Bethlehem and the rat-hole problem

rat, mousetrap and cheese

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

In the closing minutes of the final plenary of the U.N.’s Doha climate summit, when no one else had anything further to add, I spent a few seconds telling the delegates something that the bad scientists and the malicious media have done their level best to conceal. There has been no global warming for 16 years.

In the real world, this surely welcome news would have been greeted with cheers of relief and delight. Since the beginning of 1997, despite the wailing and gnashing of dentures among the classe politique, despite the regulations, the taxations, the carbon trades, the windmills, the interminable, earnestly flatulent U.N. conferences, the CO2 concentration that they had declared to be Public Enemy No. 1 has not stabilized. It has grown by one-twelfth.

Yet this startling growth has not produced so much as a twentieth of a Celsius degree of global warming. Any warming below the measurement uncertainty of 0.05 Cº in the global-temperature datasets is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The much-vaunted “consensus” of the much-touted “ensembles” of the much-heralded “models” has been proven wrong. The much-feted “modelers” had written in 2008 that their much-cited “simulations” ruled out, to 95% confidence, intervals of 15 years or more without global warming. To them, 16 years without warming were as near impossible as makes no difference.

Yet those impossible years happened. However, you would never have known that surely not uninteresting piece of good news from reading the newspapers or watching ABC, BBC, CBC, NBC, et hoc genus omne. The media are not in the business of giving the facts or telling the truth any more.

Precisely because journalists no longer bother to provide the inconvenient truth to their audiences, and because they are no longer willing even to provide the people with the straightforward facts without which democracy itself cannot function, the depressingly ill-informed and scientifically-illiterate delegates in Doha can be forgiven for not having known that global warming stopped a long while back.

That is why they should have been excited and delighted when they heard the news – nearly all of them for the very first time.

But this was the alternative reality that is the corrupt, self-serving U.N. Howls, hoots and hollers of dismay and fury greeted my short, polite announcement. This absurdly inappropriate reaction raises a fascinating question.

How are we to dig a rat-hole wide enough to allow the useful idiots and true-believers to escape as each passing year makes it more and more obvious that their fatuous credo has all the plausibility of the now somewhat discredited notion that the world was to be snuffed out at this year’s winter solstice?

Every student of the arts of diplomacy in the civil-service and staff colleges of the U.K. hears much about the rat-hole problem. How does one let the other side off some hook on which they have imprudently impaled themselves, while minimizing their loss of face?

A cornered rat will fight savagely, even against overwhelming odds, because it has no alternative. Give the rat a way out and it will instinctively take it.

The first step in digging a diplomatic rat-hole is to show that one understands how one’s opponents came to make their mistake. One might make a point of agreeing with their premise – in the present instance, the long-proven fact that adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere such as ours can be expected, ceteris paribus, to cause some warming.

Then one tries to find justifications for their standpoint. There are five good reasons why the global warming that they – and we – might have expected has not occurred for 16 years: natural variability in general; the appreciable decline in solar activity since the Grand Maximum that peaked in 1960; the current 30-year cooling phase of the ocean oscillations, which began late in 2001 with the transition from the warming phase that had begun in 1976; the recent double-dip la Niña; and the frequency with which supra-decadal periods without warming have occurred in the instrumental record since 1850.

The next trick is to help them, sympathetically, to focus the blame for their error on as few of their number as possible. Here, the target is obvious. The models are to blame for the mess the true-believers are in.

We must help them to understand why the models got it so very wrong. This will not be easy, because nearly all of our opponents have no science or math at all.

We can start our deconstruction of the models by pointing out that – given the five good reasons why global warming might not occur for 15 years or more at a time – the modelers’ ruling out periods of 15 years or more without warming shows they have given insufficient weight to the influence of natural variability. We can poke gentle fun at their description of CO2 as “ the tuning-knob of the climate”, and help them to put things into perspective by reminding them that Man has so far altered only 1/10,000 of the atmosphere, and may alter 1/3000 of it by 2100.

We cannot altogether avoid the math. But we can put it all in plain English, and we can use logic, which is more accessible to the layman than climatological physics. Here goes.

The fundamental equation of climate sensitivity says temperature change is the product of a forcing and a climate-sensitivity parameter.

The modellers’ definition of forcing is illogical; their assumptions about the value of the climate-sensitivity parameter are not Popper-falsifiable; and their claims of reliability for their long-term predictions are empirically disproven and theoretically insupportable. Let us explain.

The IPCC defines a forcing as the net down-minus-up flux of radiation at the tropopause, holding surface temperature fixed. Yet forcings change that temperature. A proposition and its converse cannot simultaneously be true. That is the fundamental postulate of logic, and the models’ definition of forcing manifestly offends against it.

No surprise, then, that since 1995 the IPCC has had to cut its estimate of the CO2 forcing by 15%. The “consensus” disagrees with itself. Note in passing that the CO2 forcing function is logarithmic: each further molecule causes less warming than those before it. Diminishing returns apply.

We can remind our opponents that direct warming is little more than 1 Cº per doubling of CO2 concentration, well within natural variability. It is not a crisis. We can explain that the modelers have imaginatively introduced amplifying or “positive” temperature feedbacks, which, they hope, will triple the direct warming from CO2.

Yet this dubious hypothesis, not being Popper-falsifiable, is not logic and, therefore, not science. If a hypothesis cannot be checked by any empirical or theoretical method, it is not – stricto sensu – a hypothesis at all. It is of no interest to science.

Not one of the imagined feedbacks is empirically measurable or theoretically determinable to a sufficient precision by any method. As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, I have described its strongly net-positive feedback interval as guesswork – and that, in logic and therefore in science, is exactly what it is.

There is a powerful theoretical reason for suspecting that the modellers’ guess that feedbacks triple direct warming is erroneous. The climatic closed-loop feedback gain implicit in the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity estimate of 3.3[2.0, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling falls on the interval 0.62[0.42, 0.74], though you will find no mention of the crucial concept of loop gain either in the IPCC’s documents or – as far as I can discover – in any of the few papers that discuss the mathematics of temperature feedbacks in the climate object.

Process engineers building electronic circuits, who invented feedback mathematics, tell us any loop gain much above zero is too near the singularity – at a loop gain of 1 – in the feedback-amplification equation. At a gain as high as is implicit in the models’ climate-sensitivity estimates, the geological record would show violent oscillations between extremes of warming and cooling.

Yet for 64 million years the Earth’s surface temperature has fluctuated by only 3%, or 8 Cº, either side of the long-run mean. These fluctuations can give us an ice-planet at one moment and a hothouse Earth the next, but they are altogether too small to be consistent with a feedback loop gain anywhere near as close to the singularity as official estimates imply, for homeostatic conditions prevail.

The atmosphere’s lower bound, the ocean, is a vast heat-sink 1100 times denser than the air. Since 3000 bathythermographs were deployed in 2006 no significant ocean warming has been found.

The upper bound of the atmosphere is outer space, to which any excess heat radiates harmlessly away.

Homeostasis, then, is what we should expect, and it is what we get. Accordingly, the climatic loop gain – far from being as impossibly high as the IPCC’s central estimate of 0.62 – cannot much exceed zero, so the warming at CO2 doubling will scarcely exceed 1 Cº.

It is also worth explaining to our opponents the fundamental reason why models cannot do what the modelers claim for them. The overriding difficulty in attempting to model the climate is that it behaves as a chaotic object. We can never know the values of its millions of defining parameters at any chosen moment to a sufficient precision to permit reliable projection of the bifurcations, or Sandy-like departures from an apparently steady state, that are inherent in all objects that behave chaotically. Therefore, reliable, very-long-term prediction of future climate states is known a priori to be unavailable by any method.

The modelers have tried to overcome this constraint by saying that the models are all we have, so we must make the best of them. But it is self-evidently illogical to use models when reliable, very-long-term weather forecasting is not available by any method.

This fundamental limitation on the reliability of long-term predictions by the models – known as the Lorenz constraint, after the father of computerized or “numerical” weather forecasting, whose 1963 paper Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow founded chaos theory by examining the behavior of a five-variable mini-model of the climate constructed as a heuristic – tells us something more, and very important, about the climate.

Bifurcations (or, in our opponents’ intellectual baby-talk, “tipping-points”) in the evolution of the climate object over time are not a whit more likely to occur in a rapidly-warming climate than in a climate which – like our own – is not warming at all.

Sandy and Bopha, and the hot summer in the U.S., could not have been caused by global warming, for the blindingly obvious reason that for 16 years there has not been any.

However, there are many variables in the climate object other than CO2 concentration and surface temperature. Even the tiniest perturbation in any one of these millions of parameters is enough, in an object that behaves chaotically, to induce a bifurcation.

Nothing in the mathematics of chaos leads one to conclude that “tipping-points” are any more likely to occur in response to a large change in the value of one of the parameters (such as surface temperature) that describe an object than in response to an infinitesimal change.

The clincher, in most diplomatic discussions, is money. Once we have led our opponents to understand that there is simply no reason to place any credence whatsoever in the exaggerations that are now painfully self-evident in the models, we can turn their attention to climate economics.

Pretend, ad argumentum, that the IPCC’s central estimate of 2.8 Cº warming by 2100 is true, and that Stern was right to say that the GDP cost of failing to prevent 3 Cº warming this century will be around 1.5% of GDP. Then, at the minimum 5% market inter-temporal discount rate, the cost of trying to abate this decade’s predicted warming of 0.15 Cº by topical, typical CO2-mitigation measures as cost-ineffective as, say, Australia’s carbon tax would be 48 times greater than the cost of later adaptation. At a zero discount rate, the cost of action will exceed the cost arising from inaction 36 times over.

How so? Australia emits just 1.2% of Man’s CO2, of which Ms. Gillard aims to cut 5% this decade. So Australia’s scheme, even if it worked, would cutting just 0.06% of global emissions by 2020. In turn, that would cut CO2 concentration from a predicted 410 μatm to 409.988 μatm. It is this infinitesimal change in CO2 concentration, characteristic of all measures intended – however piously – to mitigate future warming that is the chief reason why there is no economic case for spending any money at all on mitigation today.

The tiny drop in CO2 concentration would cut predicted temperature by 0.00006 Cº. This pathetic result would be achieved at a cost of $130 billion, which works out at $2 quadrillion/Cº. Abating the 0.15 Cº warming predicted for this decade would thus cost $317 trillion, or $45,000/head worldwide, or 59% of global GDP.

Mitigation measures inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: measures expensive enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Since the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. That is a precautionary principle worthy of the name.

When the child born in Bethlehem ~2012 years ago grew up, He told His audience the parable of the prodigal son, who had squandered his inheritance but was nevertheless welcomed by his father with a fatted calf when he returned and said he was sorry.

However vicious and cruel the true-believers in the global-warming fantasy have been to those few of us who have dared publicly to question their credo that has now been so thoroughly discredited by events, we should make sure that the rat-hole we dig for their escape from their lavish folly is as commodious as possible.

If all else fails, we can pray for them as He prayed looking down from the Cross on the world He had created.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

How generous of you, Lord Monckton. Were I one of the rats, I would cringe in my hole.

Chris B

Thanks for the literal Christmas gift. I’ll read it in the morning, after gift opening. I always enjoy your perspective.
Merry Christmas and thank you for bringing the good news to the UN Dohans at their shindig.

John R T

One objection: Pray first.

Truthseeker

Very logical as always, but it has the premise that these governments, bureaucrats and NGOs ultimately want to do the “right thing” and we only have to show them how wrong their view of the “right thing” is. The real problem is that the CAGW meme is just a justification for getting money that they do not have to earn. This is true for increasingly socialist governments, increasingly expanding bureaucracies and the increasing entitlement culture that is pervading western society.
Until we have a catastrophic event that brings pain to a large number of people, the lesson is not going to be learnt and this money grabbing exercise will continue unabated.

M’Lord, you are more forgiving that I would be.
Yes, giving them a ‘climb down’ path and a pat on the head is an ‘easier out’. For everyone. Yet… Something nags at me that “The rat that makes it to the hole comes back. The one who takes one bite too many of the cheese, ends up permanently solved.”
I agree that ‘your way’ is likely the better and easier path. I suspect that “the other way” is more long term effective…
Perhaps best is to offer a smallish ‘rat hole’ for the least “committed”, and a largish selection of cheese balls on wire for the selected few…
These folks are working a scheme that involves $100s of $Billions per year much for self aggrandizement. How much did Enron take, and what was their punishment? How about Dennis Kozlowski? Ought not the ‘treatment’ be proportional to how other folks running such an operation were treated?
Perhaps I’m just not well suited to Politics and such “negotiations”. Perhaps I’m too enamored of just having a large shovel when dealing with rats, and less interested in helping the poor dears escape….
Or perhaps I just think they need a lot more “Clarification of the mind” going forward…

boohannah.

Wonderful Christopher……
As a former ‘true-believer’ I would agree that recriminations for the hideous costs of this folly is not the way forward.
I remembered how I felt when it dawned on me that I had been seriously misled and then subject to, frankly, outright abuse when I was seen to have recanted my former stance.
Apostasy is a most heinous crime after all……….
Thank you again for articulating the consensus of the powerless.

Merry Christmas, Christopher. Thanks for all of your efforts this year.

Peter Miller

Very eloquent and inciteful, as always
To summarise: In ‘climate science’, it’s the gravy train which matters, not the science.
Happy Christmas to all.

Lew Skannen

This sounds like a lot of work. How about we just identify a handful of scape goats for them to tar and feather?
Nobel Prize ‘recipients’ and assorted people with more hair on face than head would be a good starting group.

Nigel S

Superb, I doubt the Arch Druid will deliver a better sermon at Canterbury today.

Icarus62

In reality, every measure we have of global temperature shows that the warming trend continues unabated. Every study of climate sensitivity shows that our no-feedback warming will be amplified by at least a factor of 2 in the short term, and much more than that if we allow slow climate feedbacks to kick in before trying to arrest the warming. It’s time to accept the evidence and look for solutions.

I totally agree with you, if we do not allow them to save face, this expensive farce will go on forever. In the 1980’s the world faced the threat of nuclear war, organisations like CND campaigned for unilateral nuclear disarmament as the best solution to the problem. Fortunately we had Margaret Thatcher as PM and Ronald Reagan was president of the US who both did exactly the opposite. The result was the collapse of the USSR and a safer world.
There are parallels today with AGW, cheap energy is boosting the economies of countries like China and India. In the West we are hamstrung by the desire to make energy as expensive as possible to prevent some fictitious threat from CO2, resulting in uncompetitive exports and consequently economies that are in decline.
Every time I get an electricity or gas bill I would love to place it in a certain part of the anatomy of a warmist, but I would much rather let him/her save face and have cheaper bills and taxes in the long term!

CheshireRed

You hit the bullseye early on in this piece Lord Monckton, namely that zero ‘global warming’ for 16 years is fabulous news. It should have triggered excited worldwide media headlines and global rejoicing, dancing in the streets and the Mother of all planet-wide parties.
After all, ‘global warming’ was supposed to be ‘The Greatest Threat to Humankind, Ever’. For such a threat to be actually demonstrated to be without totally foundation should have caused humbling pieces of apology across multiple media platforms by literally thousands of environmental writers, activists and advocates, opinion-formers, policy-makers, general media big-mouths and above all, ‘climate scientists’. Wild celebrations should have traversed across the globe, followed, on cool reflection, by the largest collective sigh of relief, ever.
That it did no such thing demonstrates that ‘global warming’ was only ever the chosen vehicle to allow the self-appointed global elite to access what they really want – global control and authority.
They have been busted. Not by biased claims or rigged reports, but simply by the most devastating method of all; observed reality. They and their now entirely discredited ‘man made global warming’ pet theory, are a completely busted flush.
Merry Christmas to you Lord Monckton, to Anthony, and to all WUWT staff, contributors and readers.

I admire the sentiment but fear that some prodigal offspring are never going to be able to mutter the simple phrase ‘I may have made a mistake’. Still, it is Christmas when miracles supposedly occur so we can live in hope.
Merry Chrstmas everybody.

Scarface

“That is why they should have been excited and delighted when they heard the news – nearly all of them for the very first time.”
The fact that they don’t know it, or pretend not to know it, shows that the whole AGW-movement is not about warming, but about politics. The confession at earlier climate-meetings that a treaty will be about global wealth-distribution says it all.
The public has long stopped believing the AGW-hoax. The only reason that people are OK with this war on oil and coal is, imho, that they are fed up with the power-geo-politics surrounding oil.
Yet the public has no idea what a world without coal and oil will be like. I think the only way to convince the public that this war on oil and coal is wrong is by showing the negative effects on their lifes. The AGW-hoax they do not believe, but in the green utopia they still do.
The climate-battle will only be won when the public sees what the green utopia is and will be demolishing. I hope it is not too late when reason prevails and that we then still have a democratic society and a market-eceonomy, so that we can regain the lost prosperity.
Thank you, Lord Monckton, for your inexhaustible instigation to keep fighting the good fight.

Robert Orme

Thanks again for an interesting discourse. The problem is that not many people, particularly politicians, are prepared to admit they got it wrong: so the usual propaganda will continue for sometime to come. Its a little like turning a 100,000 tonne ship through a 180 degree change in course; it takes some time. Global warming has now become climate change, so the next step is global cooling no doubt. By then most of the advocates will have retired leaving this new form of money called carbon credits.

Excellent ending in the spirit of Christmas – or Easter. However, a lot of these people are mesmerised by making money and I don’t think you can cure them as easily as that. Providing a proud man or woman with a bit of a leeway is one thing … does it work when people are greedy. The most effective treatment for dealing with obesity is the one that involves shrinking their stomach with some needle and thread. However, in the end, as there are so many of them, we will have to turn a blind eye … like what happened at the end of the war.

policycritic

Lot of strategic smarts in this post.

A very timely intervention. This approach is going to become more important if the cooling phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation continues and temperature stay more-or-less flat for couple of decades.
There are, so far faint, signs that the state-sponsored climate science community is aware of the problem and is looking for the type of exit strategy that Lord Monckton proposes. A press release from the University of Reading pointed to research that showed up to 30% of the decrease in Arctic ice was linked to the AMO. Zhou and Tung estimate that when the AMO is taken into account the underlying rate of increase in global temperature is half what models were predicting. Booth et al have tried to suggest that the AMO is not natural but anthropogenic.
We must also bear in the mind the quote attributed (probably falsely) to Chesterton “When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” All those zealots who have used global warming as a peg on which to hang their religious fervour and grant applications are not lightly going to switch allegiance.

DirkH

What would one do with the climate modelers after one gave them a way out? Continue to have them work in scientific institutions? What for? Are they good scientists?
They came to the field they are in because they were fascinated by the possibility of looking into the future with their computer programs. I’m being generous here and ignore simple desire for a large income without having to work as reason.
They never understood that that just doesn’t work. In my eyes they have absolutely no credentials that would make me think they would come up with any scientific results in the future.

Cold Englishman

Brilliant as always.
But do they want to grasp it?
A very happy Christmas to all who create, inhabit or visit WUWT.

Well said my dear lord. Never forget that a tiny helpless child is also an almighty God. We may lose a battle but in keeping to truth will always make us win the fight, in the end.
I predict that in about three years people will be standing in line for us to hear our prediction about the global cooling. Better we get our own house in order and get our story straight.

Dr Burns

Christopher,
You may not be aware that Gillard has now made it illegal to speak out against our carbon tax, or risk a fine of up to $1,100,000. So much for free speech in Australia !

AlecM

My Dear Lord Monckton,,because you have done sterling work on the detailed mathematics of the CO2 warming function in the models. it is with some trepidation that I write the following. However, the simple fact is that the assembled masses who use the Houghtonian model of the atmosphere, with its assumption of the Schuster-Schwarzchild two-stream approximation, have made an enormous mistake obvious to any process engineer with practical experience of heat transfer or physicist.with a thorough grounding in Maxwell’s Equations,
The fact is, the ~100 m GHG band IR emission/absorption path of the lower atmosphere is at near enough the same temperature as the Earth’s surface at equilibrium, a near black body IR emitter. The lower atmosphere is a grey body; near black body in the main GHG bands, low emissivity/absorptivity in the ‘atmospheric window’. Houghton made a big mistake in assuming it is a grey body.
The basic principle of the Maxwellian electromagnetic treatment of optical waves is that only the net vector from opposing wave fronts can do thermodynamic work. Because the CO2 GHG IR band thermal emission is the same amplitude as that emission from the surface, they mutually annihilate at the surface. This means there can be no CO2-AGW and no interaction via the water cycle with the moist part of lapse rate warming, the basis of the climate models.
NO CO2-AGW is possible. The maximum GHE is ~9 K.and is set mainly by water vapour.>/b>
Merry Christmas and a happy, slightly cooler New Year as we head towards the new Little Ice Age.

fido

valuable information on the topic here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-011-0448-2

Neven

Thank you for the article. One question, though.
I’ve Googled “3000 bathythermographs” and found only claims of how Mr. Monckton is wrong and there are much more bathythermographs than that which show the warming. Are those 3000 somewhat special?
I would appreciate the answer. To Anthony: I love your website, keep up the good work.

oldseadog

You are right on the button here.
If the forthcoming IPCC report changes direction, and/or if MSM starts reporting properly, how do the politicians save face?
On the other hand, if ALL the politicians are discredited, might we actually get some new ones who really were honest?????

Bloke down the pub

Always a pleasure to hear from his Lordship. One observation, there are two types of rat involved here. There are the those that claim to be scientists, who can be dealt with as you describe. The others are the politicians, who we all know are quite happy to walk away from a fustercluck, especially if they can blame the mess on someone else. They usually then claim to be the best person to lead the world to a better future,which just coincidentally will also make them richer and more powerful. Plus ca change.

Stephanie Clague

Dear Christopher,
The CAGW fraud as peddled by the UN was never about the science was it? That was a fabricated cover and a perfect excuse to set up the basis for a unified regulatory proto world government, the drawing together of regional governments under a supreme UN led world government. In of itself and standing alone on its merits the case for CAGW is nothing short of ridiculous, it is the embodiment of the Emperors cloak. While the fawning lickspittles shower the wearer with admiration and the mob shout their adulation it goes unnoticed by most that there is in fact no cloak, not until the little boy who has no stake in the process calls out do others realise the truth.
The cloak is the CAGW fraud and the little boy is the sceptic movement. The cautionary tale come to life in the modern age. As a fabricated useful cover the CAGW fraud was a vehicle, a way of uniting disparate opinion, a method of smothering dissent and caution and a way of uniting the public against a common enemy and a common threat. Make up a public threat and peddle that threat as imminent and dangerous and the public as we have seen through history can be manipulated by those with the will and the means to do it. While the gigantic funding flows those who benefit will not seek to end that funding, the law of self interest.
Thousands of scientists and many institutions rely on CAGW funding, a funding stream that would not be available. And whats more those involved know it too, as surely as the sun rises most scientists know in their heart the CAGW fraud is rubbish but self interest dominates. When the CAGW fraud folds it will do so faster than East Germany, those who peddled it will become overnight sceptics, in fact shortly after the CAGW fraud folds you will be hard pressed to find a true believer. Money and political support is the key, its propped the CAGW fraud long after it would have fallen out of favour and become just another phlogiston blunder.
Yours as ever
Stephanie Clague.

Mike

Well this would all be very interesting if it were not for the facts that
1) the world has warmed as predicted over the last 15 years. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html
[snip]

Jimmy Haigh

I’m not particularly in a forgiving frame of mind with these crooks and fraudsters either.

Well said, thanks. However this approach is predicated on the assumption that the warmmunists are at a point where they realise that they are ‘cornered’ and need a way out. It seems to me that we are far removed from such a situation and the majority warmmunists,and the MSM in particular, are in no way interested in exploring ways of gently, quietly and unobtrusively availing themselves of ‘rat holes’, however magnanimously provided. Nevertheless, there are some encouraging signs that certain governments are rethinking their positions.

Overblown and pretentious, but all in all a very entertaining piece of misinformation. But one would expect no less from Mr Monckton.

Thanks for the GREAT piece !!!!

Réaumur

As Cato said: Cum frueris felix quæ sunt adversa caveto – non eodem cursu respondent ultima primis. (When fortune is lavish of her favors, beware of adversity – events do not always succeed each other in one train of fortunes.)

Dear Lord, Thanks for your elaborate explanation to search or provide for a rathole. The most convienent procedure to achieve this is to blame the scientists. Of course not the science though. It reminds me of a chilling story an eastern European friend told me: Ceaucescu, the executed president of Roumania once complained to Stalin that he had problems with scientists. Stalin taken by surprise offered the following advice: Provide them(!) with a large project to keep them (!) busy. The solution was a huge project the Danube Black sea canal and related irrigations schemes. Best of wishes to you all.

The Black Adder

My Lord…
They know not what they do….
Hmmmm….
I thinks.. They connive, betray, slander, deceive and pontificate…
A beautiful piece of writing which I expect to see up on the site of Skeptical Science in 2 hours..err days… errr years….
Merry Xmas my Lord and keep it up!

Ian W

I must admit I would be tempted to just leave things as a question.
Real world measurements have shown that there has been no global warming for more than 15 years despite carbon dioxide emissions increasing to, and beyond, levels claimed to be ‘tipping points’. The climate models are wrong and the world is safe from catastrophic warming. Politicians, why are you not delighted with this news?

klem

Thanks for this. Monckton is right, you must give the rats a way out, a way to save face. Otherwise this battle will continue for decades more.
Merry Christmas folks. We’re just starting to open our stockings now, the kiddies are all excited.

ozspeaksup

Merry Xmas Lord M ,Anthony and everyone else:-)
good post as always.
thing is allowing rats to escape means more rats later..lots more, usually.
We Aussies cop mouseplagues every few years, we know how bad it gets,
and the ABC and other media are breeding em up rather nicely.
we need the human variant of ratbait I fear, no one pushing the agenda to be in the job they held, or oven any admin power etc?
we also face the serious problem of our children and young adults who have been brainwashed since they hit kindy if not before..and changing that, is going to be damned hard to do.
the old Jesuit line, give me a child till six? and theyre ours for life etc
while I keep coming across warmist inserts to spead the word by stealth in many fiction books(where it belongs) and laughing thinking of how it will read to smarter folk later..meanwhile, it reinforces the warmist agenda in the already warped:-( the steam punk etc genre is particularly noticeable for that.

MrX

How do they save face? I don’t know. What kind of “out” can there be but the truth? The bandwagon is what needs to run out of steam before things can get better.
The only thing I can think of is that the AGW proponents will start to claim that there would always be warming by humans and then start to lower the amount of expected warming. Kind of like how they went from “global warming” to the skeptics’ position of “climate change” as if it was an AGW position all along.

(Tongue in cheek). I feel I ought to pic a minor nit; after all this is a science blog. “The child born in Bethlehem” did not occur 2012 years ago, but 2016. When Diogenes invented his computus, he got the date wrong by 4 years.

polistra

No forgiveness or mercy for the major players. Eye for eye, starve for starve, freeze for freeze.
Nice inspiration from the BBC today, oddly enough:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0124njf
Sic semper tyrannis.

Lance Wallace

A Christmas treat! Thank you, Lord M, for your gentlemanly and sophisticated prose combined with audacious street-Arab behaviour.

James Bull

Well said my Lord. He also told his followers to love their enemies and do good to them. I feel you are doing your best to follow that hard as it is when all you get in response is hatred and misunderstanding
Have a blessed and happy Christmas
James Bull

I hate to be a complete jerk about this, but the climate fraud guys have already gotten people killed with their biofuel fraud making food prices rise out of reach of many. And made energy unaffordable for many. And caused the waste of BILLIONS of pounds/dollars/marks that could have gone to reducing poverty and deaths.
One of their own. Richard Parncutt, Professor of Systematic Musicology, University of Graz, Austria, already suggested how to deal with people who endanger others with their views on climate: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/23/beyond-bizarre-university-of-graz-music-professor-calls-for-skeptic-death-sentences/
Thanks
JK

In early times, the press was an essential ingredient in society because its members knew how to operate the complex the machines and to do specialist tasks like typesetting. Then came an increasing overlap of opinion over more factual news until now we have swarms of people, some rather good wordsmiths, who have close to no need in society for they merely gather up the droppings of people who might know, then cut and paste stolen wisdom into a narrative for the ordinary man and woman.It matters little if opinion is right or wrong, because people become comfortable following a few reporters whose opinions they come to value.
Even near-factual news like the evening weather report on TV is becoming a less objective item. During 2012, in Melbourne, we had the spectacle of the national map glowing a bright red as an animated gif or similar cycled through the temperatures of the day. Even the child knows the middle of the day + a few hours is often the hottest time. Is a bright red glow needed to reinforce this common knowledge?
We are well into the stage where TV affects group conduct. The USA record on gun homicides and the near unrelenting vision of guns on TV is superfluous. It would be interesting to compose a thesis on how guns infiltrated TV from the earliest times. Oh that it could have been pianolas or artist easels or similar.
It is not going to happen, but how I long for a large change that would split TV into 2 parts, one being fact and the other fiction, strictly enforced, so the viewer could turn off the one of choice and read a blog instead.
My main question is why there is a need for any reporters at the interface between science and the people. They perform an essentialy non-productive role at best, little more than pigeons with messages with rubber bands. At worst, they distort and make many, many mistakes, some of which come to be believed. My preferred option is a core of top scientists blessed with communications skills, who vet the public offerings of their scientific colleagues for prior accuracy. Medicine used to be a better model than most forms of science, but quackery and suspect products are in rapid increase. Watch out medicos, your already high insurance premiums will rise because psuedo reporters will invent circumstances for which regulators will require cover.

Doug Huffman

Merry Christmas all, Shalom Aleichem God Jul
There is no newspaper this Christmas Morning, so y’all will have to do.
Thanks for the Rat Hole. Knowledge and use of it might save the American politic. Now, if we can just connive to have it end in an inescapable bucket of truth.

I am sorry, Christopher, While I understand I do not AGREE, in addition to promulgating fraudulent science and Marxist twaddle, stolen an inconceivable amount of resources, for which I might forgive them, the have mounted a decades long attack on humanity, ob jectivism and the Enlightenment.
For that they need punishment not a Rat Hole
MFG, omb

lgl

Which “feedback-amplification equation” is being referred to here? Not this one obviously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
E.M.Smith
I think you are very well suited to Politics, but probably and unfortunately far too smart to get elected.