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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kurt in Switzerland

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

PaulH
John W. Garrett

Wonderful. Simply wonderful.
Bravo.

Eric H.

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

Sam the First

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

[snip – off topic, old arguments -mod]

Scute

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

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.

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

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

Ha, that takes some serious stones!

G. Karst

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

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

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.

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

Louis Hooffstetter

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

Alan A.

My hero 🙂

David, UK

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

robins111

Now that made me laugh, well done.

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

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

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…..

“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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

chris y

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

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

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

• 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

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

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

Peter Miller

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

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

Frank K.

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

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

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

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

Jimbo

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!

Willis Eschenbach

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