hard to keep a satellite cool because of all the heat generating electronics inside the modern ones. If a vacuum is “cold” as claimed by the climate science folks why would we have problems cooling off our satellites ? Why do they often have large radiative surfaces on the outside of them ? We don’t put them there for the looks, no racing stripes either, they weight too much.
The concept of thermal diffusivity is a well known and understood property of materials, you can buy test instruments that measure it, so that seems a good indication that is is REAL and not pseudo science. Higher performance computer systems use copper as a heatsink simply because heat travels faster through the copper than through less expensive aluminum, this is a simple fact.
Yes, a multilayer insulation blanket works in a vacuum, no doubt about it, I have specified it for products I have helped design. Here on the Earth with a gas filled atmosphere it is useless. That’s why nobody stuffs in the walls of their houses (not the same as a simple reflective barrier (aluminum foil) that can be effective in the tropics but is no longer used in northern climes because it tends to electrocute folks that accidentally connect it to the wiring in the house, ouch that hurts, but only for a little while.
Any textbook that claims that the blockage of IR transmission out of a greenhouse causes a temperature rise is WRONG, it is that simple. You can build a greenhouse out of IR transmitting plastic sheets (Mylar, a trademark) and they are just as effective as IR blocking glass greenhouses. And yes, the temperature inside drops slowly after the sun sets, not precipitously as I may have implied, but if you open all the doors and windows the free convection will cool it off pretty darn fast.
So perhaps I’m a loon, but the stuff I have worked on performs as promised, unlike climate models.
Cheers, Kevin.
Gail Combs says:
December 5, 2012 at 7:11 pm
I fully concede that I may be wrong. Anybody who is absolutely certain of anything is not being scientific or are unaware of how many “certainties” have been overturned throughout history. I dare Mosher or DavidmHoffer to have the courage to say “I may be wrong”. The empirical evidence is showing that Co2 does nothing but react to temperature. The capitulation that Co2 has “some” effect is going to do more harm to the skeptics position than good. Time will tell.
David Ball says, December 5, 2012 at 7:04 pm: […]
===========================================================
Thank you, David, and I humbly allow me to draw your attention to one particular comment of mine: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/#comment-1165076 .
Whoops, I think I specified the wrong plastic in my example of a plastic greenhouse.
Mylar’s (trademark) optical transmission properties are similar to ordinary window glass.
I believe I meant to specify polyethelyne, yet another plastic available in thin flexible sheet form.
So many plastics, so little time….
Anyway if you do a little research you will find plastics sheets available in large flexible rolls for making greenhouse with. You simply stretch it over a rigid plastic or metal frame and clamp it down with inexpensive plastic clamps. It still makes a fine greenhouse by restricting convection.
Of course all of these plastics are made available by the evil “fossil” fuel companies in the first place,damn them all to hell /sarc off.
For anybody that wants to learn more; look up “thermal diffusivity”, and “multi-layer interference coatings”, both are quite real and will reveal quite a lot about the “greenhouse effect” HOAX.
Cheers, Kevin
Whoops again, I seem to have two online names here, KevinK and nothothere, please assume both entries came from me, Cheers, Kevin.
Oh, about those “old textbooks” that are always correct, I think the guys that designed Chernoybl (sp) had one of those….