Monckton on his smashing the U.N. wall of silence on lack of warming, and censure

UPDATE: The Russian TV channel “RT” aka “TV-Novosti” blames Monckton for the failure of COP18 to fail to reach an agreement:

The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.

LOL! Source here

From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Doha, Qatar

I have been a bad boy. At the U.N. climate conference in Doha, I addressed a plenary session of national negotiating delegates though only accredited as an observer.

One just couldn’t resist. There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence.

No one was allowed to give the alternative – and scientifically correct – viewpoint. The U.N.’s wall of silence was rigidly in place.

The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.

On behalf of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative, an outfit I had thought up on the spur of the moment (it sounded just like one of the many dubious taxpayer-funded propaganda groups at the conference), I spoke for less than a minute.

Quietly, politely, authoritatively, I told the delegates three inconvenient truths they would not hear from anyone else:

• There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.

• It is at least ten times more cost-effective to see how much global warming happens and then adapt in a focused way to what little harm it may cause than to spend a single red cent futilely attempting to mitigate it today.

• An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

As I delivered the last of my three points, there were keening shrieks of rage from the delegates. They had not heard any of this before. They could not believe it. Outrage! Silence him! Free speech? No! This is the U.N.! Gettimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh!

One of the hundreds of beefy, truncheon-toting U.N. police at the conference approached me as I left the hall and I was soon surrounded by him and a colleague. They took my conference pass, peered at it and murmured into cellphones.

Trouble was, they were having great difficulty keeping a straight face.

Put yourself in their sensible shoes. They have to stand around listening to the tedious, flatulent mendacities of pompous, overpaid, under-educated diplomats day after week after year. Suddenly, at last, someone says “Boo!” and tells the truth.

Frankly, they loved it. They didn’t say so, of course, or they’d have burst out laughing and their stony-faced U.N. superiors would not have been pleased.

I was amiably accompanied out into the balmy night, where an impressive indaba of stony-faced U.N. officials were alternately murmuring into cellphones and murmuring into cellphones. Murmuring into cellphones is what they do best.

After a few minutes the head of security – upper lip trembling and chest pulsating as he did his best to keep his laughter to himself – briefly stopped murmuring into his cellphone and bade me a cheerful and courteous goodnight.

The national delegation from Burma, whose microphone I had borrowed while they were out partying somewhere in the souk, snorted an official protest into its cellphone.

An eco-freako journalist, quivering with unrighteous indignation, wrote that I had been “evicted”. Well, not really. All they did was to say a cheery toodle-pip at the end of that day’s session. They couldn’t have been nicer about it.

The journalist mentioned my statement to my fellow-delegates that there had been no global warming for 16 years. What she was careful not to mention was that she had interviewed me at some length earlier in the day. She had sneered that 97% of climate scientists thought I was wrong.

I had explained to her that 100% of climate scientists would agree with me that there had been no global warming for 16 years if they were to check the facts, which is how science (as opposed to U.N. politics) is done.

I had also told her how to check the facts (but she had not checked them):

Step 1. Get the monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies since January 1997 from the Hadley Centre/CRU. The data, freely available online, are the U.N.’s preferred way to measure how much global warming has happened. Or you could use the more reliable satellite data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville or from Remote Sensing Systems Inc.

Step 2. Put the data into Microsoft Excel and use its routine that calculates the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line. Phew! If that is too much like doing real work (though Excel will do it for you at the touch of a button), find a friendly, honest statistician.

Step 3. Look up the measurement uncertainty in the dataset. Since measuring global temperature reliably is quite difficult, properly-collated temperature data are presented as central estimates flanked by upper and lower estimates known as the “error bars”.

Step 4. Check whether the warming (which is the difference between the first and last value on the trend-line) is greater or smaller than the measurement uncertainty. If it is smaller, falling within the error-bars, the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero. There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

The main point that the shrieking delegates here in Doha don’t get is this. It doesn’t matter how many profiteering mad scientists say global warming is dangerously accelerating. It isn’t. Period. Get over it.

The fact that there has been no global warming for 16 years is just that – a fact. It does not mean there is no such thing as global warming, or there has not been any global warming in the past, or there will be none in future.

In the global instrumental temperature record, which began in 1860, there have been several periods of ten years or more without global warming. However, precisely because these periods occur frequently, they tend to constrain the overall rate of warming.

Ideally, one should study periods of warming that are either multiples of 60 years or centered on a transition year between the warming and cooling (or cooling and warming) phases of the great ocean oscillations. That way, the distortions caused by the naturally-occurring 30-year cooling and 30-year warming phases are minimized.

Let’s do it. I have had the pleasure of being on the planet for 60 years. I arrived when it first became theoretically possible for our CO2 emissions to have a detectable effect on global temperature. From 1952 to the present, the planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 1.2 Celsius degrees per century.

Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 3.0 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.

Late in 2001 there was a phase-transition from the warming to the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the most influential of the ocean oscillations. From 1990-2001 is 11 years; from 2001-2012 is 11 years. So 1990-2012 is a period centered on a phase-transition: with minimal natural distortion, it will indicate the recent temperature trend.

Since 1990 the world has warmed at 1.4 Cº, century, or a little under 0.3 Cº in all. Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 1.2 Cº/century observed since 1952. However, the period since 1990 is little more than a third of the period since 1952, and shorter periods are liable to exhibit somewhat steeper trends than longer periods.

So the slightly higher warming rate of the more recent period does not necessarily indicate that the warming rate is rising, and it is certainly not rising dangerously.

For the 21st century as a whole, IPeCaC is predicting not 1.2 or 1.4 Cº warming but close to 3 Cº, more than doubling the observed post-1990 warming rate. Or, if you believe the latest scare paper from our old fiends the University of East Anglia, up to 6 Cº, quadrupling it.

That is not at all likely. The maximum warming rate that persisted for at least ten years in the global instrumental record since 1850 has been 0.17 Cº. This rate occurred from 1860-1880; 1910-1940; and 1976-2001.

It is only in the last of these three periods that we could have had any warming influence: yet the rate of warming over that period is the same as in the two previous periods.

All three of these periods of rapidish warming coincided with warming phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The climate scare got underway about halfway through the 1976-2001 warming phase.

In 1976 there had been an unusually sharp phase-transition from the cooling to the warming phase. By 1988 James Hansen was making his lurid (and now disproven) temperature predictions before the U.S. Congress, after Al Gore and Sen. Tim Wirth had chosen a very hot June day for the hearing and had deliberately turned off the air-conditioning.

Here is a summary of the measured and predicted warming rates:

Measured warming rate, 1997-2012 0.0 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1952-2012 1.2 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1990-2012 1.4 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1860-1880 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1910-1940 1.7 Cº/century
Measured warming rate, 1976-2001 1.7 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (1990), 1990-2025 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate in IPCC (2007), 2000-2100 3.0 Cº/century
Predicted warming rate by UEA (2012), 2000-2100 4.0-6.0 Cº/century

But it is virtually impossible to tell the negotiating delegates any of what I have set out here. They would simply not understand it. Even if they did understand it, they would not care. Objective scientific truth no longer has anything to do with these negotiations. Emotion is all.

A particularly sad example of the mawkish emotionalism that may yet destroy the economies of the West was the impassioned statement by the negotiating delegate from the Philippines to the effect that, after the typhoon that has just killed hundreds of his countrymen, the climate negotiations have taken on a new, life-or-death urgency.

As he left the plenary session, the delegates stood either side of the central aisle and showed their sympathy by applauding him. Sympathy for his country was appropriate; sympathy for his argument was not.

After 16 years with no global warming – and, if he reads this posting, he will know how to check that for himself rather than believing the soi-disant “consensus” – global warming that has not happened cannot have caused Typhoon Bhopa, any more than it could have caused extra-tropical storm Sandy.

It is possible that illegal mining and logging played no small part in triggering the landslide that killed many of those who lost their lives.

Perhaps the Philippines should join the Asian Coastal Co-Operation Initiative. Our policy is that the international community should assist all nations to increase their resilience in the face of the natural disasters that have been and will probably always be part of life on Earth.

That is an objective worthier, more realistic, more affordable, and more achievable than attempting, Canute-like, to halt the allegedly rising seas with a vote to establish a second “commitment period” under the Kyoto Protocol.

Will someone please tell the delegates? Just press the button and talk. You may not be heard, though. Those who are not partying somewhere in the souk will be murmuring into their cellphones.

===============================================================

Footnote by Anthony: Here is the video on Monckton’s address to the Doha COP18 conference.

No video has yet surfaced of him being “evicted” as the Telegraph journalist claims, suggesting that Monckton’s account of leaving the hall might be more accurate. The chair on the dais says “thank you” at the end, and didn’t call for security to evict Monckton.

Note: See also this week’s Friday Funny for Josh’s take on this. – Anthony

0 0 vote
Article Rating
535 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kurt in Switzerland
December 7, 2012 9:48 am

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Bring me popcorn!
Go get ’em, your Lordship!
Kurt in Switzerland

John W. Garrett
December 7, 2012 9:56 am

Wonderful. Simply wonderful.
Bravo.

Eric H.
December 7, 2012 9:56 am

Well, that took some sand. I love the look on their faces, priceless.

Sam the First
December 7, 2012 10:04 am

If only those who need to read this would do so… Alas I’m pretty sure they won’t
I constantly re-post material from here of this kind for the benefit of all my leftie friends on FB, and I know for a fact that none of them bothers to read the pieces. They ‘know’ the ‘concensus’ is right, you see, and don’t want any untidy facts disillusioning them. A couple have ‘unfriended’ me just for posting links demonstrating AGW is a fallacy.

Carter
December 7, 2012 10:11 am

[snip – off topic, old arguments -mod]

Scute
December 7, 2012 10:12 am

The BBC appears not to want to report on this. I checked the front page and science and environment sections of the website. There’s stuff on Doha but not on this colourful episode. Of course, if they reported it, they would have to report what he said, including the 16 year flatline. They clearly have a policy of avoiding this issue, even at the cost of a good story.

John V. Wright
December 7, 2012 10:14 am

Christopher Monckton, like you Anthony, is a modern-day hero. The BBC live in fear and trembling of him and will not let him anywhere near a news or current affairs programme; it is not just the facts and the arguments that he assembles in such an entertaining and authoritative manner – but that his intellect surpasses even those mighty presenters at the Beeb. They know they will not be able to control him.
His activities are imbued with the impish sense of the ridiculous that often characterises your presentations, so we all get some entertainment along with the science.
Both Christopher and WUWT have a large and growing audience in the UK and the BBC is losing influence and credibility. Keep up the good work guys – and thank you.

December 7, 2012 10:20 am

The peerless peer!

“quinquennial,” “mawkish emotionalism,” “our old fiends the University of East Anglia,” “On behalf of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative, an outfit I had thought up on the spur of the moment (it sounded just like one of the many dubious taxpayer-funded propaganda groups at the conference), . . .”

Theo Goodwin
December 7, 2012 10:20 am

Thank you, sir, for once again exposing to the light of day the true nature of consensus science.
Thank you, sir, for expressing your confidence in the common sense and the good judgement of the working class. How American of you.

Pull My Finger
December 7, 2012 10:22 am

Ha, that takes some serious stones!

G. Karst
December 7, 2012 10:24 am

I am so glad you stopped by, to receive your richly deserved kudo(s). Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou. I wish we could give you a ticker tape parade, but this will have to do.
Two questions: How are we ever going to replace you at these UN lovefests?! And is there any chance of restoring your UN credentials… How can we help? GK

Nigel S
December 7, 2012 10:25 am

Typo ‘0.12C/century’ should be 1.2C/century
Since 1990 the world has warmed at 1.4 Cº, century, or a little under 0.3 Cº in all. Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 0.12 Cº/century observed since 1952. However, the period since 1990 is little more than a third of the period since 1952, and shorter periods are liable to exhibit somewhat steeper trends than longer periods.
Excellent as always from Lord Monckton, a splendid jape but with a serious message.

Adam Soreg
December 7, 2012 10:28 am

Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 0.3 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.

As far as I know the rate of predicted temperature rise should be 0.4 deg.C per decade in order to achieve a full-degree warming within a 25 year period.

December 7, 2012 10:35 am

That’s the most entertaining thing I’ve seen in weeks. Way to go Lord Monckton!!! Keep it up!!!

Louis Hooffstetter
December 7, 2012 10:37 am

“Lord Monckton of Myanmar”
Rolls right off the tongue and has a nice ring to it.

Alan A.
December 7, 2012 10:37 am

My hero 🙂

David, UK
December 7, 2012 10:38 am

Priceless. I am feeling so much respect for this man right now. Up The Monck!

robins111
December 7, 2012 10:38 am

Now that made me laugh, well done.

December 7, 2012 10:39 am

Debate in the British House of Lords 01 June 1967
Viscount Monckton of Brench-ley
But one thing I am sure of is that we cannot have moral leadership from this country without some force behind it, and some committed force behind it.
That was Viscount Monckton senior.
The current Viscount Monckton is now giving moral leadership to the committed force of the skeptics behind him.

ericgrimsrud
December 7, 2012 10:40 am

How nice that the doormen were impressed by Monckton’s comments.
REPLY: How nice that the sneering, boorish, and angry Eric Grimsrud can’t find anything else to do except complain – Anthony

December 7, 2012 10:41 am

In this paragraph:
“Or we could go back to 1990, the year of the first of the four quinquennial Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC). It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 0.3 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.”
Isn’t that supposed to say 3.0, not 0.3? That had me confused for a minutes…..

December 7, 2012 10:43 am

“It predicted that from 1990-2025 the world would warm at 0.3 Cº/century, giving 1 Cº warming by 2025.”
Should ‘century’ say ‘decade’?

Mike Bromley the Kurd
December 7, 2012 10:43 am

Someone recently called Christopher Monckton an ass, right here on this blog. Pretty savvy ass if you ask me. And the dullard at the dias who mistook him for a Burmese, well….anyhow, A right cheeky effort, and good on him.

Duster
December 7, 2012 10:44 am

Several typos in there such as “…Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 0.12 Cº/century observed since 1952. ” I’m pretty sure that “0.12 Cº/century” is not remotely close to “1.4 Cº/century”. I think ithat “0.12 Cº/century” should be “0.12 Cº/decade” which would be 1.2 Cº/century. There’s at least one similar construction elsewhere. Otherwise, well said.

Reply to  Duster
December 7, 2012 10:46 am

The decimal point typos were fixed within minutes after posting, thanks to the multiple posters who pointed them out, Please use the refresh button on your browser.

December 7, 2012 10:46 am

Lord Monckton, what you are doing is so important. The truth will get through. Even those most vocal against the facts of no warming must, on some level, wonder about that when the cold is all around them. They KNOW you are telling the truth, they just can’t admit it yet, not even to themselves. But deep down, deep down they know. In my book, you are a hero.

Kim Rasmussen in Helvetia
December 7, 2012 10:56 am

Good on you,Lord Monckton,and my deepest respect for your stance.I’d love to hear about this in the msm,but that’ll probably remain whishful thinking.

Dave
December 7, 2012 10:57 am

Lord Monckton at his best. Well done!
How do I donate to the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative?

chris y
December 7, 2012 10:59 am

Obama has been the worst possible president for the climateers. During his first term, his invisible efforts have slowed sea level rise to 1.6 mm per year; global temperatures are plummeting at 0.45 C/decade; the southern hemisphere ocean temperatures are dropping at 0.27 C/decade; global hurricane accumulated energy is near its lowest levels in 30 years; tornadoes in 2012 were near record lows; Antarctic sea ice reached record high extent; Antarctic glaciers are gaining 49 billion tons of ice per year; and Lake Powell water level is up 25 feet.
This may sound like good news to the lay public, who have been scolded about reducing their carbon skidmarks with the goal of producing exactly the trends that are now being observed. But this is a travesty for (pardon the use of repetitive synonyms) bureaucrats, environmental reporters and NGO barflies attending the UN COP18 climate convention in Doha, Qatar. Because these smoking guns, these climate canaries, of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) are not trending worse, even as rising CO2 emissions continue to improve the standards of living in China and India, the lying and misrepresentation needed in Doha (the very heart of big fossil fuel) will inexorably destroy what little credibility is left among this wretched societal Ramora.
Good riddance.

P. Solar
December 7, 2012 10:59 am

Oh dear, we can’t have that sort of Moncky business at the UNFXXXX can we?
Nice work Viscount Monckton.

December 7, 2012 11:00 am

ACCI is worth our support. And their spokesman made a lot of sense. Well done president Monckton prince of the shifting sands.

December 7, 2012 11:00 am

• An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

E.g., perhaps a “science court” could be convened. (This was recently re-suggested by Henry Bauer, in his Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth (The title should have been Top Dogmas) at
http://www.amazon.com/Dogmatism-Science-Medicine-Dominant-Monopolize/dp/0786463015/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354905849&sr=1-1&keywords=Dogmatism+in+Science+and+Medicine
.) Under the auspices of the IAC (InterAcademy Council), perhaps. Here are links to sites with material on the science court idea:
1. Science Courts… and Mixed Science-Policy Decisions
http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/taskfor.htm
The Science Court Experiment: An Interim Report*:
(* Reprinted with permission from 193 Science 654 (1976))
Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology**
2. The Science Court is Dead; Long Live the Science Court!
http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/field.htm
3, Symposium Index – The Science Court – Pierce Law Center IP Mall
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/RISK_Symposium_ScienceCourt.asp
4. The Science Court: A Bibliography. Jon R. Cavicchi*.
http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/bibliography.htm
Those who decry the idea of a relatively objective and courageous science court as naïve (and thus implicitly consider establishment science as irredeemably corrupt and/or compromised) would likewise have dismissed the idea that the IAC could have delivered an unbiased evaluation of the IPCC. They were wrong there, so their assertions have been falsified.

tegirinenashi
December 7, 2012 11:03 am

Assertion that “Carbon tax/credit scheme would destroy western economy” is hyperbole on skeptics side. Sure the economy is quite resilient to puny single percentage waste (assuming their hoax would cause no greater burden) . More convincing statement would be that wasting money on inefficient “solution” is cost prohibitive. Disbelieving that future technology would certainly solve the alleged problem (if any) is just denying human ingenuity. Warmists are severely lacking imagination.

J Martin
December 7, 2012 11:03 am

Lord Monckton. Awesome.
I would ditch the Mystic Meg outfit, however.

Peter Miller
December 7, 2012 11:07 am

Moncton: Polite, accurate and to the point.
The security guards seem to have been some of the smartest people there. At least they could see the humour in exposing the pointlessness and the blind pomposity of the ineptocracy that attended the Doha meeting.
And now we need some troll comments/rants/abuse to get some balance.

Bruce Cobb
December 7, 2012 11:07 am

“I have been a bad boy.” Yes you have. No soup for you!

Frank K.
December 7, 2012 11:09 am

Rock on, Lord Monckton! (who hails from the land that gave us Punk Rock…) I will brew another cup of tea in your honor, sir!

Rhys Jaggar
December 7, 2012 11:13 am

This sets the benchmark for the great philosophical battles of the 21st and early 22nd century: between those whose power arose from mind control (currently broadly in the ascendancy) and those who seek the truth to hold sway, utilising the scientific method to advance such a position wherever and whenever it is possible.
I hope people understand the nature of the battle and are not dejected if all does not change immediately on this planet.
The reality is that sometimes battles may take a century or so before a decisive endpoint is reached.
I may be wrong in my judgement as to the length of time it will take to see science take hold where appropriate, but I am under no illusions as to the strength of the power bases who have acquired their power without seeing science as anything but a tool either to be manipulated or ignored.
I do think that the ‘global warming’ issue will come to a head far sooner than that, as decisive data should emerge by 2035 one way or the other.
As for politics, business and organised religion, dismantling the arbitrary power structures which underpin those may take somewhat longer…….

J Martin
December 7, 2012 11:15 am

Lord Monckton for Prime Minister of the UK I say.
Perhaps someone over there (the USA) should propose that Lord Monckton stand for election as President of the USA. I think someone may have set some precedent or other for dealing with the place of birth issue.

Hot under the collar
December 7, 2012 11:24 am

• There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.
Kudos to “TimeLord” Monckton.

Jimbo
December 7, 2012 11:26 am

An the 16 years of non-warming is important in light of the often posted paper.

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

Then if the lack of warming continues for another year we add another nail in the coffin.

“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

Let’s hope they don’t come out with a new paper pushing out the date to 20 years or 25 or even 30 years; I wouldn’t put it beyond them as much is at stake and they know we have them by the gonads.

Lance Wallace
December 7, 2012 11:26 am

” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC)”
Priceless!
The precise description of the appropriate response to the IPCC

December 7, 2012 11:33 am

these climate canaries, of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC)

I call it Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism, or the CACA Cult.

“Moncky Business”

Wonderful–that should have been the article’s title. Maybe Josh could do a cartoon thus titled showing the Viscount swinging from the rafters and making faces at the dopes below–or laying a banana peel in the path of a pompous emperor.

December 7, 2012 11:36 am

Great job here. Upstaging these fools in the 1 ring circus of PR gets you a several “that a boy” cheers and a whole lot of publicity.

Editor
December 7, 2012 11:39 am

I’m sure sending a slate of delegates from Myanmar is a costly thing for a small country to do. Perhaps there should be an official enquiry looking into why the Myanmar delegation was not at their appointed station. Getting bored to death by predictable, repetitive whining is not an acceptable defense.
But we should thank them anyway!

pat
December 7, 2012 11:40 am

bravo monckton, even tho most MSM refuses to mention the story, for fear of having to report the 16 yrs of no significant warming which goes against IPCC predictions.
australia’s ABC has not covered the chris monckton/doha incident at all, but has this completely insane piece up today:
7 Dec: ABC: Sara Phillips: The zeal of the newly converted climate sceptic
THE WOMAN IN THE VIDEO below is a proud American. She’s 60 years old, she listens to Bill O’Reilly, the American version of Alan Jones. She’s heard O’Reilly’s words and she knows climate change is a hoax, hogwash, and bunkum.
Then, for some reason, she decided to see a documentary about melting glaciers.
Her reaction to the film is worth watching. It goes for one minute and 43 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw1dZNWiL8
She’s virtually in tears. “There must be something I can do,” she repeats. “Every human being in the world should watch this movie. Everyone!” She is almost aggressive.
You are watching the zeal of the newly converted. She is fiery, passionate, frightened.
Most people who are committed environmentalists have experienced this moment. That point in time when they suddenly see with clarity the enormity of the problem; the importance of it; the urgency. That point when the thinking shifts from ‘somebody should do something about that’ to ‘there must be something I can do’.
Gandhi’s attributed pronouncements start to make sense “Be the change you wish to see.”
As do Edward Everest Hale’s: “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. I must not fail to do the something that I can do.”
I’ve watched this moment of terrifying realisation in a number of people over the years. I noticed particularly after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth there was a rash of new awareness. Pledges were made, meat eschewed, car use limited…
Meanwhile, the latest analysis (pdf) of how global temperatures are tracking against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) forecasts show the world is on track for the warming predicted. The IPCC forecasts a rise in temperatures of 1.8 to 4 degrees. Sea level rises may in fact be worse than predicted.
And this is all before the increasing wealth and associated carbon emissions from the Chinese, Indians and other developing countries are factored in. Just wait until they all can afford a car, a TV and air conditioning. Just wait until the world’s population grows some more and all those new people have a car, a TV and air conditioning…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/12/07/3649206.htm
some further detail, including o’reilly’s CAGW-believing comments. as those of us outside the US, who get “Fox Extra” fill-ins instead of ads every few minutes will know, it sometimes seems all these spots are devoted to how to reduce your carbon footprint & other CAGW rubbish:
30 Nov: JunkScience: Russell Cook: Bizarre ‘Fox Lies’ video: Alleged “Climate-Denying O’Reilly Fan” Now Believes Global Warming is Real
http://junkscience.com/2012/11/30/bizarre-fox-lies-video-alleged-climate-denying-oreilly-fan-now-believes-global-warming-is-real/comment-page-1/

FrankK
December 7, 2012 11:42 am

Well done me-Lard !
Some time ago I did as you suggest put the Central England temperature (the longest available) from 1659 to 2010 into Excel and put in a least squares trend line.
The result : 0.25 C Deg per Century.
Your estimate of more than 1 C deg per Century I would say suffers from “picking the end points problem” as you so clearly pointed out to Mr IPCAC in your lectures.
But no worry your conservative estimate is well on the “safe” side.
10 out of 10 for your effort at the Doha yaba yaba fest.
Cheers.

TimC
December 7, 2012 11:43 am

Whatever one’s views might be on the science or the politics, this was a United Nations conference with its delegates entitled to the same facilities and diplomatic immunities as “experts on mission” for the United Nations (the only body recognised by international law as entitled to authorise member states to “do all things necessary” – including military invasion – to back its resolutions).
Our noble correspondent appears not to have been a delegate to this UN conference but to have usurped the place of a delegate – possibly a whole delegation – in order to address the conference, clearly before other delegates had time to recognise what was going on. As has been said elsewhere, this was a stunt: IMHO it was not the way for any UK hereditary peer to conduct himself and – in a different time and place – could have led to serious international consequences.
To misquote Voltaire – I agree with what you had to say, but reject absolutely the way you set about saying it. IMHO the truth will prevail without resorting to stunts such as this.

December 7, 2012 11:43 am

I do want to say Thank you very much to Anthony and to his magnificent host of readers all over the world for your very kind support. It has been a busy and interesting week here in the Gulf. I have enjoyed the sunshine. Off to the airport tomorrow morning, as planned, to head back to snowy Blighty (more global warming needed).
Apologies for some decimal points adrift in the original draft, which was written late at night after the evening’s feast of innocent merriment.
Thank you all again. You will find more commentary by me on Doha at cfact.org. Read all about how I fell off a camel (alas, there are no photographs of this priceless moment, because everyone was laughing too much).
Happy Christmas, and a carbon-intensive New Year!

Editor
December 7, 2012 11:45 am

Abso-freakin’-lutely hilarious. Christopher is the man.
w.

PaulR
December 7, 2012 11:46 am

“For a British Lord is a soaring soul, as free as a mountain bird;
His energetic fist, should be ready to resist, a dictatorial word;
His nose should pant and his lip should curl,
His cheeks should flame and his brow should furl,
His bosom should heave and his heart should glow,
And his tongue be ever ready for a knock-down blow.
with apologies to G&S

RockyRoad
December 7, 2012 11:47 am

Looks like the UN Climate Gestapo exaggerated and criminalized Lord Monckton’s ad lib eulogy the same way they do CO2’s role in the climate.
This just might be the verbal shot across the bow of the leaky boat we’ll call the “UN Climate” that sinks her.

December 7, 2012 11:51 am

Oh Lord Monckton, you are really wonderful! Thank you for that, priceless! The president was very polite,he looked like a stunned mullet. I wish he would have been in his white Arab garb though. lol. Ha ha ha.

It doesn't add up...
December 7, 2012 11:51 am

Today I note that the Wayback Machine servers are having trouble with this file:
http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20Sep%202007%20background.pdf
Is that a coincidence? Or has the BBC managed to airbrush another piece of history?

kim2ooo
December 7, 2012 11:53 am

Can I be a member of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative?

joeldshore
December 7, 2012 11:55 am

Lord Monckton says:

There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

That’s not just being mathematically-nerdy; it’s being correct. And, there has also been no statistically-significant change in the rate of warming over the rate of warming before that, e.g.,, between 1975 and 1997…which rather shows your argument to be a red-herring.
So, if you don’t want to be “mathematically-nerdy”, you could just as easily say “The warming rate for the past 16 years has not changed from the warming rate during the 1975-1997 period.”
You are basically just using the fact that the trend is sufficiently uncertain over such timescales and so it is hard to rule out lots of things with 95% statistical significance.

Scottish Sceptic
December 7, 2012 11:55 am

The truth is most of them already know it is a charade. They key players know before they get to the conference what they are going to decide. They just have to pretend its all being decided and they are all listening to each other and that it all matters. They have to be seen to be going through the motions of taking it seriously to avoid incurring the wrath of the greens.
So they sit there day after day playing Sudoko on the phones pretending that …
And then Monckton comes in and they all have something funny to laugh about instead of the boring dull charade play of doing something important.

December 7, 2012 11:56 am

Christopher Monckton said,
“””• An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.”””

– – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
First, great show from you there at Doha!! Amid your keenly relevant statements on climate science there was just the right level of contemptuous disrespect for all the bizarre catastrophist-fests leading up to and including Doha.
Second, the point of yours that I think is most important is your recommendation about the need for an independent enquiry on the UN’s climate assessments and their internal processes that manipulate them.
QUESTION; Do you have suggestions on how the community of independent critical thinkers on the subject of climate science can make your suggested enquiry happen? Let’s do it.
NOTE: I have taken some of Judith Curry’s blog discussions as also implying that some independent efforts are needed to balance against the IPCC’s products and processes.
John

Jay
December 7, 2012 11:57 am

Congratulations !
You, Lord Monckton have pranked them totally.
And with great courage.
And a happy Christmas to you to.

December 7, 2012 11:57 am

The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it.
This reminds me of a scene from “No Highway in the Sky”, a 1951 Jimmy Stewart movie, He is an aeronautical engineer worried about metal fatigue on a new passenger plane. On a trip from London to Labrador to investigate a crash of that design, he learns he is on board the prototype plane with nearly the same hours flying. He persuades the pilot to inspect at Gandor, but fails at getting the plane grounded. While pleading with the pilot prior to departure, he sees the landing gear lever — and pulls it. The gear retracts as the plane plops onto the tarmac. Well they wouldn’t listen to me and the lever was right there so I just pulled it.
Movie synopsis and similarity to the de Havilland Comet crashes in 1953-54.

Vince Causey
December 7, 2012 12:04 pm

Good on yer, m’Lord. Talking truth to power takes some cojones! Well done indeed.

Jimbo
December 7, 2012 12:08 pm

The UK’s Independent and Guardian newspapers have picked up the story on Monckton being “evicted”. Didn’t they get the message? Don’t mention 16 years of no global warming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/07/doha-climate-talks-ukip-lord-monckton
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-monckton-kicked-out-of-international-climate-change-conference-after-posing-as-a-delegate-8393492.html

Bart
December 7, 2012 12:08 pm

TimC says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:43 am
If you insist on playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules when your opponent is engaged in a street brawl, you will lose.

Brian R
December 7, 2012 12:10 pm

“But it is virtually impossible to tell the negotiating delegates any of what I have set out here. They would simply not understand it.”
They don’t understand your numbers because those are not the numbers they are looking for. They are looking numbers that start with a $ or € or £ and have the word “Billion” at the end.

Editor
December 7, 2012 12:19 pm

BTW Myanmar is actually Burma!

Editor
December 7, 2012 12:21 pm

And there seemed to be an awful number of empty seats there! Looks like a good jolly to me!

D. Patterson
December 7, 2012 12:24 pm

AP and Fox News are reporting on the event, even if the BBC has not so far. See:
Tensions mount at UN climate talks as rich and poor spar over money
Published December 06, 2012. Associated Press
British climate change skeptic Christopher Monckton even managed to slip into a conference hall where he addressed a plenary session, apparently mistaken for an official delegate. A tweet from the U.N. climate secretariat said he was “debadged and escorted out” of the venue “for impersonating a Party” and violating the conference’s code of conduct.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/06/tensions-mount-at-un-climate-talks-as-rich-and-poor-spar-over-money/

Editor
December 7, 2012 12:27 pm

One other thought. You would have thought that our warmist friends would actually be delighted that warming had stopped or at least slowed down.
It’s like when a Cat 6 hurricane is forecast to blow in and then turns out to be a small storm. People would be out thanking their lucky stars.
Instead this lot seem to be genuinely upset.

Mac the Knife
December 7, 2012 12:28 pm

The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it.
Priceless! Thank You, Sir!!!

Johanus
December 7, 2012 12:30 pm

Stout fellow you are, Lord Monckton of Brenchley!

Don
December 7, 2012 12:31 pm

“The funniest was the Monck.
He climbed up the elephant’s trunk.
The elephant sneezed,
and fell on his knees,
But what became of the Monck?”
Sir, I add to your titles:
“The Monck That Roared”
“Reepicheep of the Righteous Right”
Thanks. God bless you.

D. Patterson
December 7, 2012 12:33 pm

kim2ooo says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:53 am
Can I be a member of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative?

Qualification as a member plenipotentiary requires speaking at a U.N. plenary session as an undocumeented observer or gate-crasher.

tallbloke
December 7, 2012 12:34 pm

It doesn’t add up… says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:51 am
Today I note that the Wayback Machine servers are having trouble with this file:
http://www.ibt.org.uk/all_documents/dialogue/Real%20World%20Brainstorm%20Sep%202007%20background.pdf
Is that a coincidence? Or has the BBC managed to airbrush another piece of history?

I just tried by a slightly different route and got this message:
“Bummer.
The machine that serves this file is down. We’re working on it.”

RockyRoad
December 7, 2012 12:34 pm

Paul Homewood says:
December 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm

One other thought. You would have thought that our warmist friends would actually be delighted that warming had stopped or at least slowed down.
It’s like when a Cat 6 hurricane is forecast to blow in and then turns out to be a small storm. People would be out thanking their lucky stars.
Instead this lot seem to be genuinely upset.

Probably the first mention of climate science they’ve heard in years. And it didn’t square with what they remembered from way back then.

December 7, 2012 12:46 pm

Thanks to this topic

Carter
December 7, 2012 12:54 pm

[snip – if you want to make an argument for fairness, calling us “deniers” doesn’t really help your case. See the policy page. -mod]

December 7, 2012 12:57 pm

You KNOW you’ve busted the command bunker when the enemy remains silent.
Checked the UK Guardian’s version of story…went to the comments section. No comment! They simply couldn’t risk it. Priceless.

FrankK
December 7, 2012 1:00 pm

You know this reminds me of the time more than 35 years ago when I attended a international modelling conference (not on climate) and someone got up spouted on about the 25 parameters used to “fit” the measured results. Ridiculous I thought.
I pressed the mike button and stated:
There seems to be three types of people in this audience Mr Chairman
“Those who are making things happen
Those who are watching things happening
And those who are wondering what the f..k is happening
And I happen to be in the last category”
The translators in their booths had a bit of trouble translating the last quote so it took
some seconds before the there was a roar of laughter in the audience.
Yes many agreed. I suspect not a lot of difference at Doha with no doubt many in the last category.

Dr T G Watkins
December 7, 2012 1:00 pm

Bravo!
Seriously funny, you have lots of admirers. Josh too.

December 7, 2012 1:00 pm

Our Upper Classes at their best. Top guy, Monckton. And a prankster to boot.

highflight56433
December 7, 2012 1:05 pm

Bravo again to another brilliant compendious presentation and departing encore!
(My pint of polluting CO2 laden pale did hence cheerfully drowned my thirst.)

Stephanie Clague
December 7, 2012 1:07 pm

The delegates at the conference love going to conferences, its a good life and they have become so used to it they dont want the travelling circus to end. They are saving the earth no less, what is more noble and important than that? Or so they want to believe, they all get together and reinforce their personal beliefs through groupthink, they dont challenge each other or themselves because the truth would stop the travelling circus in its tracks. What would these delegates be doing if there were no regular expenses paid trips to conferences all over the world? You can understand their reluctance to challenge the orthodoxy, it is nothing new of course, you could easily fill a hall with mindless nodding heads, its been done a hundred times a hundred times in the past.
A hearty congratulations to Lord Monckton who has succeeded in pricking the bubble of their insufferable pomposity, its something they didnt want to hear but something they will certainly remember when their freak shows collapses about their tin ears. Telling the truth to a cult that cannot stand to hear it, they are simply not used to it at all. Just a few quietly spoken words and they will resonate far beyond this time, the simplest of truths often have that power. The delegates were not ready to listen but they heard all right and it upset their apple cart more than would like to admit, they were made to look like utter fools. Someone needed to say the words that others so desperately didnt want to listen to, but they heard all right.

clipe
December 7, 2012 1:14 pm

Stephen Rasey says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:57 am
…the de Havilland Comet crashes in 1953-54

December 7, 2012 1:23 pm

My exhaled breath contains Gaia Food. We work well together.
I heard Lord Monckton on the Alex Jones show today. He’s like throwing holy water on a vampire.
I see the Sun is still in a sleepy time phase. It is recommended it stay that way till the majority of people learn their lessons.

Mike Smith
December 7, 2012 1:26 pm

Great job!
These loons don’t really care about the facts. They’ve been busy for years telling each other how self-righteous they are. It’s now reached a point where they’re all wallowing in so much self-righteousness they’re completely convinced that the rest of society owes them a huge debt. They want payment in the form of six figure salaries for themselves, their friends, and their families, with tenure, and a gold plated pensions and benefits plan too.
There are simply parasites but they are well on the way to killing their host.

Gary Pearse
December 7, 2012 1:27 pm

Amazing what kind of fuss you get when simply stating a fact! No one called out that Monckton was wrong – they impotently boohed and said throw the bum out. I’ve been around a long time and it is only in the two dozen years or so that speaking the truth has become an international crime. Oh it has been a crime in parts of the world run by tyrants throughout history, but at a conference run by an organization that was created to rescue humankind from tyranny? It seems the fall of the iron curtain wasn’t all good. No small number of “central planners” escaped to take over international government and NGO organizations while the rest of us were rejoicing at the fall.

Joe Guerk
December 7, 2012 1:27 pm

“Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative”
I wish he had used “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”

December 7, 2012 1:31 pm

Well said Christopher Monckton, we certainly need your courage and intelligence to combat the spreading cancer promoted by the CAGW industry. BTW, I don’t think there was a stunned response at all. In the half empty forum, delegates were probably unaware of the Lord’s comments being either asleep or bored out of their brains.

Editor
December 7, 2012 1:31 pm

Lord Monckton, absolutely brilliant! I hope there is much deserved publicity, but I doubt it.
To paraphrase slightly; it is an absolute travesty that they cannot understand the term “No global warming for 16 years”.

December 7, 2012 1:31 pm

Lord Monckton,
As a registered nurse in my last (of numerous) occupations, I will say only that IPeCaC makes me want to vomit. 🙂
Thank you for both your wisdom and your wit, sir.

December 7, 2012 1:40 pm

Monckton: a ray of light amidst the intellectual and moral darkness.

Manfred
December 7, 2012 1:45 pm

Encore!!
Witnessing as we have done the precise placement of a sharp needle into the over-in-flatus balloon of the UN climate buffoons of Doha is a priceless Christmas present. Thank you Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

John West
December 7, 2012 1:50 pm

Bravo Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley!

ZT
December 7, 2012 1:55 pm

Professor Phil Jones, in his own words, on plotting a trend in Excel:
‘I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.’

Editor
December 7, 2012 1:59 pm

I found this lovely tidbit …

He [Monckton] was promptly stripped of his badge by UN officials for “impersonating a party” and banned for life from future meetings.

Impersonating a party? Impersonating? He IS the party …
Again, Christopher, most excellent theatre. Brilliant.
w.

December 7, 2012 2:00 pm

This reminds me of Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” or “Keiserens nye Klæder”.
“…So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor’s new clothes! Don’t they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!” Nobody would confess that he couldn’t see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.
“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”
“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all”.
http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
Thank you Christopher Monckton, thank you!

CheshireRed
December 7, 2012 2:05 pm

Terrific work Lord Monckton. Brilliant.
At this rate you’ll be making serious enemies with your truth-saying; they can’t handle the truth you know. Perhaps be careful who you advise of your flight schedules and maybe you should get yourself a food-taster, too.

Peter Wilson
December 7, 2012 2:14 pm

Excellent – I would also like to see the study that indicates a direct correlation between lack of education or liberal arts education and belief in global warming. Dumb and Dumber!!!

Dan
December 7, 2012 2:20 pm

The ‘President’ thought the speaker (Monckton) was from Myanmar (Burma). He then said “When I looked at his face I realised he was not from Burma”.
Oh. All Burmese people are brown with funny eyes right?
Racist Arab…

thisisnotgoodtogo
December 7, 2012 2:26 pm

I laugh again every time I watch it. It’s fabulous.

December 7, 2012 2:29 pm

Well done sir – I envy you your minute of fame. I thought I’d look up “Brenchley” for anything interesting and found something of note:
Brenchley is the older of the two villages with a church (All Saints) which dates back to the 13th century and has an avenue of 400 year-old yew trees. The Kentish rebel leader Wat Tyler is said to have lived in a cottage near Brenchley before he led the peasants’ revolt in 1381.
http://www.brenchleyandmatfield.co.uk/
We have a new leader for the peasants’ revolt of 2012 it seems!

Steve
December 7, 2012 2:30 pm

This is the stuff of heroes ! Thanks so very much for doing what we, who are in no position, are unable to do. You speak for the planet !

François GM
December 7, 2012 2:49 pm

Wonderful. Loved every second of the video. What an elegant way to stand up for the truth. Quite a lesson, for me anyway.

pat
December 7, 2012 2:59 pm

wonder if Lord Monckton saw this mafia boss hiding out in Doha?
7 Dec: ANSA Italian Wire Service: Mafia arrests for Sicily renewable-energy infiltration
Cosa Nostra ‘got wind-farm, solar work to help boss in hiding’
Italian police on Friday arrested six people and seized 10 billion euros in assets in a probe into suspected Mafia infiltration of renewable-energy facilities in western Sicily whose proceeds are believed to have gone to fugitive Cosa Nostra head Matteo Messina Denaro.
Police said Mafia members got contracts for work on wind farms and solar-energy plants near Agrigento, Palermo and Trapani. A wave of arrests over recent years have closed the net around fugitive 50-year-old Agrigento-based boss Denaro, one of the world’s 10 most-wanted men, who took control of Cosa Nostra after the 2006 arrest of Bernardo Provenzano.
http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2012/12/07/Mafia-arrests-Sicily-renewable-energy-infiltration_7917279.html

Me
December 7, 2012 3:02 pm

They don’t like it when it happens to them, but they send in their minions to protest and that’s OK. 😆

Carter
December 7, 2012 3:10 pm

Dear mod
Have scanned policy page, all i can say is that I think you are too sensitive over certain words! I get called worse than that on other sites, ‘AGW wacko, AGW loon, etc, etc, but it’s just water off a ducks back! But seen as you are denying the vast majority of scientific evidence then logically you must be a denier!
‘[snip – if you want to make an argument for fairness, calling us “deniers” doesn’t really help your case. See the policy page. -mod]’

Lew Skannen
December 7, 2012 3:12 pm

“Lord Monckton of Myanmar”
I love it!
Well done.
I loved the way that he spoke so calmly and authoritatively that nobody even realised what was happening.

December 7, 2012 3:17 pm

I have just posted on my blog on this subject. The problem is that the green movement has set a narrative of a morality play; they just don’t get that the skeptic side is likewise driven by morality and that Monckton’s action should be seen within this frame.
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/the-panto-villain-narrative-and-climate-change/

Merovign
December 7, 2012 3:21 pm

TimC says:
December 7, 2012 at 11:43 am
Whatever one’s views might be on the science or the politics, this was a United Nations conference with its delegates entitled to

Aaaaaand that’s where you lose me. Power-mad petty bureaucrats can declare themselves entitled to exclusive insulation from dissenting voices, infinite power over space and time or the contents of your wallet, that doesn’t make them “entitled” in any meaningful way.
IMHO they’re entitled to stop spending other people’s money on intellectual baubles and demands for MORE MORE MORE and go home.

D. Patterson
December 7, 2012 3:26 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
December 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm
We need to help him to find a island to become a state and qualify as a Party to the COP. Preferably, it could be a South Pacific pinnacle endangered by the rising sea levels to lend the required level of pathos for such a gathering.

eco-geek
December 7, 2012 3:30 pm

“Objective scientific truth no longer has anything to do with these negotiations”
Not even the IPCC is allowed in these days, let alone serious scientists. The IPCC are getting to be an embarrassment and they have served their purpose well enough. The Political Head has divorced itself from the pseudo-scientific body denying now even a pretence of science. The pretence is important no more. What matters is the fleshing out of the embryonic unelected world government and the New World Order.
The plan is to move quickly now before anybody notices.
Stay cool.

eco-geek
December 7, 2012 3:38 pm

The plan is to move quickly now before anybody notices.
… Well OK it might take them a few centuries….

Phil Ford
December 7, 2012 3:48 pm

As a UK citizen, I’ll say it again: It’s a total disgrace that the BBC have absolutely nothing to say about Lord Monckton’s timely ‘Doha Intervention’. Roger Harrabin, their staunchly pro-CAGW propagandist-in-chief, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. If this had been an incident where a ‘nasty’ fossil fuel conference had been infiltrated by ‘common purpose’ drones from some ‘green’ NGO or other, Harrabin would have been all over it like a rash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20639215
Piffle and tosh. Tell us the truth, Roger.

richardscourtney
December 7, 2012 3:49 pm

Christopher:
Thankyou for your account and – much more importantly – for what you did in Doha.
I take the liberty of copying to here a comment I made on the other thread because it explains the importance of what you did.
Richard
==============
richardscourtney says:
December 7, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Ilma:
At December 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm you ask

Why should it be Santer that decides the period? What gives him this unique right?

Your question directly pertains to the purpose of Lord Monckton’s act of civil disobedience in Doha.
The models ‘decide’ the period.
The modellers constructed their models to represent their understanding of climate behaviour. So, if those understandings are correct then the models will emulate the behaviour of the real climate.
In 2008 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in its State of the Climate Report for 2008 (page 23)

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Please note the strength of that statement: it says the models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more, but that has happened. There is no record of any ‘climate scientist’ disputing that statement then or for some years after it.
As the existing period of “zero trend” extended and started to near 15 years, interest in the matter was raised by climate realists. Ben Santer responded in 2011 by posting a press release which can be read at
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
It says

In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

The Santer statement induces a problem. There are four possibilities; i.e.
(a) the NOAA statement in 2008 was a mistake which nobody has refuted
(if so, why did nobody point it out?)
or
(b) Santer’s statement is not true
(if so, why has no modeller refuted it?)
or
(c) the models have been altered since 2008
(if so, then what alterations to understanding of climate have arisen to require this?)
or
(d) some or all of possibilities (a) to (c)
(if so then climate modelling is a travesty of science).
Each of these possibilities provides severe doubt to the understandings of climate which the models represent.
Hence, the politicians who rely on ‘climate science’ when formulating policies need to be made aware that the ‘NOAA limit’ has been exceeded and that the ‘Santer Limit’ is fudge which is also likely to be exceeded. Also,future fudges which are longer than the ‘Santer Limit’ need to be prevented.
That need to inform politicians – and to inform the public who elect the politicians – was assisted by Lord Monckton’s act of civil disobedience in Doha. And that need to inform also explains why warmunist trolls have attempted to deflect this thread from discussion of what Lord Monckton said in that act of civil disobedience.
Richard

Ian H
December 7, 2012 3:51 pm

Mr Monckton,
you have indeed been bad.
In fact that was totally Wicked!
P.S. – I intend no disrespect with the use of “Mr”. I am simply exercising my philosophical objection to hereditary titles. Nothing personal.

Jim
December 7, 2012 3:56 pm

Warm Christmas Cheers to Monckton!

RockyRoad
December 7, 2012 3:59 pm

Carter says:
December 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm


But seen as you are denying the vast majority of scientific evidence then logically you must be a denier!

Was wondering if you could help us out a bit, Carter: Everybody here believes the earth is warming up–it’s that part where man is causing a big (or even small) portion of it.
Could you please give us links to one or two scientific papers that prove this anthropogenic thingy–using verifiable science, that is. (And no, web sites that spin a yarn or tell a tale won’t do–and please make sure your links to these scientific papers aren’t pay-walled.)
Thanks in advance.

Pete Wirfs
December 7, 2012 4:03 pm

I believe the suggestion that the lack of atmospheric warming in the last 16 years (which I believe is a cherry pick and also doesn’t show cooling.) is proof global warming has stopped is just as silly (immature?) as when my 8 year old child tells me they don’t need to wear a coat this evening because it was warm at lunch time. They can only be convinced otherwise when they hear about the other lines of evidence that yes, it is expected to get cold in the evening. But if the child refuses to listen to the alternative lines of evidence that do not conform to their beliefs, then they run out of the house without their coat and suffer the consequences several hours later.
Keep your eyes on the multiple lines of empirical science, or you may find you are running out of the house without your coat on. (I’m particularly worried about ocean heat content trends.)

Zeke
December 7, 2012 4:13 pm

How convenient for the UN’s internet summit in Dubai and Cop18 to be so close geographically, and held simultaneously, in December.
“The ITU is holding the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai from Dec. 3-15 on the topic of the Internet, and in so doing, has garnered criticism in some quarters that it might be making some kind of power grab to try and control Internet regulation. Among the critics has been the hacktivist group Anonymous, which this week issued a call to its adherents to launch an online attack on the ITU, an action that succeeded in some part.”
I am not a fan of Anonymous in every case, but they reportedly have hacked the computers at the WCIT meeting in Dubai. ANONYMOUS – OPERATION ITU- WCIT

Aussie Luke Warm
December 7, 2012 4:13 pm

There was an arm that not quite got in the way of the footage of Viscount Monckton. As it lolled there on the back of the head rest it sort of suggested that the bludger to whom it belonged was asleep.
Any MSM airing of this fabulous footage?

richardscourtney
December 7, 2012 4:15 pm

Pete Wirfs:
Your post at December 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm seems to imply willful disregard of the significance of the recent period of no discernible warming at 95% confidence.
Please read my post at December 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm which explains your error.
Richard

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 7, 2012 4:17 pm

Hmmmn.
Peter: YOU are the one demanding immediate and catastrophic action certain to kill millions through lack of affordable energy (bad water, no sewage treatment, no transportation, bad food processing and storage, and corruption of an UN/EU dictatorship based on carbon restrictions on the innocents least able to help themselves.
Now, if your 8 year old pointed out that there is NO increase in average yearly/monthly/daily temperatures for 16 years, why should HE bankrupt HIS future and die early from starvation and illness due to YOUR assumed religion of man-caused global warming?
Your religion will not kill me. My caution – my demand to see real evidence of actual man-caused harm through CO2 releases and cheaper energy – will save billions of lives. As it has saved billions the past 100 years through better water, better sewage and food treatment, better transportation, and more growth.
YOUR fears of a non-existent “harm” based on prejudices and nonsense – WILL kill your son’s generation. Deliberately kill millions, and harm billions, I will add – based on the public statements of your theistic religious leaders.

James Ard
December 7, 2012 4:18 pm

I only wonder how many times Lord Monkton pressed that button. My guess is he was nailing it towards the end of every speech. Godspeed, you ballsy son of a pistol.

Sean
December 7, 2012 4:30 pm

Pete Wirfs says: “I came here to lay some astroturf…”

Editor
December 7, 2012 4:32 pm

Carter.Please tell me how the climate is changing because there has been a rise from 290 to 380 molecules of CO2 per 1,000,000 molecules of all the other gases in the atmosphere? Can you also confirm that these extra 90/1,000,000 molecules have been produced by mankind?

Sean
December 7, 2012 4:33 pm

Its odd how the UN willfully disregards, the UN declaration on human rights and now thinks that free speech is a crime. Or maybe it is less odd and more so criminal. Again I call for a halt to all funding of the UN.

RockyRoad
December 7, 2012 4:45 pm

Peter Wirfs: As a geologist I recommend that you pray (or at least be thankful) for every warm day between now and when the next Ice Age kicks in. Because when that happens, everybody will be sitting around flagelatting themselves with their own belts that they were worried about a little warmth when their big (and I do mean BIG) problem will be wondering how we’ll all survive.
Go take a peek at what happens to temperatures with the onset of an Ice Age. Subtract that from the average temperatures where you currently live (weather.com is a good source), and figure out how you’ll even be able to grow carrots there.
Then go find how long scientists figure it takes for the earth to revert from a typical temperate Interglacial climate back into the next Ice Age. Palynologists will help you there.
And then try to get some sleep tonight.

dmacleo
December 7, 2012 4:51 pm

well done sir, well done.
I also enjoy your articles over at worldnetdaily.
thank you for being the right person in the right place at the right times and being right enough to do whats right 🙂

JBirks
December 7, 2012 4:51 pm

I’m wondering how Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself these days, one of the poorest countries on earth, is sending a delegation to Qatar in the first place. Also, what “party” was their delegation attending?

Ben D.
December 7, 2012 4:52 pm

Well RT has given Christopher excellent coverage…
http://rt.com/news/climate-change-summit-failure-518/

richardscourtney
December 7, 2012 5:03 pm

Sean:
At December 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm you write

Its odd how the UN willfully disregards, the UN declaration on human rights and now thinks that free speech is a crime. Or maybe it is less odd and more so criminal. Again I call for a halt to all funding of the UN.

NO! Your comment shows a lack of understanding of the courage displayed by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
Observers to a Conference are allowed to observe and they do not have a right to participate. And this is true whomever organised the Conference. Free speech does NOT include taking the seat of an official delegate to a Conference then using that position to address the Conference.
But Lord Monckton did that as a deliberate act of civil disobedience to enable those present and others observing at the Doha CoP to hear important pertinent and factual information which otherwise would not have been presented.
His act of civil disobedience was conducted in a country which is not noted for its record on Human Rights. Any such act in such a place is an act of bravery.
Richard

Bruce Cobb
December 7, 2012 5:04 pm

@ Pete Wirfs, for the umpteenth time, it is illogical to call the last 16 years a “cherry pick”. The starting date is today, and tomorrow the starting date will be then, and in years’ time the period of no warming, or possibly even cooling will be 17 years.

December 7, 2012 5:14 pm

Lord Monckton said

“An eco-freako journalist, quivering with unrighteous indignation, wrote that I had been “evicted”. Well, not really. All they did was to say a cheery toodle-pip at the end of that day’s session. They couldn’t have been nicer about it.
The journalist mentioned my statement to my fellow-delegates that there had been no global warming for 16 years. What she was careful not to mention was that she had interviewed me at some length earlier in the day. She had sneered that 97% of climate scientists thought I was wrong.

I think the journalist may have been a little confused. However biased the 2009 survey might have been, it asked two questions.
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
From what I have heard of Lord Monckton I think who would agree with the 97% on both of these questions. On the second, he would probably say less than a third of warming in the last 200 years has been caused by “human activity”, as apposed to greater than 100% of the climate mainstream. Even 10% would be significant, and worthy of some investigation.

clipe
December 7, 2012 5:41 pm

AD-HOM ALERT
By JOHN M. BRODER
Few would compare a United Nations climate change conference to a garden party, but a pair of skeptical skunks showed up on Thursday in the persons of Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Benchley. The two make a habit of descending on climate summits and trying to debunk both the science and the politics of global warming. Mostly they generate eye-rolling and wry blog posts.
Friday, 7:26 a.m. Eastern time| Updated
Lord Monckton was ejected from the conference late Thursday after he posed as a delegate to gain entrance to the meeting hall and took the seat of the representative from Myanmar. Before he was identified as an imposter, he was allowed to speak and said — against most scientific evidence — that there had been no global temperature rise since the beginning of the United Nations climate negotiations. He was quickly escorted from the room and banned from the meeting.
A United Nations spokeswoman said that Lord Monckton was registered with a nongovernmental organization, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and that his posing as a delegate “was considered a clear violation of his status as a representative of that organization.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/snapshots-from-doha-and-elsewhere/

Skiphil
December 7, 2012 6:20 pm

Brilliant exposure of Alarmist follies…. however, if James Hansen and Stephan Lewandowsky have their way then Lord Monckton and all of us cheering for him will be tried for “crimes against humanity” — More Lew-spew to contrast with the sensible statements of Monckton: climate hallucinator Stephan Lewandowsky channels some of the more extreme nonsense put out by the hyper-Alarmists:
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-real-debate-on-climate-is-happening-in-san-francisco-11209

[LEWANDOWSKY]:
…There is, however, one issue that is not being debated: Nowhere is there a debate about the fundamental facts that the globe is rapidly warming and that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for that warming.
That scientific debate ceased decades ago.
It is only in the fantasy world of climate denial that ignorant chatter about those physical fundamentals continues, to the detriment of the public which would be better served without such distracting noise….
….
…Dr. Jim Hansen, one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who first alerted the world to the risks from climate change decades ago, gave a presentation on Tuesday night. A patrician figure, he was greeted with a standing ovation even though the message he had to deliver, based on the latest available science, was far from encouraging. Decades ago, Dr. Hansen predicted events such as Hurricane Sandy, and he has been warning about the implications of climate change ever since.
Dr. Hansen expressed the view that the professional dis-informers who facilitate and encourage climate denial, and who obstruct and delay a solution to the problem at great cost in dollars and human lives in support of their own short-term greed or ideological agenda, ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.

December 7, 2012 6:42 pm

joeldshore said “You are basically just using the fact that the trend is sufficiently uncertain over such timescales and so it is hard to rule out lots of things with 95% statistical significance”
You’ve missed the point as usual. The highest-per-capita CO2 producers from Qatar who appear in that video don’t care about your fact any more than Monckton’s. They don’t care about facts at all, just piling on to the “do something now before we all die like the Philippines” fake argument. What Monckton did was call out their charade in the simplest possible terms. You’ve agreed his argument is factual. You’ve wisely avoided commenting on the other part of his argument which you would also have to agree is factual.

Philip Shehan
December 7, 2012 6:43 pm

“It hasn’t warmed for 16 years” Huh?
In the 16 year period since 1996, the temperature has increased. (WTI index is created from the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1995/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1996/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2013/trend
If you want to cherry pick your data properly to get your desired result, you should start with the exceptionally high el nino southern summer of 1997-1998 and even then there is a slight upward trend. But don’t wait until 1999 to start your cherry picking , because then you are back to the same rate of increase as in 1996.
Cherry pickers hate using the most scientifically legitimate data set, that obtained from the beginning of these data sets in 1979 to the present, but just to indicate the kind of fun you can have with cherry picking, consider this. 1979 to the present is significantly upward, the line from 1979 to 2007 is even steeper. So the line from 2008 to the present must be really downward right?
Well no, trend from 2008 to the present is the steepest of the lot!!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2013/trend/plot/wti/from:1979/to:2007/trend/plot/wti/from:2008/to:2013/trend

Christopher Hanley
December 7, 2012 6:48 pm

“… shrieks of rage from the delegates … Outrage! Silence him! …. Gettimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh! …”
============================================
If the good delegates’ real concern was the welfare of humanity they would welcome any indication that the planet was not headed for catastrophe.
Christopher Monckton’s article is, as usual, crisp and good humoured. My only reservation, which will raise no hackles here, is the assumption that the surface temperature record since c.1880 is authentic and has not been tampered with by the respective principal custodians in collusion, both of whom are CAGW devotees and were even before any post-war warming was evident.

n.n
December 7, 2012 6:49 pm

Independent thought is an impediment to coercing a consensus. While the science remains unsettled, the political, economic, and social benefits to leaders and activists were previously identified.
The longer this charade continues, the more it resembles a naked grab of power and capital through manipulation of perception, appeals to emotion, and exploitation of people’s baser nature. This is exactly the tactics employed by left-wing (i.e. authoritarian monopoly) regimes to establish and preserve their control of a society.
What a joke!

December 7, 2012 6:55 pm

I wish more people would have the guts of Christopher Monckton to speak out at the opportune time on this subject!!!

Jeff Alberts
December 7, 2012 7:00 pm

Step 1. Get the monthly mean global surface temperature anomalies since January 1997 from the Hadley Centre/CRU.

With all due respect, Lord Monckton, a “mean global surface temperature anomaly” is a completely useless construct for determining the heat content of the atmosphere. As long as both sides continue to parade out this completely meaningless thing, we will never get anywhere. You might as well argue about whether Solo fired first.

December 7, 2012 7:02 pm

Philip Shehan, you’ve missed the point as well. The predictions for 0.2C per decade or more warming are almost 2x too high. The recent modest warming is a scientific triviality worthy of no serious discussion or policy changes. The conference is wrapped in a cloak of seriousness with the very serious looking local delegates trying their best to avoid admitting their hypocrisy and paying out too much (or any) of their own loot to the alleged victims. Monckton simply pointed out that the delegates have no clothes, their rapid warming CAGW facade is fake and their policy debates are meaningless.

Steve from Rockwood
December 7, 2012 7:05 pm

vukcevic says:
December 7, 2012 at 10:39 am
———————————————
That was worth reading.

D Böehm
December 7, 2012 7:07 pm

Philip Shehan,
Most climate alarmists suffer from psychological projection. It is you who are cherry-picking. You make the argument that starting at 1997 is cherry-picking — and then you cherry-pick 1979.
If you want to view the trend you need to go as far back in time as there are reasonably accurate records.
The long term natural global warming trend has not accelerated, despite a 40% rise in CO2. Therefore, CO2 is too insignificant to have any measurable effect.
Finally, your alarmist arm waving over a few tenths of a degree is appropriate for a wild-eyed lunatic, but it is within the calibration error of the recording instruments. When viewed with a normal y-axis, your scare vanishes.
Better run along back to Pseudo-skeptical Anti-science or RealClimateCensoredPropaganda for some new talking points. The ones you posted have been repeatedly debunked here. That’s why WUWT gets the site traffic and your alarmist blogs don’t. This is the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site, and misinformation like you posted gets corrected fast.

Nick in Vancouver
December 7, 2012 7:22 pm

Mostly Harmless. Why did Watt Tyler lead a revolt of thousands against the Aristocrats? Most likely the poll tax – imposed by the Crown – which targeted the tenanted poor more than the landed wealthy – plus ca change…
How did Tyler die? Apparently he went unarmed and alone -duhhh- to negotiate with the King under truce and was promptly siezed and beheaded on the spot.
If Lord Monckton is to be the new Tyler, methinks the good Lord should be backed up by several large, well-muscled followers, all armed and ready for negotiations. The precautionary principle and all that. When rent seekers get your cash, history shows they will do anything, lawful or otherwise, to hold on to it….plus c’est la même chose

Gunga Din
December 7, 2012 7:24 pm

I have to wonder if many, or at least some, of the delegates had never heard that fact before. We see so many Algore types being knowingly deceitful that it’s easy to forget that some of the higher ups honestly believe the pap that they’ve been fed. Maybe this is the stone that causes an avalanche? We can only hope.
(And keep stealing the mike.8-)
PS No, I’m not holding my breath.

n.n
December 7, 2012 7:29 pm

Jeff Alberts:
Exactly. Unless there is an overwhelming change in global conditions, then that metric is irrelevant and even meaningless. The only legitimate and useful metric is restricted to local and regional effects.
That said, while it risks offering legitimacy to their arguments, it can be useful to confront them on their manufactured grounds.
I wonder how they explain the carbon credit exchange and developing nations anomalies. Setting aside that the system remains incompletely characterized and its scope ensures it will remain unwieldy to model, those two anomalies alone challenge acceptance of a consensus, and the latter challenge acceptance of their claimed skill and accuracy.

Harry van Loon
December 7, 2012 7:36 pm

It is sad to see all the commotion about man-made global warming when we face real, dangerous things such as pollution of air, water, and soil; abuse of non-renewable resources; extinction of flora and fauna; and last but not least continuing population growth. In the 1920s the world’s population was fewer than 2 billion, now it is more than 7 billion and rising. If there is a man-made warming we must adjust to it, we can change neither that nor natural climate variability.

Gary Pearse
December 7, 2012 7:44 pm

Russian Times seems to give Lord Monckton some credit for squelching any agreement. Personally, although it probably helped to cause some to face up to what they have been trying to deny, I think the majority has come to the conclusion that the dire emergency just isn’t there. Look at the importance to these guys of adding bits to the warming temp, revising history in lowering their 1990s estimate of global average temp from 15C to 14C to bend cooling back to warming, shoving the unmistakeable record high Temp period of the 1930s down a degree or so, so that it wouldn’t still be a record for the last 160 yrs, abandoning the Greenland ice cores that show temp leading CO2 and its cyclic nature at a time when there was hardly anything anthropgenic, picking only trees with rings that support the cause – even using imaginary ‘missing’ rings as evidence of underestimation of volcanic aerosol cooling……,
Ya know, if things are so desperate, we could leave the data raw and it would eventually yield an unequivocal signal. If sea level is going to 4-6 metres by 2100 (we’re one eight the the way to that date already- we are a third into a century since the alarm was raised) then the 1000 months remaining would see accummulating rises of 4 to 6mm a month and 50 to 70 mm a year. No need to adjust this with addition of 0.3mm a year gravitational rebound. Actually the tide guages would eventually be a few metres less than the “official” levels if they are wrong. Let’s wait until 2020 before we waste another dime.

mike
December 7, 2012 7:58 pm

Brietbart would approve!

Werner Brozek
December 7, 2012 8:01 pm

Philip Shehan says:
December 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm
”It hasn’t warmed for 16 years” Huh?
That IS in fact the case for RSS and others are not far behind.
The negative slope for RSS is since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November).
However in view of the significance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years. Therefore RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

December 7, 2012 8:02 pm

Ahhhhh……. Speaking truth to power
This, ladies and gentlemen, is as far as our species has made it…….during this interglacial
Fascinating!

RoHa
December 7, 2012 8:06 pm

“an impressive indaba of stony-faced U.N. officials”
“Indaba” seems the right term to use for such a tribal gathering.

RockyRoad
December 7, 2012 8:09 pm

So would the Russians now give the scepter to Czar Monckton? Should they scrap the “Lord” title and call him King Monckton in Great Britain?
I mentioned earlier this ad lib sequitur by Monckton might be the death knell of CAGW; it might be what sinks the good ship “UN Climate“.
I would be honored to serve even as a lowly jester in King Monckton’s court.

mbw
December 7, 2012 8:24 pm

@ Carter: The folks here believe the d-word is associated with “holocaust deniers” who are antisemitic or even neo-fascist. I have never bought this argument, but it is their site so when I occasionally post here I respect their rules. Oh, and don’t bother trying to debate the science with them.

December 7, 2012 8:24 pm

Touché, Lord Monckton, touché.
.

D Böehm
December 7, 2012 8:42 pm

mbw says:
“Oh, and don’t bother trying to debate the science with them.”
mbw has learned his lesson the hard way: scientific skeptics have won the debate based on real science and real world observations. It is the propaganda debate that is being fought over, and which the mendacious climate alarmist cult has relied on for their part of the argument. Cases in point are Carter’s constant ad hominem fallacies, which take the place of logical thinking — something that Carter cannot handle.
But the science debate has clearly been won by skeptics, who have routinely skewered the alarmist crowd with scientific facts and empirical observations. Unfortunately, we have passed the Enlightenment, and we now appear to be entering a new Dark Age, run by the Idiocracy. Burn the witches!

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 7, 2012 8:52 pm

Lord Monckton,
Wonderfully done. Bravo! It must be an incredible shock for them to realize that there is a world outside their bubble (and cellphones 😉
FWIW, there are cycles longer than 60 years as well. There is a high probability that we are at the end of a 1500 year cycle (when things warm) just before they plunge into cold (relatively speaking). In that case, CO2 becomes quite irrelevant.
I have a suggestion: Authorize a T-Shirt with your image upon it, and the number “16”…
Each year a new one… I’ll be buying a couple each year…

Philip Shehan
December 7, 2012 8:56 pm

D Böehm : December 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Of course i was cherry picking. That was the point of my post (Philip Shehan says:
December 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm). You can get any result you like if you cherry pick years. Werner Brozek , December 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm, refines this to years and months! More fun with cherry picking:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gi
The long term warming since the industrial revolution is clear and not, as Monckton wrongly assumes, linear:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

Steve D
December 7, 2012 8:59 pm

‘There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.’
No, you cannot say there has been no warming. You need another type of statistical analysis in order to show that a negative is true. From your analysis, all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.
Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it.

D Böehm
December 7, 2012 9:23 pm

Philip Shehan,
Please, stop posting totally bogus, fabricated charts from your “unreliable” blog [see the WUWT sidebar for details].
The Wood For Trees [WFT] site uses verifiable data, which contradicts your ridiculous propaganda. There has been zero acceleration of [natural] global warming since the LIA [the green line shows the long term declining trend].
If you are going to use mendaciously fabricated, unsourced, pretend data, the go-to climate propaganda source is the ‘unreliable’ climate alarmist blog Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science. But they are not credible. If you want credibility, at least stick with the WFT databases.
The fact is that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years — much less any accelerated global warming. So who should we believe, a failed cartoonist’s thinly-trafficked propaganda blog, or Planet Earth? The answer is obvious.

spvincent
December 7, 2012 9:29 pm

[snip. Some folks never seem to learn that “denier”, “denialist”, etc., are not tolerated here. — mod.]

Werner Brozek
December 7, 2012 9:36 pm

From your analysis, all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.
This is very true, but I am ‘playing’ NOAA’s game with their goal posts and have proven that Earth ‘scored a goal’.
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Richard D.
December 7, 2012 9:37 pm

Now this gives new meaning to speaking truth to power. Lord Monckton is a gem, whose whit and mental acumen remind me of William F. Buckley, Jr. (RIP).

Mark and two Cats
December 7, 2012 9:37 pm

“The 18th Climate Change Summit in Doha is drawing to an end after once again failing to find common consensus on what it calls a major threat to human existence. Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.”
—————————————————-
Send him to every one!

observa
December 7, 2012 9:39 pm

Well Mr Monckton it seems you are not alone in challenging the current orthodoxies of identity politics although if you’re not the right identity(climatologist?) you’ll naturally be regarded as a pariah or heretic for raising some unpleasant but obvious truths.
To the readers see if you can spot the parallels and similarities with an epiphany of healthy skepticism over the rapid rise of emotional orthodoxies among our new compassionatte classes here-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_comment31/
In particular read Kerryn Pholis Quadrant article in full for a wry smile at healthy skepticism and questioning the consensus and edicts of cosy inner circle and its implicit identity club rules.
Perhaps the worm is turning and we about to enter a new phase of evidential enquiry and what works rather than simply belonging to the right club and flaunting its moral badge in public. Mind you I don’t think the self-righteous occupying the taxpayer commanding heights will roll over that easily but there are some positive signs.

eyesonu
December 7, 2012 9:43 pm

“The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.”
====
Lord Monckton,
Perhaps you could have also mentioned that you noticed that several chairs appeared to have been abandoned and you just needed a place to sit. And then you noticed a microphone with a button on it and pressed it out of curiosity and they offered to let you speak. It’s not like you disrupted any other speaker or important ongoing dialog!
You really rattled some cages at the circus! Priceless.
+1

RockyRoad
December 7, 2012 9:44 pm

Steve D says:
December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm


Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it.

Or it may be so small as to be a non-problem.
And you can’t tell which, but either way, it may not matter.
(Don’tcha just love the word “may”? Look, there are a whole bunch of problems in the world that need solving without going about making stuff up just to have a problem to solve!)

Juan Slayton
December 7, 2012 10:04 pm

Monckton: I have been a bad boy.
That’s what happens when you hang out with a delinquent teenager.
: > )

A Crooks
December 7, 2012 10:26 pm

Well done – Lord Monckton of Burma

Philip Shehan
December 7, 2012 10:27 pm

D Boehm,
Yes, Wood For Trees does indeed use verifiable data, which is why I used it in my 6:43 pm post demonstrating the hazards of cherry picking which you originally objected to. Name calling and abuse is a tactic resorted to by those who have no substantive rebuttal. No scientist at any conference I have attended or spoken at ever engages in this.
In my second post the first link on cherry picking failed so I represent the page here (figure three is what I was specifically referring to). Note that the graphs and data are from peer reviewed references. They are not inventions of the Skeptical Science site. Kindly point out where this data is wrong if you can.

Manfred
December 7, 2012 10:37 pm

Could Russa set up an equivalent to Pulitzer or Nobel Prices, as the old one have gone rotten ?

Goode 'nuff
December 7, 2012 10:55 pm

In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made Qatari UN Climate Conference presidents… Plus delegates that are getting harder and harder to support in the style to which they’ve become accustomed.
They sure did get temperamental… about 98% temper and 2% mental!
Merry Christmas Christopher Monckton!

December 7, 2012 10:59 pm

As mentioned above, Monckton says he said: “There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.”
However, it looks to me like the lack of warming has been here for only 11 years according to smoother HadCRUT3:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Have a look at UAH:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Apply 5-year smoothing to that, and it looks like lower tropospheric temperature only failed to warm for the past 12 years.

James McCauley
December 7, 2012 11:03 pm

Every so often a science realist devotee’s effort flashes above the many normal scintillations of the other noble efforts – congratulations Lord Chris, you’ve done it again!
If only episodes like your latest could get to the general audiences. We have to keep up these soundly fact based events so they can’t be simply overwhelmed by the din of msm’s, the U.N.’s, the EPA’s and academia’s constant emotional, ideological and/or narcissistic fantasies.
Keep the efforts coming lords and ladies, guys and gals!

markx
December 7, 2012 11:06 pm

Steve D says: December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm
“….Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it…..”
Ha ha ha (choke …gasp) ha ha ha …..!! …I just love this argument…..
Wipes tears from eyes and asks: “Your point being, Steve?”

What-Was-That-Oh-A-Delegate-From-Doha-On-The-Slab!
December 7, 2012 11:16 pm

Brilliant! Super timing. Great follow through. XD
And RT, i.e. the Russians of all who with the Japanese have run away screaming from Kyoto, now for audience appeal try to fain indignation. We I do hope RT gets a few more hits but like the carbon-coin market will be short lived.
Wonder if Al Gore’s lawyers are suing AGU for the AGU’s President’s usage of an unflattering image of Al Gore vomiting fire like Godzilla.
Well.
AGU has come to an end even if COP18 can’t or the government zombies refuse to die peacefully. There was a time when I really enjoyed ‘mopping up’ operations in various countries of the world.
Bravo Lord and May God Save the Queen and All that.
Cheers

gerge e. smith
December 7, 2012 11:30 pm

Very nicely played Christopher.
Could it be that the World is even more indebted to the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, than they were to the first Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
And you do it in such style. Thank you your Lordship.
George E. Smith

Philip Shehan
December 7, 2012 11:32 pm

D Boehm,
Regarding your assertion that your link shows there has been no acceleration in warming trend while condemning the data and fit from Skeptical science. Compare the two figures you will see that the temperature data are essentiually the same.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.15/detrend:-0.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.4/detrend:-0.18/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5/plot/hadcrut3vnh/scale:0.00001/offset:-1.5
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
Your plot looks flatter because your multiple use of offsets means that the temperature scale is compressed with respect to the time scale. The ratio of the scales is essentially arbitrary and has no physical significance.
Wood for trees does not have an option for non linear fits so you are stuck with a linear fit. There is no reason to expect that the plot should be linear. The Skeptical Science plot has used a non linear fit (unfortunately it does not give the function but it looks exponential). This line has a correlation coefficient R2 of 0.8412. No correlation coefficient is supplied for your linear fit, but eyeballing the green line clearly shows that it does not fit as well with the data as the non-linear fit

Hot under the collar
December 8, 2012 12:02 am

When Monckton said “There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons” the delegate behind him looked as if he was about to choke on his carbon credits!

Fred
December 8, 2012 12:28 am

Is this what you would call COPTUS INTERUPTUS

John Archer
December 8, 2012 12:35 am

I love it!
So, the Apostolic High Priests at the Inner Temple of the Holy Planet Ziggurat of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have excommunicated the evil heretic Lord Monckton for upsetting a lot of bent Gaia botherers with a truth display and ejected him into the outer darkness of the real world.
Excellent! Go Monckton! Next time you’re minded to venture in their direction, kindly ratchet up the upsetting a few notches — gatecrash the event, burn their Temple down and napalm the lot of them. You’re a man of means. Please see to it. Metaphorically speaking of course.
Well maybe. For sure I wouldn’t lose any sleep one way or the other. In fact…. 🙂

AndyG55
December 8, 2012 12:41 am

SteveD
“all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.”
roflmao..mrh
or COOLING may have occurred and you have not detected it.
or a pink elephant flew across the sky.. and you failed to detect it.

AndyG55
December 8, 2012 12:46 am

tiresome and boring when NOTHING UNTOWARD IS HAPPENING, isn’t it !!!
oh.. expect plant life being really happy 😉
I like trees.. do you ???
its all right though…
DON’T PANIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Billy
December 8, 2012 12:52 am

Donald L. Klipstein says:
December 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Apply 5-year smoothing to that, and it looks like lower tropospheric temperature only failed to warm for the past 12 years.
——————————————————————————————–
Yes, yes, and with fifty or hundred or thousand year smoothing you could eliminate any trend.
Your point?

richardscourtney
December 8, 2012 12:59 am

Steve D:
At December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm You write in total

There has been no warming – or, to be mathematically nerdy, there has been no statistically-significant warming.

No, you cannot say there has been no warming. You need another type of statistical analysis in order to show that a negative is true. From your analysis, all you can only say is that you have not detected any warming in 16 years.
Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it.

OK.
I have malevolent faeries at the bottom of my garden. They are so small it is beyond your ability to detect them, but they may cause severe harm at some time in the future.
I need money to defend against the faeries so I intend to take the money from you to do it.
Don’t complain. Just give me the money.
Richard

DirkH
December 8, 2012 1:14 am

Steve D says: December 7, 2012 at 8:59 pm
“….Warming may have occurred but it is below your ability to detect it…..”
It’s a pity that the UN top honcho didn’t think of that to counter Lord Monckton’s argument. That would have cleared things up and we would have a Global Warming treaty now, probably one that agrees on paying an infinite amount of money for an undetectable amount of warming… 🙂

richardscourtney
December 8, 2012 1:21 am

Donald L. Klipstein:
You move the goal posts to off the planet in your post at December 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm.
Your post says in total

As mentioned above, Monckton says he said: “There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.”
However, it looks to me like the lack of warming has been here for only 11 years according to smoother HadCRUT3:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Have a look at UAH:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Apply 5-year smoothing to that, and it looks like lower tropospheric temperature only failed to warm for the past 12 years.

It does not matter what you think “smoothing” makes the data “looks like”.
In 2008 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in its State of the Climate Report for 2008 (page 23)

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Please note the strength of that statement:
it says the climate models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more. But that has happened according to all the major global climate temperature data sets (except the totally corrupted GISSTEMP): as Werner Brozek reports in his post at December 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend
And if you want to use the corrupted GISSTEMP then you need to explain this
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
The models represent the understandings of climate promoted by e.g. the IPCC.
The more than 15 years of no discernible warming at 95% confidence shows the models are wrong.

Richard

December 8, 2012 1:37 am

Isn’t it significant that Lord Monckton’s one minute address had such a impact on a two week (80 hour, 480 minute) conference by the official rent seekers (we can’t call them experts) trying to influence the future of the planet, in the interests of all mankind? sarc. Lord Monckton you have done the planet a great service.

LazyTeenager
December 8, 2012 1:51 am

• There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.
————-
True, but misleading. That 16 years of “no trend” can be asserted over and over again by selecting any number of 16 year ranges from the last 100 years of warming.
Chris just has a total lack of skill when it comes to interpreting graphs showing a lot of random variation.
Having spent a fair amount of time staring at real time charts looking for a signal I know from personal experience how easy it is to get your hopes up over some noise blip or other.
Very often the blips are just noise not real signal. Takes a stubborn person not to learn from these mistakes. Chris is real stubborn.
For more context about whether the recent temperature variation looks like any other random wandering on the trend graph look here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#section_2

LazyTeenager
December 8, 2012 1:59 am

And here is a riddle for you.
If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.
So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason.
Anyone like to suggest why the trend in UHI is flat? Has urbanization stopped? Has China stopped developing? Has South America stopped developing? Has Africa stopped developing? Has Canada etccc. stopped building sprawling cities?
What could explain this?

richardscourtney
December 8, 2012 2:17 am

LazyTeenager:
Your post at December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am is plain wrong for the reason explained in my post at December 8, 2012 at 1:21 am.
And your use of wicki as evidence is laughable
(as a UK Law Lord very recently discovered to his cost
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9723296/Wikipedia-the-25-year-old-student-and-the-prank-that-fooled-Leveson.html )
Richard

kwik
December 8, 2012 2:37 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am
This confirms Einsteins saying. A couple of sentences, and the thruth is revealed. The emperor has no clothes!!! Yikes!!!

tango
December 8, 2012 2:40 am

It made my day I want all sceptics to send this Youtube clip on to everybody they know

DaveF
December 8, 2012 2:46 am

Mods:
Perhaps you could show again the UK Met Office graph they published a few weeks ago that showed no warming for 15 or 16 years. That should stop some of the argument. Thanks.

Kaboom
December 8, 2012 2:52 am

This was the highlight of my week. Good work, Monckton of Brenchley, good work!

Roger
December 8, 2012 3:08 am

Christopher practising civil disobedience 😉
Loved every second of it 🙂

AndyG55
December 8, 2012 3:14 am

LT.. obviously the UHI effect has slowed, as most once rural stations have now been swallowed and its becoming much harder for GISS and HAD to justify/hide their upward trend adjustments.
Too many people are now watching them
Also, since there are still some small amount of urban and mannipulation effects, the REAL global temperature is actually dropping, in line with the inactivity of the sun.
Thanks for pointing this out !!

markx
December 8, 2012 3:20 am

Just looked a the RT article.
Nicely reported!
Monckton of Brenchley’s statement is reported in full, and really is the main focus of the whole article!

Sigmundb
December 8, 2012 3:21 am

I can understand the temptation and accept the prank (must have been only humorous talk for a full week) but please not do it again.
Self-rightous, above the law vigilanteism is best left to the other side, we should stay on the high ground. In the long term term that tends to be the winning tactic.
PS: The video is priceless, you are so out of script but only the chair and some officials clearly gets the points. A true “the emperor has no cloths on” moment. A little sad the process is so railroaded it will not matter at all but that is UN.

Steveta_uk
December 8, 2012 3:30 am

“Failure seemed inevitable after climate skeptic Lord Monckton crashed the event.”
Surely just an attribution of sequence rather than blame.

Steveta_uk
December 8, 2012 3:31 am

“So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason.”
Logic FAIL here – it means that UHI must be keeping temps flat, so real temps are FALLING!!!!!

Andrew Pearson
December 8, 2012 3:46 am

This reminds me of the young boy in the story of the emperor’s new clothes!

SanityP
December 8, 2012 3:54 am

I am proposing that someone should set up a conference to solve the climate conference crisis
/sarc

Crispin in Johannesburg
December 8, 2012 3:59 am

@joeldshore
“So, if you don’t want to be “mathematically-nerdy”, you could just as easily say “The warming rate for the past 16 years has not changed from the warming rate during the 1975-1997 period.””
+++++++
Well you sure got that wrong! There was statistically significant global warming from 1975-1997. That is held to be the proof of anthropogenic CO2 working its evil mischief in our thermometers.
There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1997. That is a very different situation. The warming has stopped inferring that the rise in the 1975-1997 period may have been created by other causes. As about 1/3 of all human-sourced CO2 has emitted since 1997, it is already evident that CO2 has no detectable influence on the global temperature. If it was detectable with confidence (95%) the signal would be larger than the error bars. It is not.

chinook
December 8, 2012 4:02 am

Even in the face of clear evidence that Earth isn’t burning to a crisp as charlatans and ‘experts’ keep insisting is and will be happening and temperature trends fluctuate with a barely perceptible increase, despite an increase of some so-called ghg’s, there are some who are quite disturbed by this. And although this is [or should be] good news for all earth citizens, many are disturbed by this. One of the things I do is help someone who suffers from cognitive impairment which can’t be helped, but it is disturbing when those with well-functioning cognitive systems indulge in cognitive dissonance or some other disorder in order to deny that the Earth isn’t about to burn up and are quite upset that mankind can no longer be blamed for the earth-combustion that’s not going to happen and so can’t be legitimately punished and precious $ sources may dry up. The stubborn and wealthy Al Gore’s, et al will never concede and return to reality since that would mean having to agree that Earth doesn’t really have a Fever and agreeing with skeptical and honest citizens.

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2012 4:07 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
Your “questions” are absurd and idiotic, even for you. The FACT that there has been no further warming the past 16 years has nothing to do with the FACT that UHI, as well as other factors such as stations in rural areas dropping out worldwide (except the U.S.) has been responsible for a significant (perhaps as much as 50%) portion of the reported warming. Most of the worlds’ weather stations are concentrated in the U.S. now. You and your brethren are grasping at increasingly flimsy straws.

wikeroy
December 8, 2012 4:10 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
“And here is a riddle for you. ”
Mr. Teenager, I have a suggestion for you; Get some education within process control. You would then immediately understand that there could be another explanation; The temperature is actually decreasing……

dennisambler
December 8, 2012 4:17 am

I commend Lord Monckton on his activities and that of CFACT, including the tireless Marc Morano, at COP 18, however it ain’t dead yet.
If you want to see what sort of a party they were having, look at the galleries here:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/26nov.html
Check out Christian Figueres and her Media man, ex-Reuters SE Asia Editor, Eric Hall, in his Chairman Mao tunic. http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/images/30nov/DSC_4140_cfpress.jpg
See some social justice here: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/images/4dec/DSC_5961.jpg
Check out John Schellnhuber pulling in new contracts for his Potsdam Institute, with Qatar signing on the dotted line for a new Climate institute, http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/5dec.html. That will be another one to add to the “consensus”.
Have a look at the links at the bottom of the gallery pages where the real work takes place. All manner of things are negotiated behind closed doors with the full involvement and co-operation of our governments. Billions are promised on our behalf and they meet all year round. Even though countries such as Canada have pulled out of Kyoto, they are still pushing loadsa money into the whole system. Western countries actually pay for poor countries such as Myanmar to attend.
Environment Canada – Minister Kent Announces International Climate Funding (Durban last year) http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=B37E3BE6-5D04-4566-B674-677A20213456
“Canada’s contribution is for three years. An initial contribution of $400 million is already starting to produce results and today, the Government is announcing further investments of almost $600 million for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.”
Here’s where the money went in 2010-11: http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=5F50D3E9-1
“As part of our commitment to provide our fair share of fast-start financing, Canada is contributing $1.2 billion in new and additional climate change financing for the fiscal years 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/2013. This is Canada’s largest ever contribution to support international efforts to address climate change. It is focused on three priority areas – adaptation, clean energy, and forests and agriculture.”
http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/fast_start_finance_progress_report_canada_-_final.pdf
The UK just committed £2 billion of new money: http://www.thegwpf.org/2-billion-uk-funds-green-investments-africa/ and it was at Copenhagen that Hilary Clinton announced that, “the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries.”
As long as our politicians give away money that we haven’t got, this Hydra headed monster will not die.

AndyG55
December 8, 2012 4:19 am

And using wikipedia as a climate reference… seriously???
Next you’ll be citing SkS…. or your junior high school notes !

Edim
December 8, 2012 4:21 am

“And here is a riddle for you.
If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.
So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason. ”
Once again, a warmist show how illogical and indoctrinated one has to be, to believe in AGW.

Nigel S
December 8, 2012 4:37 am

Crashed in the sense of a Kamikaze or ‘divine wind’ I assume, thank goodness someone has found a use for wind (speaking truth to) power.

MLCross
December 8, 2012 4:39 am

“The most eye-catching moment was likely when Lord Monckton, a staunch critic of the climate change movement, gate crashed the summit by disguising himself as a delegate from Myanmar.”
“disguising himself”? It’s not a disguise. He’s always looked Myanmarese.

SanityP
December 8, 2012 4:41 am

Why aren’t there any regular Anti-AGW Climate Conferences ?

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2012 4:54 am

It was pretty much doomed to fail from the start, but Lord Monckton can take at least some of the credit for helping that happen.
Lazy, your “questions” are becoming increasingly ridiculous, even for you. I guess it must be difficult for you, having your Warmist ideology collapsing, leaving you to flail away helplessly.

DirkH
December 8, 2012 4:57 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
“Anyone like to suggest why the trend in UHI is flat? Has urbanization stopped? Has China stopped developing? Has South America stopped developing? Has Africa stopped developing? Has Canada etccc. stopped building sprawling cities?
What could explain this?”
You’ve been around here for years so I guess you’re trolling as you must have seen the posts explaining it.
But even trolls need to eat, so here is your fodder:
Dr. roy Spencer, UHI
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/spencers-uhi-vs-population-project-an-update/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/03/spencer-using-hourly-surface-dat-to-gauge-uhi-by-population-density/

pat
December 8, 2012 5:06 am

Fairfax Media, which owns the following SMH, is sacking/making redundant hundreds & hundreds of journalists, but keeps on an army of CAGW hacks to write rubbish such as this:
9 Dec: Sydney Morning Herald: \Fake plastic trees and a volcanic push to keep the globe cool
by Ben Cubby, Tom Arup, Adam Morton and Nicky Phillips examine plans that range from the realistic to the wacky
Artificial volcanoes, ships that paint the clouds whiter, and forests of fake trees planted across the outback: some of the ”answers” to climate change sound like they’ve been torn from a science fiction magazine…
Estimates of the cost of plan ”B”, a comprehensive climate adaptation plan for Australia, vary widely. In general, the costs are governed by the principle laid out in the Garnaut Climate Change Review – the longer we wait, the higher the price.
That’s why scientists keep returning to plan ”A” as the only viable option – cutting greenhouse gas emissions, by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and other technologies. The longer the world waits, the more the cost of adapting to climate change escalates, and the higher the risks. And, barring an unforeseen technological breakthrough, the geoengineering hopes of plan ”C” are unlikely to do more than mask a portion of rising temperatures.”This is critical – we really need to see emissions start to come down in the next three to four years,” says Professor Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University climate change institute and a member of the government’s Climate Commission.
***Clarification
Part one in this series, published on Saturday, said a five-degree rise would increase the global average temperature from 14 degrees to 19 degrees. This is correct. It also said this would make the average day 35 per cent hotter. This may be misleading. Using the Kelvin scale, which places absolute zero at -273 degrees , an average day would be 1.7 per cent hotter.
This is a clarification in how the relative increase in temperature is expressed only. It does not affect the rest of the article, which describes what scientists believe a five-degree warmer world may look like and explained how projections of future temperature rises are made.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fake-plastic-trees-and-a-volcanic-push-to-keep-the-globe-cool-20121208-2b24u.html

pat
December 8, 2012 5:20 am

poor Fiona – not happy! anonymous quotes, let’s blame the hosts, don’t mention the one bright spot, Monckton’s 16 years:
7 Dec: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: Climate change talks deadlocked on final day of UN summit
Talks on a new climate deal ground (???) on through Friday night in Qatar, as countries failed to agree on key issues including: rescuing the Kyoto protocol, finance and compensation for poor countries suffering the effects of climate change, and how to structure a proposed new global climate change agreement.
The negotiations, which have gone on for more than a fortnight, looked set to last for most of Saturday. But the marathon session left many delegates hopeful of rescuing a deal amid the frustration and confusion of the night.
“We have worked without a break and people realise we need to go home with something,” said one delegate…
Rumours and counter-rumours were flying as ministers met in small groups and huddles of twos and threes to hammer out compromises. Some meetings were fractious, with delegates conscious of the need avoid a breakdown, which would be disastrous for the image of these talks with the eyes of the world upon the 195 governments meeting in Doha…
Talks started a fortnight ago with a limited agenda and a deal on the key issues looked likely. But in the final three days, during the so-called “ministerial segment” when environment ministers arrive to take over from officials, the talks got out of hand. Countries turned their back on compromises and retreated to their entrenched positions. Many blamed the Qatari hosts for failing to take a firm grip and allowing the negotiations to get out of hand.
One participant said: “It’s like the Qataris think it’s a World Cup, but this is not a game of football – these are serious negotiations about the future of the planet. They have not taken this seriously – they have not got a grip.”
Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defence Capital, said: “There’s a cultural mismatch between the Qatari team and this process. They think deal-making is beneath them. They are not managing very well.”
One delegate accused the Qataris of going home early on Thursday instead of working through the night on the draft texts, as hosts are expected to…
Qatar, the world’s third biggest exporter of natural gas, is also the world’s biggest per capita emitter of carbon – 50 tonnes a year, compared to 17 for the US and 1.4 for India. The country makes the majority of its $170bn annual income from oil and gas…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/08/climate-change-talks-deadlocked-summit

Steve O
December 8, 2012 5:26 am

Anyone who doubts the powerful influence of conformity and groupthink in the climate debate should ask themselves what it would take for a legitimate speaker to say the same things.
Who would be willing to be kicked out of the “in” group.and sacrifice status built up over the course of an entire career?

Silver Ralph
December 8, 2012 5:26 am

JBirks says: December 7, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I’m wondering how Myanmar, or whatever it’s calling itself these days, one of the poorest countries on earth, is sending a delegation to Qatar in the first place.
_____________________________________
Of course they are all attending. The rainbow at the end of these conferences contains pots of gold for all the indolent and disorganised nations of the Earth, that the West has to pay for. These deliberately Third World nations are all there with their snouts in the Western trough.

Crispin in Johannesburg
December 8, 2012 5:30 am

“Part one in this series, published on Saturday, said a five-degree rise would increase the global average temperature from 14 degrees to 19 degrees. ”
The energy required to do this is unlikely to be found from the sun alone. To warm the planet that much would require warming a significant portion of the volume of the oceans. That is just not going to happen in only a few millenia.

Robert of Ottawa
December 8, 2012 5:34 am

I liked the bewilderment of the chairman.

troe
December 8, 2012 5:38 am

Speak truth to power and mooches…. good on ya Monckton

Luther Wu
December 8, 2012 5:38 am

To: Lazy Teenager,
I’m giving you a link detailing “logical fallacies” in simple terms.
Many here might suggest that you compare your musings against this list before you post.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html

Kaboom
December 8, 2012 5:45 am

@SanityP Because “there’s nothing really we need to do” doesn’t afford governments an excuse to tax the people? So they’re much more happy to invest a few millions in conferences to squeeze their populations for billions in tax hikes which they can then spend on “social justice” programs to buy votes of the unproductive (many of which they’ve pushed into unproductivity with their policies, mind you).

dc 51
December 8, 2012 6:06 am

Don’t count your chickens yet, It’s not over till the fat lady sings.
They’ll agree on something even if it’s just where to have the next meeting. And as long as their still having meetings none of us can rest easy.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 8, 2012 6:28 am

Teenager:
Over the past 16 years, please identify exactly what parts and influences of the urban heat island effect have increased – over the regions where the UHI has influenced temperatures between 1850 and 2012.
That is, if New York’s Central Park thermometer reads +6 degrees C higher than a “ideal” thermometer located in the same place between 1650 and 1805 – when the Hudson regularly froze over, Washington faced ice flows, and Cornelius Vanderbilt had to fight the frozen waters between Staten Island and Manhattan – why would any UHI effect be different in 2012 as it was in 1996?
There has been no “urbanization” differences between Central Park and the nearest 60 miles between 1996 and today. Indeed, in many places across the US, Canada, and Europe, there is LESS activity the past 6 years than in 1996! There is NO UHI effect in most third world countries because the thermometer record don’t go past the cities already in place when the record began. In China and India, plot the differences in UHI according to thermometer location and industry, roads, buildings, and immediate influences: show us (don’t just claim it! – that there is a difference in sites between 1996 and today at each site being used overseas.
We are basing the scientific fact that there has been no measured worldwide increase in temperatures since 1996 on satellite records for the entire globe (Arctic included!). The satellite temperatures do NOT require corrections or adjustments for UHI effects because they measure everything, everywhere.
Only the ground thermometers (Hansen’s NASA-GISS much-propagandized and NOAA’s mal-adjusted records) are increased by UHI effects of various nearby cities changing between the start of the thermometer record and the area’s urbanization. That CHANGE in urbanization finished for 85% of the US stations between 1960 and 1980. An additional 8% of the US stations faced urbanization changes nearby between 1980 and 1996. Only a tiny fraction of US, Canadian, and Australian stations – and NO European stations – faced area-wide UHI changes between 1996 and 2012.
You are making CAGW-convenient/CAGW-required claims – like those of “particulates” and “aerosols varying worldwide between 1945 and 1970” but you have no data to justify your religion.
Now, as to “why” Hansen “re-calibrates” (recalculates and re-writes actually) the entire United States’ temperature record since 1915 every month based on “new” thermometer data and “new” light source backgrounds ….. Only he knows.
See, a reasonable person would write a program that – actually “records” past data as it was written down, then “adds” new information to the past records every month. Then displays both “old” and “new” data in one plot. Then, if “corrections” or changes are warranted in specific records for specific reasons, THEN those corrections are added – and added ONLY to the corrected data points (not to every past record with no rational premis), THEN the results are plotted with the original.
But Hansen re-calibrates EVERY past record EVERY month for EVERY station based on “average” corrections he feels necessary based on “potential and average” biases based on theoretical averaged changes in assumed time-of-observation biases and thermometer types and the latest monthly NASA light factor measurement. Thus, every month, Hansen calculates a new “non-urban” temperature record for a 1925 thermometer in rural mid-Tennessee based on the latest 2012 light data for Tennessee, north Georgia, and north Alabama for average temperature values from Huntsville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Nashville.
But did that 1925 rural TN temperature actually change in 2012? Nope.
Did that 1925 rural TN temperature value change between 1925 and 1996 due to UHI? Maybe. Maybe not.
Did that 1996 temperature value change between 1996 and 2012? No.
Did that rural 1925 temperature value change in 1932 due to a change in observation time or observatin technique? Maybe. If it did – change the “output” ground station record ONCE. Don NOT change the “original data” for 1925 through 1932 as Hansen does every month, but rather change the “output” record for 1925 through 1932. But change EVERY (past) record FOR THAT PARTICULAR station ONE time with a specific site-justified edit that never changes again. Then, if a recording change happens again in 1944 with a site location change …. create a NEW single-station edit. Don’t change north Georgia’s past records based on assumed and theoretical TOBS changes that happened in rural TN or rural AL or urban GA stations at other dates and at other times.

Robin Hewitt
December 8, 2012 6:34 am

Well done Lord M.
Remember what happened to the bloke who was thrown out of the Labour Party Conference for shouting, “Rubbish”?
You could be up on the podium at their next shindig.

meltemian
December 8, 2012 6:46 am

Well we had Mountbatten of Burma, it’s obviously time for Monckton of Myanmar.

beng
December 8, 2012 6:48 am

Funny & fitting how things come around. The good Lord is just using the same tactics as the hippies used & espoused 40 yrs ago against the “establishment”. Now they’re the establishment….
Back at ya!

beng
December 8, 2012 7:00 am

****
LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
And here is a riddle for you.
If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.
So if that is true and the temperature trend is flat, that means that UHI has stopped increasing for some reason.

****
Duh. It means temps unaffected by UHI are actually falling. Some people just can’t conceive of that….

RockyRoad
December 8, 2012 7:41 am

SanityP says:
December 8, 2012 at 4:41 am

Why aren’t there any regular Anti-AGW Climate Conferences ?

Heartland Institute has one every year and they’re much more informative than these UN-sponsored shindigs (which are designed primarily to take money on false pretenses but not much more).
And Anthony held his first ever 24-hr climate science marathon less than two weeks ago–and he’s been putting segments of it on YouTube and past threads here at WUWT for your viewing pleasure 24/7. I’m sure we’ll have another next year to counter Gore’s fiasco.
Those are pretty regular “conferences”. And they’re Anti-AGW (or pro-science, if you catch my drift). The content of both is superb.

December 8, 2012 8:00 am

Carter says:
December 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm
But seen as you are denying the vast majority of scientific evidence then logically you must be a denier!
==========
No, because science doesn’t “count” the number of times something is shown to be true as proof that it is true. Science only counts the number of times something is shown to be false. If that number is greater than zero, then it is false.
The reason for this is at the heart of the scientific method. You can always find for example tall, red-headed men as proof that red hair makes men tall. If you pay people lots of money to do studies to find just such a correlation, you will end up with thousands of studies showing that red hair makes men tall.
However, the fact that there are thousands of studies showing that red hair makes men tall doesn’t make it true. What makes it likely is that you cannot find a single short man with red hair. However, if you do find a single short man with red hair, then this is proof that the theory is wrong, red hair doesn’t make men tall.
What is being “denied” when you count studies is the scientific method. We “count” in politics. The number of “yes” votes versus the number of “no” votes. So, when you talk about the “vast majority” you are talking politics, not science.
When you use the term “denier” this is not science, it is a form of propaganda in support of politics. The term “denier” has political meaning as in “holocaust denier”. It has no scientific meaning. In science the term is “skeptical” because the history of science shows that 95% of what we believe to be true today will eventually be shown to be false.
Today we believe matter is made from quarks, yesterday we believed it was made from atoms, and tomorrow, who can predict what we will find? Every time we think we “know” the truth we are surprised to find that there is yet another “truth” underneath. And every time we look, we find yet another truth under that.

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2012 8:01 am

A Robbin Williams-esque treatise on the politics of Climate:
Climate Change
Rich countries: The earth is warming and the consequences have already been disasterous, and will be increasingly so if we don’t all do something!
Developing countries: We’re not responsible for the previous warming, you are. Therefore, we should be allowed to continue our development without regard to C02, just as you have done previously.
Poor countries: Wah -wah! We’re poor, and the most affected by the already-disasterous consequences of climate change, which you richer countries have caused, and continue to. You owe us $100 billion per year in climate reparations, and to enable us to go Green. Pay up!
Rich countries: Well, things are a little tight right now, and besides, the developing countries need to cough up their fair share.
Developing countries: No way Jose.
Poor countries: Boo-hoo-hoo. Nobody cares about us. We are going to secede from the planet!
Climate Change

Robertvdl
December 8, 2012 8:10 am

Brilliant.
What surprises me most is that it seems that nobody in the room knows who he is. Were there no veteran climate warmers in this the meeting? For them He is public enemy nr 1 for so how the hell did he get in? It is as if Bin Laden is walking inside The White House.

Billy Liar
December 8, 2012 8:14 am

dennisambler says:
December 8, 2012 at 4:17 am
If you want to see what sort of a party they were having, look at the galleries here:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/26nov.html

What a hoot! Christiana Figueres looks like she just came off the set of Star Trek!

Vince Causey
December 8, 2012 8:18 am

According to the latest (15:30 gmt) post on Conservative Home, the developed world may soon be compensating the developing world for climate change. The US appears ready to consent to it this time, because the wording of the proposal caps compensation payouts by wealthy countries at a nonetheless-eye-watering €100bn a year.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/12/the-developed-world-may-soon-be-compensating-the-developing-world-for-climate-change.html

December 8, 2012 8:21 am

dc 51 says:
December 8, 2012 at 6:06 am
They’ll agree on something even if it’s just where to have the next meeting.
=========
Surely you must know the first rule of conferences. The most important thing to be decided at any conference is where to hold the next conference. The second most important is where we are going to party while at the conference. And the third most important item is to collect enough evidence to convince your boss to send you to the next conference. A couple of compromising photos of your boss partying while at the conference and you can wrap up point 2 and 3 quite neatly, leaving point 1 as the only thing to be decided.

Man Bearpig
December 8, 2012 8:24 am

So after countless previous speakers, the only reason Doha failed was because of Moncktons 40 second speech… Still, that’s all it takes, one little bit of genuine science trumps BS.

Billy Liar
December 8, 2012 8:25 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am
Having spent a fair amount of time staring at real time charts looking for a signal I know from personal experience how easy it is to get your hopes up over some noise blip or other.
Is this some kind of Zen technique? At the moment I’m using maths to reveal signals in noise. I sure would like just to be able to stare at the charts and have them reveal their secrets.

Vince Causey
December 8, 2012 8:28 am

I used to watch RT, and they do offer some novel perspectives. The US and Britain, for example, are responsible for instigating the Syrian uprising, and the anti-capitalist demonstrators in New York were the victims of brutal police oppression and violence.
Their report on Doha seems relatively balanced in that they do mention the fact that there exist critics of AGW. As for Lord Monckton being responsible for the failure of CoP18, if indeed it has failed (see my previous post), I hope he attends Cop19, and the CoPs after that.

D Böehm
December 8, 2012 8:38 am

Philip Shehan says:
“Name calling and abuse is a tactic resorted to by those who have no substantive rebuttal. No scientist at any conference I have attended or spoken at ever engages in this.”
Shehan is blinkered and sees only what he wants to see. Michael Mann is the King of name-calling and abuse. If I had a dollar for every time Mann called scientific skeptics “denialists”, I could retire rich.
Despite Shehan’s blinkers, I thoroughly rebutted the “carbon” scare with verifiable facts. Shehan is in denial because he believes, without any empirical, testable evidence, that more CO2 causes a measurable rise in temperature. It does not. The only empirical evidence showing correlation between CO2 and temperature shows that CO2 follows temperature — not vice-versa. I also showed conclusively that there has been no recent acceleration of global warming. In fact, global warming stopped in the 1990’s, as Lord Monckton so effectively stated. No amount of Shehan’s artful cherry-picking can change the trend. Only the planet can do that.
Shehan gets his anti-science nonsense from the incredible pseudo-science blog that is listed in its own “Unreliable” category on the sidebar, so naturally his conclusions are wrong and thus easy to debunk.

December 8, 2012 8:42 am

Robert of Ottawa says:
December 8, 2012 at 5:34 am
I liked the bewilderment of the chairman.
===========
Like a loud fart heard during an important speech. Everyone looks around bewildered as if to say “who farted, it wasn’t me”. Afterwards, the speech is forgotten, while everyone remembers the fart.
Well done Monckton! It isn’t what you say so much as how you say it.

Greg House
December 8, 2012 8:54 am

Dear optimists,
please, take into consideration that “16 years without global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.
I recommend to look into the calculations of the whole “global warming” thing, like this one: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf. To me, it is scientifically outrageous.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 8, 2012 9:08 am

Greg House says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:54 am
Dear optimists,
please, take into consideration that “16 years without global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.

Dear Catastro-Psuedo-scientifics,
please, take into consideration that only “22 years with global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.

December 8, 2012 9:12 am

The Russian article ends with a ludicrous lie:
“Critics, however, say those claims are not substantiated with science, and argue that there has been little, if any, climate change over the course of human history.”
First phrase correct, but second preposterous. “Critics” point to the fact that over the course of human history, ie the Quaternary, climate has constantly changed in cycles of varying lengths. Climate in the past 2.5 million years of our genus has gone from much warmer than today to much colder, repeatedly. Same goes for past 200,000 years of our species & subspecies (longer if Neanderthals & Denisovans be considered subspecies of sapiens, as IMO they were, along with African ancestors of anatomically modern H. sapiens).
I guess the statement is meaningful if “climate change” means constant cycles.

Greg House
December 8, 2012 9:19 am

RACookPE1978 says, December 8, 2012 at 9:08 am: “Dear Catastro-Psuedo-scientifics,
please, take into consideration that only “22 years with global warming” can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.”

==========================================================
Wonderful, but there is one problem: the fixation on only last 16 years implies that the whole “global warming” thing is correct, which it is not.
So, when our hero says again and again that there is global warming, warmists say “thank you”. And when he says “16 years without global warming”, they can easily point out to other periods without global warming and easily dismiss those “16 years without global warming” as a natural deviation from a large scale trend. As I said before, this is not a winning strategy.

Werner Brozek
December 8, 2012 9:26 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
And here is a riddle for you.
If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect?

And I have a riddle for you.
As I have shown above, the trend for RSS is flat for 16 years. So if the north polar region had a large increase in temperatures as is claimed, what does that say about the rest of the world over the last 16 years?

Werner Brozek
December 8, 2012 9:34 am

And when he says “16 years without global warming”, they can easily point out to other periods without global warming and easily dismiss those “16 years without global warming” as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.
However the previous 16 years without warming occurred before CO2 really became an issue. Note the final bold sentence below in particular.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for October at 0.486, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.217 + 0.193 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477 + 0.448 + 0.512+ 0.515 + 0.486)/10 = 0.411. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.

D Böehm
December 8, 2012 9:37 am

RACookPE1978 says:
“please, take into consideration that only ’22 years with global warming’ can be easily dismissed as a natural deviation from a large scale trend.”
True. When trends are discussed, the longer the time frame, the more clearly and accurately a trend can be seen. SkS constantly cherry-picks very short time frames in a mendacious attempt to show that global warming is accelerating. It is not; they are simply being dishonest.
The long term global warming trend is not accelerating, as can be seen by viewing a very long time frame.
In fact, rather than accelerating, global warming has recently stalled. This has repeatedly happened before — and during times when CO2 was much lower, proving that CO2 has no measurable effect. QED
If CO2 has any effect on temperature, it is clear that the effect is minuscule; far below anything the alarmist crowd [or even many skeptics] believe it is. Otherwise, the effect of CO2 could be measured following its recent 40% rise. But there are no such empirical measurements or observations.
Since the effect [if any] of CO2 is demonstrably too tiny to measure, no further funds should be expended on the “carbon” false alarm. For all practical purposes, CO2 has zero effect on global temperatures. Any refutation must be backed up with testable, empirical measurements. Otherwise, any such disagreements are nothing more than evidence-free conjectures.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 8, 2012 9:43 am

True, true.
But Greg and David, let me re-phrase that question two ways:
1) How long can “man made global warming” be said to be measured?
That is, over all history of recorded actual temperatures, over what period (for how long a period of time) have BOTH man-released CO2 AND global temperatures actually increased at the same time?
2) Over the recorded temperature period of man-released CO2,
– global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures decreased. (~25 years)
– global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures were steady. (~15 years)
– global CO2 levels have been steady, and temperatures increased. (~25 years)
– global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures decreased. (~20 years)
– global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures were steady. (~10 years)
– global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures increased. (~22 years)
– global CO2 levels have been increased, and temperatures were steady. (so far, 16 years)
Can we prove then that the single, isolated, short 22 year period of common CO2-increase-and-temperature-increase is “proof” of natural variability?
How long must we wait before that single short 22 year period drops below the “one standard deviation” of natural variation?
Or has it already dropped two (or three) standard deviations below “randomly rising since the Little Ice Age” natural temperature cycle?

simon abingdon
December 8, 2012 9:45 am

One learns so much from the educated. For example “keening”. Look it up.

highflight56433
December 8, 2012 9:47 am

Ah, the methane madness, or “Blazing Saddles”, analogy is excellent! I was nearly excommunicated as a teen for doing the such a deed during the homily…Maybe it was my burst of laughter which I could not contain (as a teenager). Crawling under the pew (pun?) was not an escape option. It was definitely shock and awe as seen with the above video. Totally. 🙂
So much for being “inclusive.”

Richard S Courtney
December 8, 2012 9:49 am

Greg House:
re your post at December 8, 2012 at 9:19 am.
No! You are plain wrong both philosophically and practically.
You say
“So, when our hero says again and again that there is global warming, warmists say “thank you”. And when he says “16 years without global warming”, they can easily point out to other periods without global warming and easily dismiss those “16 years without global warming” as a natural deviation from a large scale trend. As I said before, this is not a winning strategy.”
Our objective is to inform about the truth. You can’t tell the truth witha lie.
Global warming was a reality but it stopped 16 years ago. It may resume or cooling will set in. But it stopped 16 years ago.
And that 16-year stop cannot be explained if the hypothesis of man-made global warming is true.
So, the 16 year stop demonstrates that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is wrong.
It does not matter whether similar periods of no warming happened in the past because the climate models say the 16 years of cooling cannot happen now when we have emiited our CO2.
So, the models are wrong and their ‘projections’ must be wrong.
It is easy to tell that to anybody.
Richard

John Peter
December 8, 2012 9:56 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018
“Climate talks: UN forum extends Kyoto Protocol to 2020
Delegates at UN climate talks in Qatar have agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, avoiding a major new setback.
The deal, agreed by nearly 200 nations, keeps the protocol alive as the only legally binding plan for combating global warming.
However, it only covers developed nations whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15%. ”
So the EU, Australia and another few industrialised countries have signed up to industrial suicide and the Chinese must have grins on from ear to ear. Wonder what Obama will do with a Rep congress. They are never going to join this show.

Greg House
December 8, 2012 9:58 am

D Böehm says: “December 8, 2012 at 9:37 am : “Since the effect [if any] of CO2 is demonstrably too tiny to measure, no further funds should be expended on the “carbon” false alarm.”
====================================================
Unfortunately, our hero has repeatedly stated that doubling of CO2 causes like 1C or more increase in temperature. Warmists are thankful again.

December 8, 2012 10:17 am

Latest on DOHA
BBC: Doha conclusion: dismal failure!

Greg House
December 8, 2012 10:17 am

Richard S Courtney says, December 8, 2012 at 9:49 am: “Our objective is to inform about the truth. You can’t tell the truth witha lie.
Global warming was a reality but it stopped 16 years ago. It may resume or cooling will set in. But it stopped 16 years ago.
And that 16-year stop cannot be explained if the hypothesis of man-made global warming is true.
So, the 16 year stop demonstrates that the hypothesis of man-made global warming is wrong.”

==========================================================
This is a very weak point, Richard, see my argumentation above.
And, by the way, Christopher supports the concept of “man-made global warming”. His arguments about it not being catastrophic can be easily dismissed. I do not understand, why warmists avoid debating him. If I was one, Christopher would be my favorite opponent. I would admit some minor uncertainties or mistakes and let him confirm the main message about “man-made global warming”. His argumentation about feedbacks and costs can be easily dismissed, too.

FijiDave
December 8, 2012 10:19 am

Joe Guerk says:
December 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative”
I wish he had used “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”
Be careful of what you wish for. Read ‘War Without Mercy’ by John Dower

Mycroft
December 8, 2012 10:33 am

Just been listening to Harrabin bleating on about the UK’s historical CO2 emissions on the BBC news channel mentioned the cash wanted by smaller.poorer countries over the damage climate will do???? what a sanctimonious w****r this supposed journalist is, really starting to stick in my craw that i am paying for the P****^ wages and salaryout of my license fee 🙁

ferd berple
December 8, 2012 10:57 am

LazyTeenager says:
December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am
Having spent a fair amount of time staring at real time charts looking for a signal I know from personal experience how easy it is to get your hopes up over some noise blip or other.
+++++++
Human beings hear sentences in records played backwards. And you will hear different sentences from the same exact sounds, depending on what you have been told you will hear. This has been widely studied and verified as a result of the Manson murders.
What we are hearing is the exact same thing as seeing faces and animals when looking at clouds. The human brain is a pattern recognition machine, that is very good at matching patterns, even when no pattern exists.
What are brains are very poor at is recognizing that random events have no pattern. When there is no pattern, our brains invent one from past experience.
As a result, humans are easily fooled. We see witches where there are no witches. When something happens that we cannot explain, our brains assume that someone else must be the cause. The solution is then to take action to stop them. Eventually the ultimate solution is discovered, human sacrifice in one form or another.

Bob Layson
December 8, 2012 10:58 am

Where is the astounding, astonishing and unprecedented change in climate that requires a scientific explanation? Ho and hum. I see none. Extremes, within the normal range, of this and that occur (rain, wind, temperature) but so what? Nothing could be more abnormal than the absence of unusual weather.
It is part of that present and recent normality that the Earth continues to gently warm a very little. I dread the day when it cools down and downer. Yet, providing governments do not completely suppress economic advance, and if the next ice age does not arrive for a few hundred years, humanity will be well equipped to prosper even then.

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2012 11:02 am

The Doha’n dummies are done: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/08/climate-talks-idUSL5E8N83HC20121208
Kyoto is still alive, but barely, since Russia, Japan and Canada are now out, and the U.S. was never in. The farce will continue limping along.

D Böehm
December 8, 2012 11:09 am

Greg House,
I am sorry you could not understand my comment, which referred specifically to measurements. I made it clear that without empirical measurements proving that CO2 causes global warming, believers in AGW are merely stating a conjecture. They need to back it up with verifiable, testable scientific evidence. But the only empirical measurements that exist show that ∆CO2 follows ∆T.
There is nothing wrong with a Conjecture; it is the first step in the scientific method hierarchy, before Hypothesis, Theory and Law. But there was more scientific evidence for planetary movements in an Earth-centric universe than there is for AGW. At least pre-Copernicus there were verifiable, predictable, accurate measurements of epicycles, even though they were based on a false premise. With AGW, there are no empirical measurements. Thus there is no way to quantify AGW, which is why there is wide disagreement over the CO2 sensitivity number.
Promoters of AGW need to produce empirical, testable measurements to support their conjecture. They have tried, but failed. Based on that failure, my view is that AGW may or may not exist. If it does exist, it’s effect is much more insignificant than claimed. OTOH, Dr Miskolczi may be correct: at current and projected concentrations, CO2 may have no warming effect because it has already saturated its IR window.
The sensitivity number for CO2 is estimated by some well qualified climatologists [eg: Miskolczi] as being 0.0ºC for 2xCO2. Some [Lindzen, Spencer] give estimate of below 0.5ºC for 2xCO2. Others [Idso, pere & fils] estimate under 0.3ºC. And the UN/IPCC estimate for 2xCO2 is 3ºC+. But the real world is actively falsifying the IPCC’s increasingly preposterous sensitivity estimate.
So it all comes down to measurement. If the effect of CO2 at current concentrations is too small to measure, there is not much science supporting AGW.

MrX
December 8, 2012 11:15 am

CO2 goes up. Temperatures don’t go up over the last 16 years. Human effects should have made any natural cooling irrelevant according the AGW hypothesis. Yet, natural cooling is overwhelming any human activity.
What frame of mind does it take to believe that something exists when it doesn’t?
Should the climate scientists not try to explain natural climate change before announcing that we are all doomed? Some skeptic scientists are doing exactly that. Unfortunately, I don’t think people would be too interested in funding natural climate change.

Silver Ralph
December 8, 2012 11:36 am

LazyTeenager says: December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am
And here is a riddle for you.
If the recent temperature trend is really and truly flat, what does that say about the urban heat island effect? After all the argument has been made here that the surface temperature trend is spurious and largely due to UHI.
_________________________________
It says that real global temperatures are already falling, but we cannot detect that because the ever-increasing UHI signal is masking that fall.
Duhhh….

Kev-in-Uk
December 8, 2012 11:46 am

Mycroft says:
December 8, 2012 at 10:33 am
+1

Silver Ralph
December 8, 2012 11:53 am

Mycroft says: December 8, 2012 at 10:33 am
Just been listening to Harrabin bleating on about the UK’s historical CO2 emissions on the BBC news channel mentioned the cash wanted by smaller.poorer countries over the damage climate will do???? what a sanctimonious w****r this supposed journalist is.
_________________________
Then go to the BBC website, and make an official complaint via their online complaints system.
You do get replies from them, and they do sound harassed. I have made five complaints about this w******* already, and the excuses are getting more lame by the minute. One day, come the glorious day, we will get an apology and Harrabin will get a spanking.
Equate Harrabin’s lies to the lies told over Jimmy Saville – they hate that and it sends the complaints department into a complete tizzy. They are really afraid down there, really afraid, and it is beginning to show.
.

David Cage
December 8, 2012 12:01 pm

As only a dull and boring engineer I wonder why the emphasis on the linear trends when we know that the climate pattern contains many known cycles. Looked at from this perspective many years ago , like about the time the name changed from global warming, it was obvious that we were in a phase where two cycles were combining and both at their peak. When you subtract this there was still a rise but not one to worry about and if you subtracted the bit that was pop up hot spots in the Arctic, purely coincidentally just where the ice melts, the difference became really trivial. I know this is not climate science it is signal analysis but I really felt it deserved some sort of explanation as to why it should be ignored rather than equating those who asked why this didn’t matter to climate scientists with holocaust deniers and .perverts as some of those in senior positions did and not just in private either.

Scarface
December 8, 2012 12:29 pm

Lord Monckton, did you by any chance say something like this while leaving the room?

December 8, 2012 12:46 pm

The truth of Lord Monckton’s conclusion that there has been no global warming in the past 16 years depends upon what is meant be the phrase “no global warming.” Monckton’s description of the procedure by which he reaches this conclusion makes it clear that the phrase “no global warming” is the equivalent of the popular phrase “no statistically significant global warming” (NSSGW). The conclusion that there has been NSSGW in the past 16 years rests on three assumptions. These are:
1) the mean value of the temperature in the underlying statistical population varies linearly with time,
2) at constant time, the temperature is normally distributed and,
3) the elements of the underlying statistical population are statistically independent.
These assumptions are premises to the argument that is made by Monckton.
Unfortunately, climatologists have yet to identify the statistical population that underlies their inquiry into global warming. For this reason, Monckton is incapable of supporting the premises to his argument and it follows that Monckton’s conclusion must be regarded as unproved.

December 8, 2012 12:56 pm

Pwned!

Dr Burns
December 8, 2012 12:58 pm

Fantastic Chris !
Keep pressing their buttons.

Gary Pearse
December 8, 2012 1:19 pm

Terry Oldberg says:
December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm
The truth of Lord Monckton’s conclusion
Terry, just look at the graph! If you look at the underlying statistics you can be sure what there is has been warmed up slightly more than decency permits. Hey and it is the keepers of the data that themselves have recognized the “travesty” of no warming. Surely you wouldn’t dare argue with them now.

Phil.
December 8, 2012 1:29 pm

richardscourtney says:
December 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm
In 2008 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated in its State of the Climate Report for 2008 (page 23)
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Please note the strength of that statement: it says the models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more, but that has happened. There is no record of any ‘climate scientist’ disputing that statement then or for some years after it.

No reason to, it’s correct, however the version you quote is incomplete and your interpretation is mistaken. The correct interpretation is:
The models’ simulations RULE OUT a zero trend of 15 years or more in the ENSO-adjusted data, and that has not happened.
As the existing period of “zero trend” extended and started to near 15 years, interest in the matter was raised by climate realists. Ben Santer responded in 2011 by posting a press release which can be read at
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html
It says
In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
The Santer statement induces a problem. There are four possibilities; i.e.
(a) the NOAA statement in 2008 was a mistake which nobody has refuted
(if so, why did nobody point it out?)
Nobody pointed it out because it’s not in error, now that you have incorrectly used I have pointed out your error here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/#comment-1165367
I have also tried to correct it in other threads but for reasons best known to the Mods they disappeared?
[Reply: Nothing in the SPAM queue. Perhaps you ought to see if they actually showed up. Otherwise, no idea. -ModE ]

Billy Liar
December 8, 2012 1:29 pm

Terry Oldberg says:
December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Unfortunately, climatologists have yet to identify the statistical population that underlies their inquiry into global warming.
If that is so, how can climatologists model future temperatures?

Richard S Courtney