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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
544 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 25, 2012 12:15 am

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

Chris B
December 25, 2012 12:16 am

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
December 25, 2012 12:21 am

One objection: Pray first.

Truthseeker
December 25, 2012 12:29 am

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.

Editor
December 25, 2012 12:44 am

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.
December 25, 2012 12:53 am

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.

Editor
December 25, 2012 12:58 am

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

Peter Miller
December 25, 2012 1:04 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:10 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:12 am

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

Icarus62
December 25, 2012 1:15 am

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.

Editor
December 25, 2012 1:17 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:18 am

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.

December 25, 2012 1:21 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:27 am

“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
December 25, 2012 1:43 am

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.

December 25, 2012 1:48 am

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.

December 25, 2012 1:49 am

Lot of strategic smarts in this post.

December 25, 2012 1:50 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:50 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:53 am

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

December 25, 2012 1:53 am

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
December 25, 2012 1:54 am

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
December 25, 2012 2:06 am

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
December 25, 2012 2:09 am

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

Neven
December 25, 2012 2:21 am

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
December 25, 2012 2:25 am

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
December 25, 2012 2:39 am

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
December 25, 2012 2:44 am

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
December 25, 2012 2:59 am

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
December 25, 2012 3:02 am

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

December 25, 2012 3:03 am

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.

John Brookes
December 25, 2012 3:05 am

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

December 25, 2012 3:06 am

Thanks for the GREAT piece !!!!

Réaumur
December 25, 2012 3:08 am

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.)

December 25, 2012 3:16 am

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
December 25, 2012 3:17 am

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
December 25, 2012 3:24 am

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
December 25, 2012 3:25 am

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
December 25, 2012 3:29 am

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
December 25, 2012 3:44 am

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.

December 25, 2012 3:52 am

(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
December 25, 2012 3:58 am

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
December 25, 2012 4:02 am

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

James Bull
December 25, 2012 4:08 am

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

jim
December 25, 2012 4:11 am

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

December 25, 2012 4:17 am

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.

December 25, 2012 4:20 am

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.

December 25, 2012 4:22 am

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
December 25, 2012 4:34 am

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.

Mike Heath
December 25, 2012 4:36 am

“Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.” Romans 12:17 (ESV)
“Love your enemies” was barely understandable to the hearers of Jesus’ messages, unthinkable to treat the occupying Romans with love. Yet this principle underlies the Christian faith.
For those who know the experience of hate, persecution, bigotry, lying etc., even as we think of Newtown USA, forgiveness is the best way of healing. Overcoming evil with good, is the most effective way forward, but this is not natural to us. If it was natural to us the there would be no need for Christ to have been born into this world nor his death. “father forgive them for they know not what they do”, as Christ spoke on the cross, is perhaps a good statement to apply to those sucked in to the CAGW mania. Much as they like to use language such as “Deniers” and worse, and the proposed termination of the lives of sceptics, the victory is through forgiveness.
When Jesus told his hearers to turn the other cheek, he was not advocating surrender, he was advocating passive resistance. Romans were mostly right handed, and striking the left cheek was what they did, never the left cheek. Giving them the right cheek also was a statement of passive resistance – the Romans wouldn’t dream of striking it in those circumstances (with their left hand or a right backhand) because they would look more foolish that standing there just being offered it, which was bad enough and humiliating in the best way.
Lord Monkton is absolutely right, and it is good to see it spoken out.
Merry Christmas!

Mike Heath
December 25, 2012 4:43 am

never the right cheek – that was a typo.

Go Home
December 25, 2012 4:43 am

A few things…
1. “How does one let the other side off some hook on which they have imprudently impaled themselves, while minimizing their loss of face”. Does this work if we tell them that we are doing it to them?
2. “to focus the blame for their error on as few of their number as possible”. I vote for Mann and Gore myself.
3. “Let us explain…”. This is where you lost em.

Mike Heath
December 25, 2012 4:48 am

Actually, in Matt 5:39 , I see that it was indeed the right cheek that was struck. It was the left cheek that was turned and not struck. This means that the initial strike was indeed a backhand, so not so hard or violent.
Sorry for the error of my memory, I should have checked before typing, but the principles remain the same.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 4:49 am

Mike says:
December 25, 2012 at 2:59 am
“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. ”
Why, Mike, does NASA’s Goddard Institure for Space Sciences not use satellites to measure global temperatures but a measly 1,500 surface thermometers?
Why do you ignore the satellite measurements by RSS and UHA?

Tom in Florida
December 25, 2012 4:58 am

Mike says:
December 25, 2012 at 2:59 am
“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
Mike , from your link:
“The statistics show that the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming, according to lead author James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.”
That’s right, “according to James Hansen”, who happens to be the biggest rat of all. No need to go any further.

chinook
December 25, 2012 5:05 am

I’d say go easy and give an easy, face-saving escape route on the sheeple wearing rat’s clothing, but not so easy on the rats wearing sheeple’s clothing. While all rats may be equal, some are more equal than others. The usual suspects know who they are.

Crispin (of Slevoy) in Waterloo
December 25, 2012 5:10 am

Thanks m’Lord M. The Doha Disclosure will surely be recognized as the trumpet call that wakened the sensible few to take a sip from the breaker of science. To achieve much we must be audacious. Well done.
The discomfort evidenced by the reaction of the faux-offended demonstrates where their true concern lies. Their discomfort is real – make no mistake, dear readers. The climate Gravy Plane® will soon be grounded for lack of money.
That there is a crying need for peace in the world gives me no comfort. We still face the reality that we are indeed our brothers keeper and I do not shy from the responsibility. The Family of Man has a common destiny, one that should not be hijacked by the forward.

December 25, 2012 5:15 am

Sorry,I got it wrong. It was not Diogenes, but Dionysus.

miker613
December 25, 2012 5:24 am

“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.” Is there a source for this? If possible, I’d like a source or sources that can be said to be broadly based, not just one researcher going out on a limb.
One reason I’m asking is that I’ve seen (highly publicized) sources claiming that ten year plateaus are fairly common, and I wondered at the time why those same sources didn’t finish the job and figure out exactly how long is outside the realm of the reasonable.

Sam the First
December 25, 2012 5:26 am

I hope this will be re-published in the coming weeks (and from time to time) minus the Christmas references, since so many are too busy right now to read WUWT, and the piece deserves the widest possible dissemination
I shall as usual post a link elsewhere – but getting those to read it, who have swallowed the establishment line hook line and sinker, will be the main problem: they REFUSE to inform themselves

December 25, 2012 5:34 am

When the late summer arctic sea ice returns to normal extent, this major icon of global warming / climate change, will be wiped out. I intend to heavily promote the statements made that the sea ice will be gone by 2015 compared to the actual trend from the low of this year. Sometime in the not to distant future, I will be shouting from the roof top that the skeptics were right all along.
Merry Christmas.

December 25, 2012 5:35 am

I don’t get the part about the amplification hypothesis not being falsifiable. As noted by Monckon right in the beginning, a central prediction was that, with the assumed strong amplificaiton of CO2 warming, time intervals of 15 or more years without warming should now be statistically impossible (or very unlikely, and the residual likelihood will decrease with each additional year w/o warming). If we accept statistical criteria as a means of falsification in principle – and in medicine, for example, we do it all the time, clinical research would be impossible without it – this prediction is falsifiable, it has been falsified, and therefore the underlying premise is false.*
One needs to take this argument one step further: The models are in fact the very means of falsifying the warmers’ hypothesis! Without them, a specific, falsifiable prediction such as “a net warming must occur in any period of 15 years or longer” could not have been made. So, the modelers do indeed deserve recognition for their efforts.
Among real scientists, it is also understood that no shame attaches to having one’s predictions falsified by experiment – to err is human, and error becomes very likely when the player on the other side is so infinitely complex as the whole world itself. All that is required now is of those who had their predictions falsified in this instance is some humility and grace in defeat.
(*Or, if you want to be picky about it, not the amplification factor specifically, but the entire set of initial assumptions from which the models are derived, as a whole, has been falsified. This doesn’t make much of a difference in practice.)

Ian W
December 25, 2012 5:36 am

Icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 1:15 am
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.

Icarus – you are incorrect there has been no warming trend since 1997. Now if you want to go back to the Little Ice Age you can and certainly the world has warmed out of that – but then I would ask why wouldn’t you go back to the start of the Holocene – as we are very much at the colder end of this interglacial.
Measurements of climate sensitivity are showing that it is about half the sensitivity of 3C from the IPCC models and there are studies showing that feedbacks become strongly negative with further heating and not positive as you claim.
If the evidence is examined with an open mind it is apparent that the climate is already homeostatic due to these negative feedbacks and thus there is no requirement to search for a ‘solution’ as there is no problem.
You should have noticed that people appear to want a problem to exist so that they can propose solutions that all have the effect of financially enriching themselves.

Polentario
December 25, 2012 5:37 am

Sir Christopher raises and neglects som some valid points. The alleged rat problem is a sort of derogatory term for an issue that always occurs when a ideology, theory or faith evolves from underdog minority to the top. Wether youre pilgrim father in Salem or a protestant clergy in Suebia, this situation has often been a reason for witch hunting. Whitch hunting appeares more often in disputed grounds as post reformatorial german states as compared to inquisitorial and posconquista Spain. There is no cabal behind that, its often the ordinary (wo)man, professor or not and their violent fantasies which deviate and devasted in weak states. See Michael Hochgeschwender and H. C. Erik Midelfort for studies en detail. The way out here is to assure diversity among us AGW sceptics – it is being not all unanimously conservative on the role of the state and it is about taking more regional aspects and interests into account. Germans neither have seen climate being discussed so divisevely in left and right terms as with anglo saxons nowadays. Nixon founded the EPA, Merkel went to Kyoto. Along the Pielkes and the Stehrs and Storchs, I recommand to be more bipartisan about the role of the state or supranational entities when talking about climate “science”.
We shouldnt (but some of us do) take climate as a scape goat for a undercover discussion about wether the state is entitled to exist or raise raise taxes. The German salt and champaigne taxes where raised once to finance the emperors fleet – the very fleet sunk itself at Scapa Flow but the taxes apply happily ever after two world wars and three world cups later. And – why not? Same applies to carbon taxes and the way they are being discussed. At least in Germany, nothing is as proverbial assured as the grim reaper and the federal taxman, which collects money for the church and the various state and social security entities, inclusing a Medicare system existing since its been introduced by Count Bismarck. The benefit or disadvantage of a carbon tax or trade scheme is a political question, its not to be decided by climate modelers nor scientifical studies. Its a question of politics and – thats different point – adminstrative entities and should be discussed in their terms. But what both sides do, is coming up with sensitivities – but hey, the science about those is as settled as the last Question of Sigmund Freud – “The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is “What is climate sensitivity eh womankind about?” 😉

jim
December 25, 2012 5:40 am

Mike says—- 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
JK——Has it? The IPCC AR5 draft disagrees -the temperature has been flat within measurement error for ten years. And unchanged, within the measurement error, from 15 years ago. See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipcc_predicts.html
Thanks
JK

Coach Springer
December 25, 2012 5:46 am

It’s not so innocent. They know what they do and that it cannot control weather or climate. They *care* not what they actually do.

glenncz
December 25, 2012 5:57 am

>>> Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 2:59 am
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
Mike, it all depends on which set of FACTS you are using as FACTS.
Look at the current NASA temp chart of US temp anomalies.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
Now let’s go back in time and look at the same chart as it was presented in 1999, before this AGW “hysteria” completely took over “science”.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Look at 1998 and 1933 in the 1999 chart. You can plainly see that 1933 was about .6C warmer than 1998. (the year of the Super El Nino).
Now look at that exact same chart as is presented today, and look at the 1933 and 1998 data points. What you will find is that the current “version” now shows 1998 as about .2C warmer than 1933! Walla. Somehow, 1933 got shifted downwards about .8C. The new FACT is that the past 14 years have been the warmest of the past century in the US!
Now to further this FACT-finding exercise. Go here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and plug in Annual Temp 1998-2011(in both sets of yr boxes) and append that to the NASA 1999 chart. (best to open another browser tab)
Note the downward US temp trend since 1998. Then note that from 2008-2011 the US temps were on average about a full 1C less than 1998. So if we append the recent 1998-2011 data to the 1999 FACTS we find that from 2008-2011 the US temps were about 1.6C less than 1933. Quite “average” compared to the last century.
So when you say “it’s a FACT”, I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word “is”.

high treason
December 25, 2012 6:02 am

Too comfortable a rat hole will mean the rats will be able to regroup and rear their ugly heads again. Another tactic may be to offer complete amnesty for coming clean and reporting those who gave the orders to commit scientific fraud by a set date, which should be quite short. Those that continue to hold out and doggedly continue the lie beyond the set date will be liable to extreme punishment (remember, the crime is high treason on a worldwide scale) with absolutely NO amnesty or mercy when the fraud is uncovered. I dare say some low ranking scientists will rat out early, which will preserve their scientific integrity. Scientists I would expect would not wish to subject themselves and their families to the humiliation of brazenly hanging on. I suspect it will start as a small trickle, then become a flood as the scientific community abandons the string pullers who had been manipulating them.
After WW 2, medium ranking Nazis were simply not adequately punished. allowing many to join the Green movement, which has infiltrated the IPCC. The Nazis were uber green-they loved nature and animals, but hated humans – very much like the Agenda 21 lunacy. In effect, through the UN we have had a regrouping of rats.
There WILL be severe repercussions when the extent of the fraud is unearthed, but this will be nothing compared to the total disaster that would be wrought on the human race were the Fabian Utopia to become reality.
I have picked up 3 major contradictions in the Fabian Utopia model so far. I dare say there are more. Given that the whole scenario is all so carefully choreographed, just 1 error in the logic train makes the whole Fabian model a piece of utter fiction(remember, it is humanity itself they are playing with and the original Fabians were writers of fiction), bit like a scientific theory-just 1 error and it is back to the drawing board.
1) On one hand, the UNIDO (popularly referred to as the Lima Declaration) says that nothing shall compromise national sovereignty, on the other, Agenda 21 calls for the abolition of statehood via one world government(with unelected leaders.) Sounds all warm and fuzzy, one world government- no need for war, but in reality, all will be comprehensively vanquished by the stroke of a pen. Wars are fought over national sovereignty and the rights to self determination.
2)The UNIDO divides the world in to 10 distinct economic zones, each specializing in specific areas, but none being self sufficient. If they do not toe the line, they will have key produce or food withheld. Australia is designated for mining and technology ONLY – NO agriculture, which explains coal seam gas in prime agricultural land when we basically float on the stuff and the total lunacy of the Murray-Darling water buyback. Jennifer Marohasy is the expert here- what I have learned is from her. In a nutshell, we are throwing away 40 % of Australia’s food production to convert the estuarine lower lakes in to fresh water lakes, which they have never been. On the other hand, ICLEI , sometimes referred to as Local Agenda 21 (totally ultra green lunacy) says that food should be sourced from within 100 miles (carbon footprint and all that crap), effectively having us Aussies starve by bureaucratic decree !
3) Human rights. On one hand, men in western countries appear to be discriminated against, yet there is a distinct pandering to Muslims, who are not noted for treating women well. Keep track of UN resolution 1618, which states that no action may be taken that harms a Muslim. Verbal “offence” constitutes “harm.” Bye bye freedom of speech, bye bye “Infidels.”
The stakes are high.

December 25, 2012 6:16 am

Thank you very much, Lord Monckton.
I will re-read this article many times and try to incorporate its teachings in my pages.
Merry Christmas to you and Anthony and all your readers!

Resourceguy
December 25, 2012 6:21 am

Superb, thank you.

Bruce Cobb
December 25, 2012 6:32 am

He shoots….He scores! Chalk yet one more goal by Christopher for Team Climate Truth. Now the question is, will the climate rats take the cheese? Here ratty,ratty,ratty….

oldseadog
December 25, 2012 6:47 am

Robert Orme,
It takes a long time to slow down a ship to a stop in a straight line.
To turn round through 180 degrees doesn’t take long.

mpainter
December 25, 2012 6:59 am

John Brookes says: December 25, 2012 at 3:05 am
Overblown and pretentious, but all in all a very entertaining piece of misinformation. But one would expect no less from Mr Monckton.
====================================
This called a drive by spitball, John Brooke, and it seems that you are good for nothing else.

gnomish
December 25, 2012 7:07 am

How about being really logical and refuse to shield them from the consequences of their malignancy?
How about not trying to thwart Darwin and let the principle of natural rejection extinguish the line?
Because if you fight the order of nature, we’ll soon be armpit deep in parasitic morons… oh, wait… we already are… i wonder how we got that way? not.

glenncz
December 25, 2012 7:19 am

>>>“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.” Is there a source for this? If possible, I’d like a source or sources that can be said to be broadly based, not just one researcher going out on a limb.
State of the Climate 2008 (NOAA)
Page 24 of the PDF
“The simulations rule out 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”

Gary Pearse
December 25, 2012 7:22 am

Lord Monckton, we may be spared the need to dig rat-holes. Reviews of the AR5 SOD show that they are digging rat-holes of their own. In the science part they have cooked up so many caveats and even used a totally illogical assumption for their forecasts (aerosols will drop substantially thereby permitting more warming -without this there will be no warming). This way, they will be right whatever the forecasts. They even have a forecast for reality trending outside of their forecast envelope!! Naturally, China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc will be increasing their aerosols (and CO2) with fossil fuel burning. These fearful rats have their own tunneling equipment.
I want to borrow Gnomish’s remark from the Haight Anxiety thread: “it can’t be nice right now for catastrophists children and pets” (my favourite for the year!!)

buck smith
December 25, 2012 7:30 am

“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.”
This is spot on. Also note that the ice core data shows CO2 rising and falling with ice ages. So some other forcing has a much stronger forcing effect that CO2. This implies CO2 is not the key driver of climate change, i.e. the feedback is negative and CO2 caused warming is attenuated not amplified.

buck smith
December 25, 2012 7:33 am

“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.”
This is spot on. Also note that the ice core data shows CO2 rising and falling with ice ages. So some other forcing has a much stronger forcing effect than CO2. This implies CO2 is not the key driver of climate change, i.e. the feedback is negative and CO2 caused warming is attenuated, not amplified

roger
December 25, 2012 7:35 am

Can Lord Christopher really forgive the wind turbines and farms that desecrate the scenery of Scotland an can he really accept the massive pylons already marching across the banks and braes, all of which will remain for decades after this nonsense has ended.
And will he forgive Alex Salmond, the perpetrator of this barbarism, for conning the Scots into believing that the English will buy his wind generated electricity at three times the price of gas, should he achieve independence?
From where I sit in the Borders surrounded by the excrescences, I rather think not.

Calatrava Bansharia
December 25, 2012 7:35 am

The denial of reality by the CAGW is akin to the denial of the European elites for the problem of encroaching Sharia.

chris y
December 25, 2012 7:36 am

Lord Monckton writes-
“…we should make sure that the rat-hole we dig for their escape from their lavish folly is as commodious as possible.”
The word commodious is an apt descriptor of the rat-hole needed for the flingers of CACC.
Or perhaps I have misinterpreted the Lord’s use of that word?

mpainter
December 25, 2012 7:44 am

Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 2:59 am
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
===================================================
Actually, the temperature record shows that the last warming trend ended sixteen years ago and that the last ten years is a cooling trend. Many expect this trend to continue indefinitely, which would be most unfortunate because a warmer world is to be preferred to a cooler world, for a number of reasons.
Your NASA link illustrates one the problems facing those who seek to understand this issue of global warming. In fact, Hansen’s assertion that drought, flood, heat waves, etc. are on the increase is false, as the recently leaked second order draft of the IPCC concedes, which see.
Once again, if you wish to comprehend this issue you must learn to think for yourself, or you will end up as a cow in a stampede.

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 7:45 am

Many thanks to everyone who has been kind enough to comment on my Christmas blog posting. Let me deal with the hostiles first. As ever, they are startlingly illogical.
The pseudonymous “Icarus62” says, “In reality, every measure we have of global temperature shows that the warming trend continues unabated.” One should be careful to avoid the totality quantifier (here “every”) unless one has examined and tested every element in the relevant set. A single counter-example suffices, therefore. The measure of global temperature favored by the IPCC, the HadCRUt data series, shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years.
This result is supported by the UAH and RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets. I have not checked the GISS or NCDC datasets, since they have been tampered with so often, so unjustifiably and with so little explanation that they are little better than pure fiction, and I no longer use them.
“Icarus62” also says, “Every [the totality quantifier again] study of climate sensitivity show that our no-feedback warming will be amplified by at least a factor 2 in the short term, and much more than that [in the long term].” Again, a single counter-example suffices (or, since it is Christmas, let me give four of the many paper that are available). Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011), endorsed by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011), find feedbacks net-negative.
Furthermore, not one feedback can be directly measured by any method. Nor can it be distinguished empirically from any other feedback, or even from the forcing that engendered it. Nor can its influence be distinguished empirically from that of natural variability. Nor can its value be established theoretically by any method. Nor can its ultimate value be discerned even by careful measurement of both forcings and consequent temperature changes within our lifetime, for the climate is not expected to return to equilibrium until 1000-3000 years a forcing has perturbed it (Solomon et al., 2009).
Accordingly, feedback values – and hence the modelers’ tripling of the small, harmless 1 K direct warming per CO2 doubling – are not Popper-falsifiable, not [by] logic, and not [by] science. It does not matter how many studies there are, on either side. Until a couple of millennia have passed, we shall merely be guessing: and, as the head posting pointed out, the underlying math – taken with 64 Ma of global temperatures fluctuating by no more than 3% either side of the long-run mean – would lead us to expect net-negative feedbacks, and around 1 K warming per CO2 doubling, not the 3.3 K that is the IPCC’s current central estimate (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2).
Accordingly, there is no shred of scientific basis for “Icarus62’s” conclusion that “It’s time to accept the evidence and look for solutions”. That is a statement of aspiration based upon an unfounded belief in evidence that does not (and for up to 3000 years cannot) exist.
“Mike” bases his erroneous assertion that “the world has warmed as predicted over the last 15 years” on a paper based on temperature records going back not to 1998 but to 1950. Of course there has been warming since 1950, though one cannot be sure how much of it was attributable to us: but, like it or not, there has been no warming globally for the 16 years since 1997.
The paper in question is by James Hansen, and is much cited by Al Gore in his current climate presentations. But it tells us little that is not a self-evident consequence of 0.7 Celsius degrees of warming since 1950.
John Brookes says my posting was “overblown and pretentious, but all in all a very entertaining piece of misinformation.” And yah-boo to you too.
Next, I shall answer some questions posed by commenters. Alec M, after a rather compressed analysis that was way above my pay-grade, concludes that the maximum greenhouse effect is only 9 K and asks my opinion. We can determine, after a little spherical geometry and after allowing for the influence of clouds today, that the mean surface temperature of the Earth as a naked lithosphere would be some 21 K below today’s. So it may be that Alec M’s calculation is a little on the low side.
Mr. Neven asks about the 3000 automated bathythermograph buoys I mentioned. These are the Argo buoys, first deployed in earnest in 2006. There are now 3674 of them, though the full complement was originally 3000. They are run by the ARGO project, to which they report autonomously by satellite every so often. Between them, they have now taken more than 1 million temperature and salinity profiles at various depths up to 2000 [feet]. This quantity of profiles sounds impressive, but – as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out in an earlier posting – it is the equivalent of taking a single profile at a single location in the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year.
Though the ARGO project has insufficient resolution to be useful, it has a greater resolution than any previous system of measurement. What it shows, according to Dr. David Evans, who has analysed the data, is that the rate of increase in ocean heat content is four and a half times less than the models had predicted.
“lgl” asks about the feedback-amplification equation. The overall feedback gain factor, G, which is unitless, is equal to the reciprocal of (1 – Planck x fsum), where Planck is the zero-feedback climate-sensitivity parameter 0.3 Kelvin per Watt per square meter and fsum is the unamplified net sum, in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, of all individual positive and negative feedbacks operating on the climate object. Multiply any forcing delta-F by Planck to obtain the zero-feedback or instantaneous or “direct warming” that a forcing is expected to engender; multiply the direct warming by G to obtain the “equilibrium warming” that is expected to obtain after all feedbacks have acted and the climate has settled back to a new equilibrium following the perturbation caused by the forcing. Simple when you know how.
“miker613” asks for the source of my statement that the modelers had written in 2008 that their simulations ruled out, to 95% confidence, intervals of 15 years or more without global warming.” The source was a paper written by various leading modelers and published in the NOAA’s annual State of the Climate report for 2008. See p. 523 of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for that year.
“Sam the First” asks that the head posting should be republished minus the Christmas references. I have sent Anthony the 2000-word talk from which the science and economics in the posting was taken, and I shall leave it to him either to make a separate posting of it in the New Year or link to it, whichever works best.
Michael Palmer says the feedback-amplification hypothesis is falsifiable, and has been falsified by the fact of 16 years without global warming. A little math to explain why I respectfully disagree. The climate-sensitivity equation states that warming is the product of a forcing and a climate-sensitivity parameter. In the absence of any feedbacks, or where they sum to zero, the sensitivity parameter (known as the Planck parameter) is 0.3 Kelvin per Watt per square meter, or thereby. However, between the moment of forcing and the moment when the climate returns to equilibrium up to 3000 years may pass. Throughout that period, if the feedback is as strongly net-positive as the IPCC would have us believe, the value of the sensitivity parameter increases, from 0.3 at the outset to 0.9 at the end. As I explained in the head posting, there are many natural events that may, over a shortish period such as 15 years, temporarily suppress the small warming that might be expected. Just to complicate things further, in the IPCC’s theory some of the longer-acting feedbacks might not even begin to come into play until 100 or even 1000 years have passed.
It is precisely because the strongly net-positive feedbacks posited by the modelers cannot be definitively Popper-falsified for thousands of years that the climate scam has been so successful. However, this is where logic comes to our aid. Popper’s celebrated paper of 1934 makes it quite plain that any hypothesis not capable of being falsified – i.e. subjected to empirical or theoretical tests that might prove it false – is not a true hypothesis at all, but merely a guess, and accordingly of no interest to logic, to math, or to science.
In any earlier age, all who – like me – had a Classical training were taught this. That is why I, and most Classicists I know, have little time for the notion of climate panic. It is based upon a non-Popper-falsifiable guess that the net feedback sum to equilibrium is strongly net-positive. Without that guess, there is no climate problem. With that guess, there is still no climate problem, because one cannot found a problem – still less cripplingly expensive proposals to address it – upon what is little better than mere speculation.
Jim Cripwell says Christ was born in 4 BC. I have not studied the question of when He was born, so I was careful to put a tilde in front of “~2012” to indicate uncertainty.
Dr. Burns says Julia Gillard, described as a Prime Minister of Australia, has declared it unlawful on pain of a $1.1 million fine to speak out against the carbon dioxide tax. I shall be going to Australia and New Zealand on a three-month speaking tour from January to April, and I shall be saying exactly what I think of the carbon dioxide tax, whether Ms. Gillard likes it or not.
In view of the stramash that ensued when in a private address to Zionists in California a couple of years back I said that one of Ms. Gillard’s advisers had uttered a fascist remark, whereupon a hate-filled journalist paraded my comment all over Australia without thought for the damage he was doing to the hapless adviser, I shall not even begin to think, still less to say. which regimes in the 1930s made it unlawful to speak ill of themselves or of their freedom-destroying policies. My, my, no.

December 25, 2012 7:46 am

My province of Alberta Canada is officially rat-free.
We maintain this policy by immediately eradicating (eraticating?) all colonies of rats as soon as they are detected.
It works!
“No Liberals, Greens or NDP! Keep Alberta rat-free!”
Regards, Allan 🙂
P.S. Skill testing question: What does “Beware the dancing rats” mean?
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm3266
Keep Alberta Rat-free for another 50 years!
Anniversary celebration underway!
Fifty years ago, a rat infestation was discovered near Alsask, in central Alberta. The province reacted immediately to halt further westward rat migration. Due to the Rat Patrol’s vigilance, our province has saved an estimated one billion dollars over 50 years, in property damage, livestock losses, human suffering and healthcare, as well as lost and contaminated food.

Pamela Gray
December 25, 2012 7:54 am

Got everything right except the Sun part. The direct solar influence on temperature waxes and wanes with the solar cycle producing only a smidgen of temperature difference here on Earth that cannot be seen or deducted from the temperature record. It can only be mathematically construed it is so small. The indirect variable components of the sun’s interaction with Earth (cosmic rays, magnetic influence etc) produce far less temperature-forcing capability and cannot even be remotely considered as an agent in the past century’s warming record.
The sun can be considered, in comparison with Earth’s significant intrinsic variability, to be a constant. It is Earth itself which produces warming trends, cooling trends, and nada trends in the temperature record we debate.

Tom Jones
December 25, 2012 7:59 am

Icarus62, you say on Dec. 25 @ 1:15 am:
In reality, every measure we have of global temperature shows that the warming trend continues unabated.
I am really unaware of that evidence. Would you be so good as to point it out?

hh
December 25, 2012 8:00 am

Regarding the remarks on chaotic behavior, specifically the Lorenz attractor paper and bifurcation theory: This is followed by suggestions that chaotic behavior, which is to be expected in the global weather, prevents accurate long range climate forecasting. Yes, there is a boatload of small scale structure at the level of daily weather. Long term climate change is still a well posed problem, even though one may need to average over some considerable time to see underlying trends. The North polar ice cap is shrinking, which is expected to cause warming (less of the reflective ice). This is an example of feedback. Long story short, you can extract trends from noisy data, and chaos (positive Lyapunov exponents) won’t change that fundamentally. Though climate modeling seems like a formidable problem.

cosmic
December 25, 2012 8:05 am

This misses the point. The science is largely irrelevant and CAGW is about money, jobs and power which becomes an end in itself and the original justification can be glossed over, turned into a fiction, or history rewritten to suit.
Some of the rats, probably the politicians who’ve been swayed to go along with CAGW would like a way out.
Most of the rats have a plentiful food source and know that by taking an exit route they would starve, so they’ll fight to the death. There’ll certainly be an effort to keep the show on the road using a different justification; sustainability, bio-diversity, whatever, or hope that simple inertia through having institutionalised thenselves will work.
An interesting way of looking at things Christopher, but unfortunately, I don’t believe the nonsense will end without a lot of people being hurt as the consequences of the policies which have been enacted are felt.

Sean
December 25, 2012 8:08 am

Forget the rat hole – tell the public the truth – you have been lied to by a cabal of interested parties – crooked politicians with nefarious motives, crooked scientists with grant money and reputations to make, and crooked activists from the green industry. Let all the crooks be hoisted on their own petard with no way out and a public that turns on them. Shine the light on their activity and show them no mercy. Letting them off the hook only allowed them to burrow like rats into some dark corner where they can continue their nefarious crimes using some new imagined terror. The only way to handle these crooks is the way the Rome handled Carthage – tear them to the ground and leave them no refuge, destroy their reputations completely.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 8:09 am

Pamela Gray says:
December 25, 2012 at 7:54 am
“The sun can be considered, in comparison with Earth’s significant intrinsic variability, to be a constant. It is Earth itself which produces warming trends, cooling trends, and nada trends in the temperature record we debate.”
Debatable. At the moment I’m undecided. Bond events / Dansgaard–Oeschger event COULD come about as an internal quasi-periodic oscillation. On the other hand, Nile gauge records, and the freezings of the Rhine, show a pattern depending on Solar cycles.
While TSI stays constant, the UV component varies wildly.
What did the Nile do during the Maunder minimum?

SAMURAI
December 25, 2012 8:12 am

Lord Monckton, thank you very much for your well written Christmas present.
I smiled so hard while reading it, my face cramped up and I’ll be wearing this silly grin until New Year’s.
Although I appreciate the logic of your argument, I fear providing a comfortable rat hole for these scoundrels to escape will merely create a refuge from which to propose another mythical theory such as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling (CAGC). I already see the bed wetters laying the groundwork for this by proposing man-made particulates have temporarily overwhelmed the CO2 greenhouse effect, so both CAGW and CAGC must be addressed simultaneously lest either extreme reach a “tipping point”.
I know how ludicrous that sounds, but one never goes wrong overestimating the stupidity of useful idiots; history has proven this many times.
I would propose using the CAGW fiasco to indite the whole Statist philosophy that has destroyed the integrity of science, bankrupted the world, destroyed entire economies, and stole individual freedoms.
The IPCC must be shut down for good and the ringleaders of the biggest hoax in human history must suffer the consequences for the $Trillions wasted and the lives destroyed.
Justice must be served lest Statism continue to rob us of our future and our freedoms and our property.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 8:15 am

hh says:
December 25, 2012 at 8:00 am
“Regarding the remarks on chaotic behavior, specifically the Lorenz attractor paper and bifurcation theory:”
I know of NO paper by the climate modelers even trying to find a strange attractor. They seem to avoid discussing the chaotic aspect like the plague, as it would show the shaky ground they are on. As long as they don’t propose a theory of such an attractor, I therefore hold that they can’t simulate into the future with any skill.
“Long story short, you can extract trends from noisy data, and chaos (positive Lyapunov exponents) won’t change that fundamentally. T”
Nonsense. Noise is not chaos and Chaos is not necessarily noise. (You mentioned attractors yourself)
We know that climate has a brown noise power spectrum. You say predictions of long range states is possible; high frequency “noise” can be ignored? So please, provide a theory that shows how the power spectrum that makes up the climate is divided into two separate subsystems, one of which being “noisy/chaotic” and high-frequency; the other being a separate low-frequency system which you can simulate with any predictive skill. Go ahead, the onus is on you, DEMONSTRATE it. Because it is an absolutely extraordinary claim.

December 25, 2012 8:16 am

Brlliant treatise my Lord. I add my thanks for all your hard work this year and wish you and all the truth seekers a happy Christmas.

Tom Jones
December 25, 2012 8:16 am

Mike, on Dec 25, 2:59 am you say:
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
No kidding, does it actually say that? I followed your link, but I didn’t see that. Where, exactly? Could you point it out to me? What it appears to be is the classical definition of statistics – “Torture the numbers until they confess”. No less a dedicated warmist than Phil Jones seems to have difficulty seeing warming in the recent past. Only Hansen is visionary enough for that

miker613
December 25, 2012 8:17 am

Thank you, glenncz, that’s a good source. Are there more sources like that (that one might be sufficient, but just asking).
Followup question: Is this a drunkard’s walk type issue, where the truth is that if you already had one decade-long plateau, a second one next to it is just as likely as it ever was? [In which case a double decade plateau may be unlikely (<5%) but doesn't really make the model impossible.] Or is the "noise" limited in scope, so that it can only mask the signal for so long, and a decade-long plateau cannot continue and _must_ turn sharply upward (according to the models)?

Chris Riley
December 25, 2012 8:20 am

Lord Monckton, who is 100% correct 99.99% of the time, may have failed here to take into account the time inconsistency problem that Finn Kydland and Edward E. Prescott described in their 1977 article “Rules rather than Discretion: the Inconsistency of optimal plans”, for which they were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in economics. The relevance of this here is that while a simple calculation of costs and benefits may indicate that an escape path for the rats should be created, those calculations do not necessarily yield the optimal choice because they may not account for the effect on the future behavior of the escaping rats or the behavior of those who may choose a career as a rat at some time in the future.
The institution known as “science” will suffer great harm if the perpetrators of this fraud are allowed to escape with their reputations intact.

Goode 'nuff
December 25, 2012 8:23 am

Twas the night before Christmas and all through the House (of Representatives) not a rat is stirring, not even John Boehner. Congress is off for the holiday, and the President is out in Hawaii. And here we are, one week from fiscal calamity.
They procrastinated all year and let it go to the last minute holding everyone hostage. They don’t deserve this vacation.
Merry Cliffmess, everybody!

Clay Marley
December 25, 2012 8:23 am

This Christmas I am spending time with relatives who I consider moderate politically. They believe AGW is a serious problem, that the Polar Bears are in trouble, that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, that the earth is warming, and that Greenland has largely melted (!).
They believe these things because they get all of their information from the mainstream media (mainly PBS). They have not been told anything different.
We who embed ourselves in the skeptical side may not realize how pervasive the propaganda is. The “science” may be dead but the ideology isn’t.
I can’t just tell them they are wrong. The just tell me I am wrong and wonder if I get all my information from Fox News, “the mouthpiece of the Republicans”. Lord Mockton’s article is fine but it treats the problem as if it were a science problem. It isn’t. It should be treated more like a cult. CAGW is a tool being used to drive an ideology that has nothing to do with science. De-programming can be very difficult.
There is much work to do.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 8:30 am

DirkH says:
“What did the Nile do during the Maunder minimum?”
Unfortunately, there seems to be a long pause in the records, but somebody has tried to link anomalous Nile floods to temperature reconstructions, Paper from 2007
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications
Fekri A. Hassan
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618207001449
Paywalled, but preview of graphs free.

December 25, 2012 8:45 am

Dear Christopher,
You are far too kind to those that want to destroy Western civilization.
Merry Christmas and thanks for all the good work you have done.
Neil

tmlutas
December 25, 2012 8:47 am

You have set me a pretty problem Lord Monckton. I write (behind a paywall) in a collective of analysts for Wikistrat. This is a perfect source document for analysis of the anti-side of the CAGW issue viewed as a strategy piece. The emotions thrown up by this issue actually challenge the underlying business model of the firm. Can a few hundred analysts from all over the globe and from disparate fields apply the “wisdom of the crowd” to your thesis? Are there public policy issues too hot for this model to work?

S. Meyer
December 25, 2012 8:49 am

quote Lord Monckton:
“Dr. Burns says Julia Gillard, described as a Prime Minister of Australia, has declared it unlawful on pain of a $1.1 million fine to speak out against the carbon dioxide tax. I shall be going to Australia and New Zealand on a three-month speaking tour from January to April, and I shall be saying exactly what I think of the carbon dioxide tax, whether Ms. Gillard likes it or not.”
A gag order like the one implied above would be very, very disturbing. However, we must not exaggerate, or we loose credibility. I googled this and found this link.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1053734
It seems to me that the Australian government is asking businesses not to exaggerate how much prices have risen due to the carbon tax. Australians? Did I get this right, or can you really be fined for talking about the carbon tax in a critical way?

commieBob
December 25, 2012 8:56 am

E.M.Smith says:
December 25, 2012 at 12:44 am
… The rat that makes it to the hole comes back. …

You are right. As Machiavelli points out in his Discourses, there are two choices when dealing with vanquished foes: kill them or make friends of them. Any other course of action ensures that they will come back later and cause you problems. Humiliating the vanquished is particularly dangerous but, on the other hand, it is absolutely necessary that the vanquished actually feel vanquished.

Bill H
December 25, 2012 9:00 am

Pamela Gray says:
December 25, 2012 at 7:54 am
Got everything right except the Sun part. The direct solar influence on temperature waxes and wanes with the solar cycle producing only a smidgen of temperature difference here on Earth that cannot be seen or deducted from the temperature record. It can only be mathematically construed it is so small. The indirect variable components of the sun’s interaction with Earth (cosmic rays, magnetic influence etc) produce far less temperature-forcing capability and cannot even be remotely considered as an agent in the past century’s warming record.
The sun can be considered, in comparison with Earth’s significant intrinsic variability, to be a constant. It is Earth itself which produces warming trends, cooling trends, and nada trends in the temperature record we debate.
=====================================
The total output of the solar fusion reaction is indeed fairly constant. However, that is only 1/2 the story. It is the Infrared bands of light/heat hitting the earth which have the warming effect on earth. Depending on which band happens to be passing from the suns reaction in strength as measured on the surface of the earth it can indeed have major control over earths systems.
Lower UV bands carry less energy/heat and are reflected by sea water tension or absorbed by the air and particulate matter. Higher UV bands pass these barriers (much like the difference between FM-108mhz line of sight and 2ghz or higher frequencies which will pass through solid objects) which then pass through surface tension of earth oceans and warm the upper layers.
While the suns total radiance and total output changes little, its that subtle change in strength within certain bands which have major effects on the earths surface.

Lord Leach of Fairford
December 25, 2012 9:03 am

I suspect the best rathole is to express understanding with them for the 25 years warming in the run-up to 1998, which naturally misled them into believing that a quarter of a century’s correlation with the model projections was proof that the models were accurate predictors of the future.
Rodney Leach

thingadonta
December 25, 2012 9:23 am

I am of the view that no amount of logical argument will persuade the ‘true believers’ in catastrophic global warming, because they didn’t arrive at their beliefs by logical argument in the first place, they arrived there by faith. As my geology professor used to say about creationists, “you can’t argue with someone’s belief”. However, there is hope for those within science who still basically understand the nature of objective scientific evidence, who may well come around with persuasive, empirically based, arguments.
I would go further though, and say that alot of the ‘faith’ that pervades climate alarmism is based on a certain type of fundamental assumption that is somewhat immune from certain forms of logical analysis and argument. That is, there is an assumption, in the first instance, of a ‘constant’, so to speak, that ultimately over-rides all other parametres, and all longer term trends, and this ‘constant’, is also particularly immune from such notions as internal variation, change, and ‘evolution’ to a new form, or system, or kind, (which is also why the bureaucratic elite couldn’t accept evolutionary theory and the importance/concept of variation in populations in biology for thousands of years, until around 1859, when Darwin and Wallace’s idea of evolution by natural selection directly challenged a then-prevailing assumption of ‘constancy’ of species). This tendency to assume an over-riding and prevailing ‘constant’, or ‘always dominant factor’, is also a fundamental assumption, dare I say, of stronger forms of socialism, i.e. that ‘social order’ over-rides all other internal social variations and trends. That is also partly why the left tends to accept the idea of c02 easily over-riding natural variation, much more so than the right, as it is an idea that is more attuned to their basic assumptions about the world.
I would go even further again, and say I think human beings as a species are pre-disposed ideologically to a tendancy to assume some form of ‘constant’, or ‘over-riding’ ideological parametre, most likely because it is ultimately a means to power, a subtle indication of a deeper Darwinian struggle for power and resources, that goes on in all cultures amd societies. It is biological evolution itself which has, unfortunately, left us this legacy, (e.g. many biologists have come to the opinion that our brains, rather ironically, are predisposed by evolution to have great difficulty accepting and understanding the very processes of evolution that created it, llargely because it conflicts with a tendancy to e.g. bureaucratic stability, and non- tolerance of significant minorities and/or strangers).
Human beings and societies will always have an irrational tendancy, even amongst the educated and elite, to assume certain forms of ‘immutable’ and ‘over-riding’ ‘non-changeability’, which is ultimately for their own personal interest and benefit within the Darwinian struggle for power and resources. And because it is a legacy of powerful forces derived from biological evolution itself, it is both rather pervasive, and strongly immune, from logical analysis and reason. One of the best ways to fight it, is by the historically tried and tested, empirically based, experimental, scientific method, which must also be verifiable, reproducable, and falsifiable; ‘models’, ‘projections’ and untested ‘scenarios’ are hopelessly prone to capture by human predispositions, politics and human bias.

December 25, 2012 9:29 am

mpainter says:
December 25, 2012 at 7:44 am
Mike says: December 25, 2012 at 2:59 am
………………………………….
Once again, if you wish to comprehend this issue you must learn to think for yourself, or you will end up as a cow in a stampede.
Or a rat in a hole…….

December 25, 2012 9:32 am

In reply to Monckton’s response: Your math is too incomplete to be veri- or falsifiable, but it seems that your argument was already addressed in general terms in the footnote included in my original post. Of course, the models are based not just on one number – the feedback factor – but on a set of them; and, of course, if the whole set of assumptions conficts with observation, one might blame any one of the assumptions, alone or in combination, or introduce additional fudge factors. This technique of using “ad hoc hypotheses” (Popper’s term), of sacrificing the pawn to save the bishop, cannot change the fact that the whole of the initial hypothesis has failed.
You cited a prediction made by some modelers in 2008, which amounted to their willingness to stand or fall with the prediction of observable warming within any period of 15 years. That claim is falsifiable, and it has been falsified; it may not have been based on good science, but it certainly did meet the Popper criterion.
As for Popper’s “celebrated paper”, it was indeed a book of some 300 pages, published originally under the title “Logik der Forschung”. I have read the whole thing (in German) and enjoyed it, although its main ideas would have fit neatly into a fraction of the space, and could indeed have been sufficiently presented as a paper. Maybe all the additional elaboration was needed to properly display the classically educated writer’s erudition 😉 Indeed much space in the book is taken up by Popper’s struggle with the prevailing philosphical fashion of the day, which sought to develop rules for establishing statements of empirical science as indubitably certain. Against this prevailing fashion, Popper maintained that science progresses through the falsification of hypotheses, not their “inductive verification”, and that our knowledge of the world remains always hypothetical; or in other words, that “the science” is never “settled”. To which I add, notwithstanding my classical education: Amen, bro’.

December 25, 2012 9:41 am

The data shows that Hansen was correct to cite a figure of 350ppm as an initial target for atmospheric CO₂ concentration. With the current global energy imbalance of 0.6W/m², we would have to reduce CO₂ to 345ppm just to halt global warming where it is now. That means sequestering 350 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere immediately, and another 30 billion tons every year (barring successful reductions in emissions) to stop the warming and buy us time to work on alternative, zero-carbon technologies. Instead of disputing the evidence, wouldn’t it be smart to start proposing mechanisms to actually achieve that?

Rex
December 25, 2012 9:44 am

I always thought it odd that global (sic) warming (sic)
was being blamed for heat waves, when, to the contrary,
I would have thought that a series of heat waves would have
some effect on the mean global temperature.

Rob
December 25, 2012 9:52 am

The Lord, as always, brings Logic and Common Sense to a debate frequently lacking in such. A Christmas Present indeed! However, I would caution all sides in this issue to be careful about assuming what we “know”.
Logically, we should agree that our confidence about what we “know” decreases with time going forward, or backward. Furthermore, we are using models going forward and mostly indirect indicators for temperature going backwards to tell us what we “know” a “global” temperature. I have some experience with indirect indicators of temperature and statistically analyzed the data but would be cautious about claiming “know” especially to the fractions of a degree. Statistics are no substitute for Logic and Common Sense! We are even using our near-to-present direct indicators of temperature (which are fraught with questions) to distill and tell us that we “know” the temperature of the globe as a single, discrete number. We have hooked all of these “known” whole-Earth discrete data points, generated by a variety of methodologies, massaged statistically and created a chart that tells us that we “know” global temperature going back thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years and going forward for hundreds of years. Some not only “know” it, but “know” it quantitatively!
Now, tell me, do we really “know” what we think we “know”? Logically?
Certainly, we can observe many things. Glaciers growing or retreating, sea ice extent, solar data, etc. We have recorded temperature data in a number of places and have satellite data since 1979. And, as humans we want a way to summarize information into as small a space as possible but we should be careful about what we “know”.
Most everyone will agree that our satellite data are the best that we have but these data are short-term, particularly considering geologic time. These data are also reduced to a single “global” temperature. Now let me say, as a scientist and a biologist, that I applaud theorizing, research and analyzing data to the best of our ability to generate, hopefully, useful conclusions; however, we may need some humility relative to the quality of our data and what conclusions can be drawn.

GlynnMhor
December 25, 2012 9:55 am

Allan MacRae suggests: “Fifty years ago, a rat infestation was discovered near Alsask, in central Alberta.”
My mother was born in Alsask, and it actually lies barely outside Alberta on the other side of the Saskatchewan border, just south of the highway between Calgary and Saskatoon. It’s one of many many prairie towns that is slowly withering away.
However the rest is true; successive Alberta governments have made it a point to stop rats from entering the province, and to stop them from setting up shop here. Any farmer or rancher who suspects the presence of rats need only make a phone call or email, and the rat Patrol will be at the premises in short order to expunge the nasty critters at no cost to the owner.

mbw
December 25, 2012 10:06 am

There was no global warming from 1940-1960. Therefore the warming that has occurred since then did not happen.

Steve Oregon
December 25, 2012 10:11 am

“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.”
Lord Monckton does a fine job but isn’t he leaving out what may be three of the most germane problems?
One, that they are not cornered.
Two, the rats have piled up an immense heap of observations they can falsely use as evidence so they don’t really need the models. It’s too easy for them to point at everything as prove of their claims.
Three, the rats have already made their own way out.
That being that even if the models and their observations are wrong, all of the measures they are pushing are still worth doing. Even the endless “monitoring” & “measuring” of all things must continue to in order to avoid the unknown, right?
And after all, they only want to cut pollution, promote conservation, reduced reliance on foreign oil, encourage sustainability, create livable and walkable communities, preserve fresh water, feed the masses and advance environmental and social justice for all.
Is that not the large hole the rats are already using, big time?
So I fear they cannot be baited or lured into using Lord Monckton’s hole. It will appear as a trap they can easily avoid by using their own large and friendly hole.

D Böehm
December 25, 2012 10:13 am

icarus62 says:
“With the current global energy imbalance of 0.6W/m², we would have to reduce CO₂ to 345ppm just to halt global warming where it is now.”
Icarus, wake up. Global warming halted a decade and a half ago, and it has been declining for the past ten years.
That is pretty strong evidence that CO2 does not have the effect that Hansen claimed. Who are you going to listen to? The always-wrong “Coal Trains of Death” James Hansen? Or Planet Earth?
There is only one correct answer.
•••
Steve Oregon,
The fact remains, they are still rats. ☺

john robertson
December 25, 2012 10:18 am

Thanks for the posting Lord Monckton, while I agree that your proposal might be the civilized and realistic way of allowing this scam to fizzle, I want retribution.
The leaders and major benefactors of this scheme are well cloaked in govt institutions and wealth and may be un touchable via the legal systems available to us.
But the true believers who infest our local governance are the persons who have done us the most harm. Through their vicious stupidity and I cannot think of a softer term, the do-gooders have done everything in their power to destroy the society that supports them, to force funds from my pocket into insane energy schemes, to tax the air and control every aspect of our living.
Fools charge in where angels fear to tread, indeed.
And these folk have raised a righteous clamour, demeaning any who dare to question the sanity of their faith. Blind to the consequences of their bylaws, totally secure in their closed loop thinking, they are our betters and know how best we should live our lives, for only they have seen the truth.
Rat holes are useful, napalm comes to mind. I for one intend to rub their blind gullibility in on every opportunity.

David, UK
December 25, 2012 10:33 am

John Brookes says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:05 am
Overblown and pretentious, but all in all a very entertaining piece of misinformation. But one would expect no less from Mr Monckton.

G’day John.
“Overblown and pretentious” I would grant you. “Entertaining,” definitely. But “misinformation?” I note that as usual with your ilk, you provide no substantiation.

GlynnMhor
December 25, 2012 10:36 am

MBW writes: “There was no global warming from 1940-1960.”
Yet the models in ‘predicting the past’ show global warming occurring then…
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-10-4.jpg
(with the exception of the little blip due to the Agung eruption)

mpainter
December 25, 2012 10:50 am

icarus62 says: December 25, 2012 at 9:41 am
Instead of disputing the evidence, wouldn’t it be smart to start proposing mechanisms to actually achieve that?
==========================
You have no evidence to give, because there is none. AGW is only unproven theory, and unproven theory is not evidence. Bald assertion is not evidence. A failed hypothesis is certainly not evidence. If you do get some evidence, please share it with us here at WUWT. WUWT has a standing invitation to any who would provide evidence, but so far no one has done this and I don’t expect you to show any, either.
Propose mechanisms? Absolutely not. Actually atmospheric CO2 is entirely harmless and even beneficial. Do not let yourself be frightened by the panic talk. Learn to think for yourself instead of citing bald assertions as science.

Mark Bofill
December 25, 2012 10:50 am

Lordship is a hereditary title, an accident of birth. In my amateur opinion, the actions of the man determine the emptiness or merit of the title. Further, in my amateur opinion, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley continues to live up to his title via writing this. I wish the elected leaders in the United States had half as much sense.
The alarmists aren’t going to just disappear. From both a coldly practical perspective and a compassionate one (whatever their ‘sins’, I don’t accept that any of the CAGW advocates are evil incarnate) it’s important to consider that by making it as painful as possible for CAGW advocates to eventually admit error, it minimizes their motivation to do so, at no profit to anyone.
Thank you Lord Monckton, Merry Christmas.

December 25, 2012 10:57 am

Thank you Lord Monckton. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all of you.
Always remember to take time away from the battle and enjoy. “Keep a weather eye to the chart on high.” (:

michael hart
December 25, 2012 11:04 am

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Having said that, the most “honorable” exit-strategy might be an admission that the carbon-cycle has been misunderstood, which is not difficult. This would allow the hard core radiative-physics modelers to still claim they are 100% correct, while acknowledging that the human impact due to fossil-fuel combustion is small because anthropogenic CO2 emissions are still trivial by comparison..
Models are “biology-lite” and the effects of the bio-sphere are easy to underestimate over time once the exponential growth rates of living organisms is considered. Oceanic photosynthesis and carbon-fluxes are much greater than realized back in Jim Hansen’s day, and carbon isotope fractionation processes even less well described. Someone looking for excuses could find no shortage of suitable candidates in the bio-chemical world.
The IPCC consensus can then say they didn’t get sufficient biological and biochemical input, and the biologists/biochemists can truthfully say they were never asked. The best ones never needed to put “global-warming” or “climate-change” in their grant applications.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 11:14 am

mbw says:
December 25, 2012 at 10:06 am
“There was no global warming from 1940-1960. Therefore the warming that has occurred since then did not happen.”
CO2AGW believer, that’s pretty weak. It’s not even funny. Can’t you do better? Everybody here knows the data. You’re not on grist.

December 25, 2012 11:16 am

Well done sir, well done.
honestly I do not know if I am capable of being that forgiving though.
the whole eco warrior setup has wounded us in so many ways (land use, zoning, tree harvesting, oil production, etc) over the past decades I just do not have it in me to be that nice a person.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 11:17 am

icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 9:41 am
“With the current global energy imbalance of 0.6W/m², we would have to reduce CO₂ to 345ppm just to halt global warming where it is now. ”
Don’t you think that the climate behaves a little bit too complicated for a stage one thinker?

December 25, 2012 11:21 am

Michael Mann etal,
First know thyself, each of you and the whole of your rat invested borg.
Yours ever true from one of the ones you will know will be unforgiving of your sins.
From where I operated near the front lines, rats had little hope once we had their location on the grid.
Knowing ones like me are a minority and you are free from our judgement, still yet you should fear us.
Let it go before it is to late for you to do so.

December 25, 2012 11:26 am

DirkH says:
December 25, 2012 at 8:09 am

What did the Nile do during the Maunder minimum?

The Maunder Minimum (starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715) and the Nile River
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/climatehistory.pdf

1878: A flood on the Nile in Egypt killed 250.

Here is information on what the Nile did, from a more exhaustive source of information:
A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events, 6th Edition
By James A. Marusek
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/weather.pdf

In 1691, the cold was so severe in Eastern Europe that packs of starving wolves entered Vienna, Austria and attacked men and women in the streets. All the canals of Venice, Italy were frozen, and the principal mouth of the Nile River in Egypt was blocked with frozen ice for a week.63
The winter of 1812-13 was one of the hardest ever known in Europe. The River Thames in England froze from the source to the sea; the Seine River in France, the Rhine River in Germany, the Danube River, the Po River in Italy and the Gaudalquiver River in southern Spain were all covered with ice. The Baltic Sea froze for many miles from land, and the Ikagerack and the Cattegat were both frozen over. The Adriatic Sea at Venice, Italy was frozen, so was the Sea of Marmora, while the Hellespont and Dardanelles were blocked with ice and the archipelago was impassable. The Tiber River in Italy was lightly coated, and the Straits of Massina at the eastern tip of Sicily were covered with ice. Snow fell all over North Africa and drift ice appeared in the Nile, in Egypt. This was the winter Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow, Russia, when 400,000 men perished, mostly of cold and hunger.

December 25, 2012 11:27 am

DirkH: 0.6W/m² is a big planetary energy imbalance. It’s the equivalent of around 430,000 Hiroshima nuclear explosions every single day. It would boil the oceans dry in around 33,000 years, which is the blink of an eye in geological terms. Clearly there cannot have been anything like that magnitude of imbalance for any substantial length of time in the entire history of the planet. I’m not suggesting it’s going to last for thousands of years but it does illustrate just how strong our warming influence on the planet is.

S Basinger
December 25, 2012 11:35 am

In my home, the province of Alberta in Canada, we are officially rat free. I think it’s the only place in human habitation except Antarctica, which is rat free.
We didn’t get to be this way by giving the rats an ‘out’ when they were discovered, but by systematically and mercilessly eradicating them via our “Rat Patrol”.

Jeff Alberts
December 25, 2012 11:40 am

GlynnMhor says:
December 25, 2012 at 9:55 am
Any farmer or rancher who suspects the presence of rats need only make a phone call or email, and the rat Patrol will be at the premises in short order to expunge the nasty critters at no cost to the owner.

Apart from taxes, that is…

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 11:40 am

This is one of the most entertaining comment threads I’ve seen on WattsUpWithThat. Well done, everyone. A few more follow-ups to commenters, in the approximate order of their occurrence:
Chris Riley introduces the time-inconsistency problem: if we let the rats out through the rat-hole, there will be adverse consequences because the rats have been let out rather than destroyed, and because future rats may learn from today’s rats that dishonesty is not punished as it should be. Well, it’s Christmas, so I’m trying to be nice to the rats.
Mr. Riley says science will come to great harm if the perps are allowed to escape down the rat-hole with their reputations intact. Hey, a rat that uses a rat-hole is still a rat, and everyone will know that. It’s Christmas. See it from their point of view. No global warming for 16 years. Sea level hardly changing. Ice not melting as ordered. No 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The rats’ cousins in the media are doing a fine job of concealing these facts for now, but the truth is emerging, slowly, inexorably, and – for the rats – painfully. Digging them a nice, well-ventilated rat-hole is the last we can do to put them out of their misery.
Clay Marley reminds us that there are many innocents who believe what they read in the newspapers, and the headlines still shriek “World To End Shock!”, rather than the unexciting truth “Climate Continuing Changeable (Yawn)”. He says, “The science may be dead but the ideology isn’t.” It’s Christmas. Have faith. In time, what is plain to a few will be plain to all. Much time, effort, and taxpayers’ money will have been damagingly squandered in the meantime. But it’s Christmas. Be merry. Be hopeful. The end of the nonsense is in sight.
My noble friend Rodney Leach says we should “express understanding with them for the 25 years’ warming in the run up to 1998, which naturally misled them into believeing that a quarter of a century’s correlation with the model projections was proof that the models were accurate predictors of the future.” That would be very kind of us: for the rate of warming from 1976-1998 was equivalent to just 1.7 Celsius degrees per century: no faster than the warming rate from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940. What it showed was that there was none of the acceleration in the warming rate that the models had so confidently but erroneously predicted. Still, it’s Christmas, so this one may be worth a try.
“Tmlutas”, who writes for a “collective” (oof!) of analysts analyzing the skeptics’ strategy, says, “The emotions thrown up by this issue actually challenge the underlying business model of the firm.” (Hurrah!) And he asks, “Can a few hundred analysts from all over the globe and from disparate fields apply the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ to your thesis? Are there public policy issues too hot for this model to work?”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s Christmas. My rule is to try to do the kind and gentle thing first, and only to take off the velvet glove when the iron fist needs to swing into action. It is fascinating how often and how spectacularly this works.
An example. During the Falklands conflict, British troops were trying to dislodge superior Argentinian forces from a strategically-crucial redoubt at Goose Green. H. Jones, the gung-ho, lead-from-the-front British commander on the spot, made the same mistake Wellington had made at Talavera: he led several unsuccessful uphill charges against enemy forces that had the advantage not only of height but also of ability to see into dead ground between them and the Brits. Jones and many of his men were killed.
His no. 2 found himself unexpectedly in command and decided to pray. (Did I say it was Christmas?) The answer came to him at once and he told his sparky to patch him through to the Argentinian commander.
“Now, look here, old boy,” he said in his most authoritative, cut-glass, public-school-and-Sandhurst drawl, “We both know how this is going to end. So what I’m going to suggest is this. You all lay down your arms like good chaps and come out with your hands up, and I’ll see to it that you get properly fed and watered, your wounded treated, and safe passage back to Argentina on the first boat. How about that?”
“Si, señor!” And, to everyone’s astonishment, 1500 Argentinians found they had surrendered to 200 Brits.
Another example. During the British miners’ strike of 1982-3, their Communist leader, Arthur Scargill, detailed several hundred miners to go to London and demonstrate in Parliament Square.
I was working for Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street at the time. Oliver Letwin, now the Minister for Government Policy, came rushing in to the office he and I shared and said, “It’s so unEnglish! The miners are rioting in Parliament Square!”
“Nonsense,” I said, “They do that every Friday night when the pubs tip out. They mean no harm at all.”
“B-but they’re coming this way! They’re already at the end of the street! What shall we do?”
“I’ll go and talk to them,” I said, and reached for my bowler hat, as one does.
“You’re not going to wear that stupid Charlie Chaplin hat, are you?”
“Of course,” I replied. And I strode confidently out through the big black door into Downing Street. Well, I hoped I looked confident, anyway. At the end of the street, held back by two nervous bobbies and pressing hard against the flimsy barriers, were several dozen noisy miners. Letwin peeped out of the window above to watch the lynching.
As soon as the miners saw a bowler-hatted figure shambling out of No. 10, they jeered. I walked steadily towards them. Halfway there, I slowly lifted my hat to them and smiled. Instantly, the jeers turned to cheering.
As my Staff Sergeant used to say, “The one unmistakable way of making a polite gesture at a distance is to take your ‘at off. And, no, sir, I’m not going to talk about the dozens of ways of making impolite gestures at a distance.”
I went up to the crowd and spoke to one of the miners at the front in a conversational tone. The rest instantly fell silent so that they could hear what we were saying (St. John Ambulance manual of crowd control, page 1).
“You’ve come a long way to speak to the Prime Minister,” I said, “but she’s out just now. And it’s Christmastime. So what I propose is that we go across the street to the pub, I’ll buy you a beer, you can give me your message for the Prime Minister, I’ll take a note of it and it will be on her desk this evening.”
The miners filed happily across Whitehall to the pub and, three years later, when I left the Prime Minister’s service, two of them came to my farewell party in the State Apartments. It’s possible they were the first miners ever to set foot in Downing Street under a Tory government.
Bottom line: “Tmlutas” should feel free to test out this well-practised strategy on his analysts. We Brits have been using this method successfully for centuries – but then, we’re just that little bit subtler than some of us like to make ourselves look.
My own three-stage strategy for dealing with the global-warming profiteers:
1. Go on quietly, politely, telling the truth about the science and the economics.
2. Er …
3. … that’s it.
As the Lord of Life said to Pontius Pilate, Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati (Unto this was I born, for this came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth). Not a bad motto for us skeptics, that.
Notoriously, Pilate did not tarry for an answer. But within 100 years the truth of Christianity had spread throughout the known world.
Cheer up then, or, as the monks used to sing in Advent, Consolamini, consolamini, popule meus. All will be well. The climate profiteers, like the Romans in Judea, have the money, the power, and the glory. But we, like the Child who was born this day, have the truth.
Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Sorry for the length of this comment. I’m holed up in isolation till tomorrow, having had norovirus. I’m not allowed near anyone till tomorrow. So you, gentle readers, have been my Christmas entertainment. Thank you, one and all.

Roger Knights
December 25, 2012 11:46 am

thingadonta says:
December 25, 2012 at 9:23 am
Human beings and societies will always have an irrational tendancy, even amongst the educated and elite, to assume certain forms of ‘immutable’ and ‘over-riding’ ‘non-changeability’, which is ultimately for their own personal interest and benefit within the Darwinian struggle for power and resources.

The will to power–yes. And the “circulation of the élites” (Pareto). Leading environmentalists sense that this is their movement’s moment in the sun, and believe that it deserves to rule and displace its exhausted, non-charismatic predecessor-elites. The king rats sense that power is there for the seizing. Hence their opportunism and unprincipled behavior. They are justifying themselves in terms of raison d’état.

jdgalt
December 25, 2012 11:54 am

The UN General Assembly is a club of and for the world’s dictators. Their whole purpose is to destroy the economies of the rich countries before we can threaten their rule. It therefore makes sense for them to have joined forces with the people who have admitted wanting to destroy those economies themselves (see green-agenda.com).
I see no reason, then, to credit any of them with goodwill as Monckton does. Let’s stop helping the UN’s publicity machine, until we can elect leaders who will pull us out.

Editor
December 25, 2012 12:00 pm

The Second Order Draft of AR5 does admit no statistically significant warming in 14 years (SOD p. 10-3, lines 50-52):

“While the trend in global mean temperature since 1998 is not significantly different from zero, it is also consistent with natural variability superposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trends projected by climate models.”

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch10_attribution_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch10_All_Final.pdf
Starting in 1998 the statistically insignificant trend is actually negative. It is logical they would pick that year, since it was the high point, but it is also surprising, since they usually pick dates to hide what is going on rather than to expose it. Maybe they picked 98 in order to stay under the 15 year period of no-warming that they admit would falsify their models.

Jeff Alberts
December 25, 2012 12:01 pm

DirkH says:
December 25, 2012 at 11:17 am
icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 9:41 am
“With the current global energy imbalance of 0.6W/m², we would have to reduce CO₂ to 345ppm just to halt global warming where it is now. ”
Don’t you think that the climate behaves a little bit too complicated for a stage one thinker?

You’ll notice that icarus, along with all the other alarmists, haven’t taken the action they so demand of the rest of us. Such as stop using all modern, fossil-fuel enabled conveniences.
Hypocrites all.

Kaboom
December 25, 2012 12:07 pm

While I largely agree with the idea I disagree with the generosity involved. Ideally such a rat hole should be designed in a way that will make sure those of lesser guilt can escape but only by making sure those at the top of the scam pay the piper. That has two benefits: the most guilty get punished by those who followed them for the tangible reward of absolution of their involvement. The second, more important one, is the damage the underlying fabric of social trust among those who were involved. It is frayed and the next fraudster to come along can no longer rely that his followers won’t throw him to the sharks without second thought if they fear that the jig is up.

D Böehm
December 25, 2012 12:07 pm

Lord Monckton’s comment @11:40 above is well worth reading.

icarus62 says:
“It’s the equivalent of around 430,000 Hiroshima nuclear explosions every single day.”
How much is that in Olympic-sized swimming pools? ☺
Yes, I am ridiculing you. The planet is ridiculing you. Your entire belief system is based on scary, context-free numbers and unscientific, evidence free “What-ifs”.
Stop scaring yourself. It is unbecoming an adult, if that’s what you are. Nothing unprecedented is occurring. Everything we observe today, including global temperature, has been exceeded in the past, and to a much greater degree — and when CO2 was much lower. How do you explain that? Would you accept ‘natural climate variability’? The planet has been much warmer, and much colder, without any human input.
The planet is doing just fine. The putative effect of CO2 emissions is only an evidence free conjecture. CO2 may have a minor effect, but if so it is only a minuscule, third order forcing, and it’s effect is saturated. There will be no measureable warming due to CO2 even if it continues to rise.
No one has ever identified any global harm due to CO2 emissions. Therefore, CO2 is, by definition, “harmless”. Although CO2 causes no global harm, it is provably beneficial to the entire biosphere. More is better.
Where do you get your crazy ideas, anyway? Tell them you want a refund.

Max Hugoson
December 25, 2012 12:18 pm

Lord M. Personal experience, the RAT that was invading our temporary trailer on a nuclear site, in the 1980’s. Had a suspicion about ONE hole, about .7″ diameter… “Impossible” most in the trailer said. Set a clever trap, and made it cover the hole upon the entrance of the rat. ALSO set up a barrier with cardboard boxes.
Rat came in, was trapped! WAS VERY AGRESSIVE. Jumped easily 2′ high, we had the barrier JUST high enough, and were able to observe without being bitten. Used a stick and cleared the hole. PLEASE NOTE RAT WAS WIGGLED THROUGH THAT HOLE WITHIN A MINUTE. (Of course, it sensed the cold/fresh air and went for it.)
SO your analogy is petty good! However, let’s not forget that rats carry the PLAUGE. Let’s also not forget that leaving GARBAGE out in the open, un-processed, and to fester/rot, and stink…brings the RATS. Could that be the very POOR work that passes for “Science” these days? The “self re-inforcing/religion/paradigm situation among the “science elites” which broaches no REAL critical examination?
I’d call this, “Piling up the garbage and letting it rot.” OUR JOB IS TO CLEAN OUT THE GARBAGE, and..I suppose, like Reme in Rattatoulie, we can give the Redundant Atrocious Terrible (climate) Scientists as way out. Who knows, with the garbage gone, they may not stink any more!
Max

Robert M
December 25, 2012 12:29 pm

I don’t want the rats to have an out. [snip] If they are allowed to escape, they will only reemerge in the future to cause even more destruction.

LazyTeenager
December 25, 2012 12:31 pm

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.
———–
Good summary Christopher. Now who are you drilling a rat hole for again?

Peter
December 25, 2012 12:33 pm

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DV3FnpaWQJO0
perhaps Gilder Radner has the answer…. “Oh you meant CO2 …ohh sorry never mind”

Other_Andy
December 25, 2012 12:34 pm
December 25, 2012 12:38 pm

Notwithstanding the soft touch method herein suggested.
These Earth First, Greenpeace, trees before humans types are not rational operators who know fact from fiction as real working operators such as the miners you met.
These would take your hat, curse you for attempting to bribe them with beer and use the ACLU to take your assets for just the acts of uncovering the fraud.
Better time for this would be when energy cost has gone up 200% or so, then do the consideration of how nice to be to this uncut evil.

Editor
December 25, 2012 12:47 pm

With a gracious and sombrero due tip of his hard hat towards
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 25, 2012 at 11:40 am
Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Caution:
Google translate changes the above into:
Magna est veritas to fry a lie.
And although I very firmly want to fry their lies by righteously magnifying their exposure, I doubt this is the intention of your quote.
Instead,Google translate recommends:
Magna est veritas, et praevalebit.
Great is the truth, and gets the upper hand.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 12:51 pm

icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 11:27 am
“DirkH: 0.6W/m² is a big planetary energy imbalance. It’s the equivalent of around 430,000 Hiroshima nuclear explosions every single day. ”
Now don’t wet yourself but normal insolation is equivalent to 250833333.333 Hiroshima bombs a day. There I said it. Extinguish the sun!

LazyTeenager
December 25, 2012 12:58 pm

Christopher saysMan has so far altered only 1/10,000 of the atmosphere, and may alter 1/3000 of it by 2100.
————
So a quote from “How to Lie with Statistics” is in order:
It’s all a little like the tale of a roadside merchant who was asked to explain how he could sell rabbit sandwiches so cheap. “Well,” he said, “I have to put in some horse meat too. But I mix ’em fifty-fifty: one horse, one rabbit.”
————
The important thing about CO2 is that 20% of the radiation of the earth’s waste heat into the
vacuum of space is due to CO2. Changing the amount of CO2 blocks off that exit route just slightly.

Steve Oregon
December 25, 2012 12:59 pm

D Böehm says:
Steve Oregon,
The fact remains, they are still rats. ☺
How well I know that.
Here in Oregon we are infested with a disproportionate share of them at every level of government and academia.
They function as a Borg-like parasite, crafting countless ways to fund their wretched & obnoxious selves and impose their vermin agenda upon society.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 1:06 pm

Jeff Alberts says:
December 25, 2012 at 12:01 pm
“You’ll notice that icarus, along with all the other alarmists, haven’t taken the action they so demand of the rest of us. Such as stop using all modern, fossil-fuel enabled conveniences.”
Icarus62 pops up from time to time, he’s an ardent end-times believer. He just comes up with the silliest slogans the warmists distribute and when you argue with him he quickly switches to the next one. Normal malthusian, we destroy the planet through our ways, that kind of stuff. Like Attenborough only with less success. Will hitch a ride on the next malthusian thing once CO2AGW has bottomed out.

Other_Andy
December 25, 2012 1:06 pm

icarus62
Looking at your post at Sodahead:
1. Did you make the ‘graphs’ yourself?
If not, where did you get them from?
If so, what data did you use to construct them?
2. You make the following statements:
1. Global sea level rise is above the fastest rate predicted in the IPCC reports
2. Accelerating melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
3. Global warming is proceeding as fast as predicted in the IPCC reports
4. Oceans have been warming faster in the last decade than in the previous two.
Can you supply the data you used to support these four statements?
All the data I can find refutes the first three statements and I cannot find any data for the last one.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
December 25, 2012 1:10 pm

As always Lord Monckton, it has been a great pleasure spending my Christmas day reading your commentary and the responses here. I generally concur with your position, one should not put the opposition in a position of no retreat possible unless your intent is to destroy them in all particulars. Hopefully they will allow themselves to display an uncharacteristic measure of discretion and “get out while the getting is good” as the old phrase goes.
Anyone who has the slightest degree of good sense and awareness of how thin the support for the AGW hypothesis really is, would have gotten out a long time ago. Some are certainly lingering longer than they should looking for either a turn in the data that will allow them to shout “Aha see we were right all along!” or for a break in the pressure where they can quietly slink out the back door when everyone is distracted and looking in another direction.
I see (reading between the lines) that a few are planting seeds of uncertainty that some day in the future they can point to and say, “Well we always had some doubts about x or y.” Then they will point to some future event and say it was the confirmation that they were looking for to confirm those doubts.
A few however I fear are either so corrupt, greedy or just plain dishonest that they will stick out until the last shred of supposed evidence has been destroyed and will ultimately leave with their reputation shattered and with it unfortunately much of the public’s respect for scientists as a group.
The one group I feel sorry for, is the gullible masses who believe everything that they read from any source that they view as credible (such as our mass media who without shame destroy every tenent of good journalism in their persuit of ratings and a political agenda. Many of those who have been intentionally misled, were never taught or are not inclined to ever make any sort of rationality check on what they see, hear or read. They will be severely wounded if they ever catch on to how badly they were played by the propaganda of the mass media and a few snake oil salesmen like Gore. He and his kind obviously are and never were honorable, or trustworthy enough for any public office or position of authority. They will only pay for their crimes against humanity in the history books I fear, as most of them are insulated behind layers of money, connections and sycophantic followers so they are probably untouchable.
Please keep up the steady flow of the truth of the matters regarding the charade of AGW.
Larry

December 25, 2012 1:12 pm

Magna est veritas, et praevalet—“Great is truth, and it prevails”—is a quote from [“3 Esdras, 4:41”]] of the Vulgate. It is hardly Lord Monckton’s fault that Google Translate provides incompetent Latin translations.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 1:14 pm

Other_Andy says:
December 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm
“Can you supply the data you used to support these four statements?
All the data I can find refutes the first three statements and I cannot find any data for the last one.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/28/mythbusting-rahmstorf-and-foster/

Lightrain
December 25, 2012 1:15 pm

Excellent essay, I’ve been thinking of a way for the warmistas to save face and bow out of this insanity. But who offers the escape plan, and who do they offer it too. The warmistas have any number of ‘rats’ that need extraction — I just don’t see who can be a representive for either side.

December 25, 2012 1:29 pm

Oops; dear Moderator, whilst you‘re moderating, please fix my reference to the Vulgate, which should be “3 Esdras, 4:41”.

rgbatduke
December 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Jim Cripwell says Christ was born in 4 BC. I have not studied the question of when He was born, so I was careful to put a tilde in front of “~2012” to indicate uncertainty.
According to Matthew, without question, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (hence the three wise men, the slaughter of innocents, etc). According to Luke, without question, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod Antipas, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. No wise men, no flight to Egypt to escape a slaughter of innocents that in any event could hardly have passed unremarked upon in contemporary histories. There is no possible mistaking the two times, and they disagree by at least 15 years (Herod the Great DIED in 4 BCE, Jesus would have had to have been born by around 6 BCE).
So we have no idea when, or if, an actual person corresponding to Jesus was born. Only two of the “Gospels” discuss the birth at all, and they radically disagree (compare the “geneology” of Jesus in the two Gospels as well). We therefore can be certain that the Gospels, written no earlier than the late first century or earlier second century by people who were not there, are not reliable witnesses.
While I am no great fan of Popper’s criterion of falsifiability or the Logical Positivist verifiability (because the middle path of a Bayesian weighting of both positive and negative evidence given an entire network of prior evidence supported beliefs is the way our brains and our common sense actually work) it is interesting to see such a vast array of statements as those that constitute Christianity, that not only cannot be falsified but that mutually contradict one another, cited inside a piece attacking the “religious” beliefs of CAGW enthusiasts because they are illogical and unscientific and cannot be disproven.
Two points, then. First, one may or may not be able to “falsify” predictions of CAGW, but one can certainly assess evidence and alter the weight of one’s beliefs in the proposition. Positive evidence (e.g. continued warming) can and should increase our degree of belief in the proposition. Negative evidence (a failure of continued warming) can and should decrease our degree of belief in the proposition, or force the modification of the proposition. So it goes with all of our beliefs. All scientific logic and reason requires is this systematic alteration of the network of beliefs towards one that is more consistent with the data and all the other evidence supported beliefs in the network. You might try reading E. T. Jaynes’ book Probability Theory, the Logic of Science at some point because it is one of the most profound works of epistemological philosophy ever written (and you might want to read Richard Cox’s short treatise “The Algebra of Probable Reason” first, as it is the foundation).
Second, no one requires people to be consistent, and of course you are all welcome to be as religious as you please, but perhaps you might consider separating a good rant on poor philosophy, logic and evidence-based reason from de facto affirmation of a worldview that has long be proven to be indefensible on the grounds of all three.
I’m just saying.
Happy Newtonmas, everyone…
rgb

Steve Keohane
December 25, 2012 1:40 pm

Other_Andy says:December 25, 2012 at 1:06 pm
I didn’t look at much on Sodahead but noticed the sea level graph seems to show the correct rate of ~10cm/40years or 2.5mm/year, regardless of the text. weird

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 1:45 pm

The pseudonymous “Icarus62” talks of a “Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE” of 0.6 Watts per square meter, equivalent to exploding 430,000 atom-bombs. In 33,000 years, he wails, the oceans will boil away.
“Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE”! Gee – straight out of a kid’s sci-fi comic. Ming the Merciless commands: “Adolf, target the Megatron on the Earth and irradiate it with a Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE of 430,000 atom-bombs’ equivalent for 33,000 years. That will boil the oceans away. Heh, heh! Then I shall be Master of the Universe – if I live long enough.”
So let’s shut the trash-mag and do the math. First off, some perspective. The Sun is around 30% more luminous than it was a few billion years ago. That’s a hefty 55 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface, after allowing for albedo and rotation. Yet the oceans have not boiled away. Still there, last time I looked. That Eschenbach has been sailing all over it.
Seen in that perspective, the Earth is not going to have much of a problem dealing with an extra net down-minus-up flux at the tropopause of a piddly 0.6 Watts per square meter, now is it?
Any “Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE” resolves itself by a simple mechanism known as temperature change. Up goes the temperature, up goes the outgoing radiation, and everything goes back into balance.
If there were a “Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE” such as “Icarus62” imagines, we’d be able to tell, because temperature would be rising. But it is not rising. It has not been rising for 16 years.
So there is no “Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE”. Not at the moment.
The two boundaries of the Earth’s atmosphere – the ocean below and outer space above – exert a continuous and powerful homeostatic influence, keeping the temperature broadly stable. In the past 1000 years, absolute Earth surface temperature has varied by only 0.5%, or 1.3 K, either side of the 1000-year mean. In the past 64 million years, it has varied by only 3%, or 8 K, either side of the 64-million-year mean.
That means it is going to take a lot more than a footling 0.6 Watts per square meter of forcing to boil the oceans away. Oh, and the world’s fossil fuel supply might last for another 1000 years, not 33,000. Within 40 years after the fossil fuel is used up, the additional CO2 we added to the atmosphere will have left it again.
The finity of the fossil-fuel supply and the 40-year residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere impose between them an upper limit on the amount of warming we can cause. Any mathematician, unlike Ming the Merciless or Icarus the Accident-Prone, checks his limiting cases before worrying what is or is not going to happen in 33,000 years’ time.
The ocean, the atmosphere’s lower boundary, is three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere. It acts as a gigantic heat-sink. One would have to heat up the atmosphere by a large amount for a long time before ocean temperature changed much.
At the atmosphere’s upper boundary, any additional radiation simply passes harmlessly away into outer space. We need not worry too much about heating up the Universe. Or the Earth, for that matter.
“Adolf, replace the wax on Icarus’ wings with something a little softer. Then, when the Megatron gets us up to a ‘Planetary ENERGY IMBALANCE’ of 0.6 Watts per square meter, the softer wax will melt, his wings will fall off, and he will plunge headlong into the ocean – if it’s still there. Heh, heh, heh!”
“Zu befehl, mein Ming!”
—————————
Apologies for not having translated “Magna est veritas, et praevalet.” The Vulgate gives “praevalet”, not “praevalebit” (the present tense, not the future tense). The King James Version – the only valuable output of any committee anywhere – has, as always, the best translation: “Great is truth, and mighty above all things.”

lgl
December 25, 2012 1:50 pm

“The overall feedback gain factor, G, which is unitless, is equal to the reciprocal of (1 – Planck x fsum)”
Hmm… Do you have a reference for that or is it just something you made up?

Ian W
December 25, 2012 2:05 pm

roger says:
December 25, 2012 at 7:35 am
Can Lord Christopher really forgive the wind turbines and farms that desecrate the scenery of Scotland an can he really accept the massive pylons already marching across the banks and braes, all of which will remain for decades after this nonsense has ended.
And will he forgive Alex Salmond, the perpetrator of this barbarism, for conning the Scots into believing that the English will buy his wind generated electricity at three times the price of gas, should he achieve independence?
From where I sit in the Borders surrounded by the excrescences, I rather think not.

Windfarms are actually subsidy farms not power generators; they are money laundering devices to pass tax monies to politicians’ supporters and families. Recent history has shown that windpower only exists while the initial subsidies are available; as soon as the subsidies cease the windfarm companies declare bankruptcy and leave the windmills to rot in the wind. The corroding unmoving relics of the windfarms will be a monument to Alex Salmonds overweening hubris for many years – he will come to regret welcoming them to Scotland.

December 25, 2012 2:05 pm

Following up on Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 25, 2012 at 7:45 am:
Thank you for your excellent presentation, and for being at the right place at the right time, and pressing that button 🙂
My previous post seems to have got swamped in the rush. Something along the lines being up against the Hydra rather than rats … cut one head off and two grow in its place. Every other comment has been made by others.
Following up on Australia’s ” …$1.1 million fine to speak out against the carbon dioxide tax”.
This is not correct.
The offence is to unjustifiably ascribe a price rise for goods and services to the effect of the carbon tax.
Since every good or service has input of energy of some kind that has to be paid for, justification should not be difficult, but those of us who have to set prices (and are not protected by parliamentary or other privileges) are very much aware of who will be assessing the justification.
This has given rise to a few creative standards, eg “I/we cannot confirm or deny that this price rise has anything to do with the carbon tax”.

gnomish
December 25, 2012 2:10 pm

the tradition of the ruling classes to protect one another seems to be based on the fear of establishing a precedent of rabble sending them to the guillotine.
until a few years ago, the grunts were there for killing each other – and the president, et al, were granted immunity from fear of soldier’s grim death. losing in a war just meant the ruler ran off with the treasury and found sanctuary with a former ally. his punishment was a rich retirement.
when reagan dropped a bomb in khaddafi’s yard, violating this convention – leetists howled; the fighting stopped.
it’s not for somebody else to generously acquit the criminal against whom the victim has a righteous claim.
there is no ‘right of the predator’ and no ‘droigt de senior’.
there are the rights of individuals and compensation, restitution and retribution are the proper remedies.
the ONLY one with the right to forgive is the victim and ONLY on his own behalf.
no one can make himself lord and master of anybody else, nor presume to dispose of another’s rights.
do try to avoid a religious rap that eases (but requires) your sacrifice.
this tender concern for the predator can only be shown by one of his family.
if it is not your nature to be fed on and sacrificed to the predators of the world, then do not fall for a narrative that would have YOU be the guilty party by failing to forgive the loss of life and limb.
they require you to define yourself as sheep. don’t do it.
know, for certain, that sacrifice is no virture- it is suicide on the installment plan.
know, for certain, that whoever preaches this to you does not value your life; he merely wants you not to fuss at the altar where he will see you butchered.

pat
December 25, 2012 2:13 pm

obviously these folks haven’t heard the Good “16 years” News, or they are wilfully ignoring it:
24 Dec: KVOA Tucson: AP: Group to hand out free endangered species condoms
The Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity says that since its population awareness campaign began in 2009, the group has given out 450,000 free endangered species condoms, featuring pictures of polar bears, panthers and other threatened species…
Jerry Karnas, the group’s population campaign director, says the condoms help attract attention to the problem of how increasing human population is affecting wildlife, some already on the brink of extinction.
http://www.kvoa.com/news/group-to-hand-out-free-endangered-species-condoms/
Center for Biological Diversity – Meet the Staff
Jerry Karnas, Population Campaign Director, graduated from Swarthmore College with majors in political science and environmental studies. Before joining the Center he led campaigns on climate change, clean energy, manatees, Everglades restoration and oil drilling; he also advised clean-energy companies and political candidates. He was a climate advisor to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and in 2008 won an Emmy Award for best public service announcement for the “Faces of Climate Change” campaign.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/index.html
Endangered Species Condoms – a project of the Center for Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity marked this year’s Earth Day by distributing 100,000 free Endangered Species Condoms around the country
POLAR BEAR
An international icon of global warming, the polar bear is going extinct as the Arctic sea ice melts beneath its feet because of the greenhouse gas emissions of 7 billion people — especially those in high-consumption nations like the United States.
http://www.endangeredspeciescondoms.com/
workingforgreen.org: Biodiversity in the Age of Big Money Environmentalism
Counterpunch Weekend Edition January 15-17, 2010 by MICHAEL DONNELLY
As a grassroots activist involved in the environmental campaigns of the last four decades, of course I’m going to be interested in histories written about them…
One of the primary groups examined in Bevington’s study was the Center for Biological Diversity (formed in 1989), [22] and which in 2008 received support from elite philanthropic bodies that included the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Environment Now Foundation, Tides Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, and even the “big green” environmental outfit, The Wilderness Society. Corporate funders of the “grassroots” Center for Biological Diversity included the likes of Goldman Sachs, the Bank of America, and Microsoft. [23] The fact that Bevington describes a group funded by the world’s leading capitalist elites as grassroots demonstrates how desperately well-meaning environmentalists cling to the illusion that by working with capitalists (not the grassroots) they will be able to counter the destruction wrought on the planet by capitalists (evidently for the benefit of the grassroots). [24] Needless to say it is hardly surprising that the Center for Biological Diversity was pleased by the fact that Edward Humes’ “devot[ed] a fourth of his book” Eco Barons to their history and achievements. [25]…
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/category/non-profit-industrial-complex-organizations/organizations/center-for-biological-diversity/
Doc Hastings, Chairman, Natural Resources :
Press Release: DOJ Documents Confirm Center for Biological Diversity Received Millions in Taxpayer Funds from ESA-Related Lawsuits
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 27, 2012 – The Center for Biological Diversity today sent a letter to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings claiming their organization had only received $553,000 in taxpayer funds resulting from Endangered Species Act (ESA) related attorney fees and court cases. This claim conflicts with data obtained from the Department of Justice (DOJ), which shows over $2 million in taxpayer dollars have been paid out to the Center for Biological Diversity and their attorneys for cases open between 2009-2012.
The Center for Biological Diversity appears to have derived their erroneous number by including only checks made out directly to the Center for Biological Diversity over a select period of years. Attorney fees are typically paid out to the attorney of record. The Center for Biological Diversity is conveniently failing to include the majority of funds that were paid directly to their hired lawyers. Nine of the lawyers who have received payouts are currently employed by the Center for Biological Diversity.
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=301242

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 2:16 pm

The pseudonymous “lgl” is not perhaps au fait with the standards of politeness that are expected in these comments, He had asked me to explain the feedback amplification equation. I had explained it in surely reasonable and (in the absence of reference books, for I am isolated by ill health till tomorrow) accurate detail.
Now he suggests that I made up the answer. Bah!
So he is going to have to do the homework for himself. The locus classicus for the application of feedbacks to electronic circuitry, from which the climate modelers lifted the concept of feedbacks and translated it to surface temperature, is Bode (1945), published by Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York.
So, since “lgl” cannot be bothered to be polite, I am disinclined to explain my answer to him any further. He can look it up for himself in Bode – all 551 pages of it.
But, hey, it’s Christmas, though the pseudonymous “lgl” does not seem to have noticed. So I’ll let him off with a warning and another reference, this time to no less than the Holy Books of IPeCaC, yea, verily.
I refer him to IPeCaC (2007, AR4, p. 631 fn.), a footnote so execrably written that I doubt it will leave him any the wiser: but at least it is only a few lines long.
He will find that IPeCaC treats the Planck parameter (incorrectly, in my submission) as a feedback rather than as part of the reference frame for the climatic feedback loop, expressing it not as 0.31 Kelvin per Watt per square meter but as its reciprocal, i.e. 3.2 Watts per square meter per Kelvin.
As far as I can discover, that Sibylline footnote, which appears crafted to confuse, is the only place in which the IPCC discusses the mathematical method by which feedbacks are mutually amplified.
And you will certainly find no mention of the crucial concept of closed-loop gain anywhere in IPeCaC’s turgid, self-congratulatory tomes.
I had to go and sit at the feet of a learned doctor of process engineering in 2007 until I understood something of how feedback math works.
Most of the bloviators on climate have no idea of feedback math at all: otherwise they would collapse laughing, as I do, every time someone said “But there’s a consensus”.

December 25, 2012 2:19 pm

icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 11:27 am
DirkH: 0.6W/m² is a big planetary energy imbalance. It’s the equivalent of around 430,000 Hiroshima nuclear explosions every single day. It would boil the oceans dry in around 33,000 years, which is the blink of an eye in geological terms. Clearly there cannot have been anything like that magnitude of imbalance for any substantial length of time in the entire history of the planet. I’m not suggesting it’s going to last for thousands of years but it does illustrate just how strong our warming influence on the planet is.
Please understand that I am trying to understand this in light of:
Discussing the Late Eemian Aridity Pulse (LEAP) at the end-Eemian:
“Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
dW/m2 = 12
Sirocko, et al, 2005, A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, doi:10.1038/nature03905, pp 833-836.
So my lack of understanding here is comprehension of the magnitude of a +0.6 W/m2 anomaly when we are only 12 W/m2 “only slightly below today’s value (2005) of 428 Wm2.”
This may not be an isolated incidence, though the 2005 insolation value at 65N 21Jun is higher by some 46 W/m2:
“However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a “double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.””
state Lisiecki and Raymo PALEOCEANOGRAPHY, VOL. 20, PA1003, oi:10.1029/2004PA001071, 2005.
I’m just having a hard time getting my mind wrapped around how such a large forcing as +0.6 W/m2 fits into the grand scheme of things, end-interglacial, where 12 W/m2 is considered “slightly below today’s value”, a 3 order of magnitude difference. Possibly with an error bar of say 46 W/m2?
One of us is missing something here, and I would not be at all surprised if it was me.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 2:24 pm

lgl says:
December 25, 2012 at 1:50 pm

““The overall feedback gain factor, G, which is unitless, is equal to the reciprocal of (1 – Planck x fsum)”
Hmm… Do you have a reference for that or is it just something you made up?”

Full quote:
“The overall feedback gain factor, G, which is unitless, is equal to the reciprocal of (1 – Planck x fsum), where Planck is the zero-feedback climate-sensitivity parameter 0.3 Kelvin per Watt per square meter and fsum is the unamplified net sum, in Watts per square meter per Kelvin, of all individual positive and negative feedbacks operating on the climate object.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
See Formula:
G_c = A/(1-AB)
(Notice that A=1 in Lord Monckton’s explanation)

JPeden
December 25, 2012 2:24 pm

icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 11:27 am
DirkH: 0.6W/m² is a big planetary energy imbalance. It’s the equivalent of around 430,000 Hiroshima nuclear explosions every single day. It would boil the oceans dry in around 33,000 years, which is the blink of an eye in geological terms.
But to give us a better feel for what boiling “the oceans dry” will look like, icarus, could you please translate the total amount of ocean water boiled off into how many “Lake Eries” there will be sitting just a little above us and suspended in the atmosphere so precariously?

Greg House
December 25, 2012 2:29 pm

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley: “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.”

=============================================================
Christopher, the way out for “climate rats” has always been there, but they have not taken it yet. For the simple reason that they are not really cornered and they do not have to “fight savagely”, anyway not against your argumentation, the odds are not overwhelming etc. .
Your “16 years without global warming” argument is not good enough, because they can easily counter it with the “overall trend”. Your “negative feedback” argumentation you brought some time ago has no basis in science and contradicts your own position about “greenhouse gases”, you can not claim water vapour to be a “greenhouse gas” and at the same time negate it’s positive feedback. Your point about “future costs” is extremely weak and can be easily dismissed.
At the same time your adherence to the “man made global warming” concept is what the “climate rats” should be happy about, and you did not fail to convey that AGW message in almost every article you wrote on this blog, including this one.
An efficient fight against “climate rats” has yet to come and It should not be on the basis of agreement with the AGW concept. The only way is first to demonstrate that neither A nor GW nor consensus are true and second to communicate it properly.
The escape route for “climate rats” looks like that to me. Politicians and journalists can save face only blaming “climate scientists”. “Climate scientists” have no one else to blame and will suffer face loss accordingly. On the positive side, Christopher, you did not claim to be a “climate scientist”, as far as I know, you are rather a journalist, so it does not look that bad for you personally, but I suggest you not wait for too long.

December 25, 2012 2:35 pm

Other_Andy says:
December 25, 2012 at 12:34 pm
D Böehm says:
“Where do you get your crazy ideas, anyway?”
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-proceeding-as-fast-as-predicted-global-sea-level-rise-faster-than-predicted/question-3362387/?page=3

That link leads to hyperbolic chicken little pronouncements that are laughable even to me, a non-scientist. You need to do a lot more reading.
For example, it proclaims:

Studies of ocean heat content in recent years (Lyman et al 2010, Levitus et al 2012) show heat accumulating in the oceans at the rate of 10^23 joules in the last decade, which is 2.7*10^19 joules or the equivalent of 430,000 Hiroshima explosions every single day.

Newsflash: while gazillions of joules (10*22) sounds dramatic, what Levitus, et al, actually found was not. The actual change in ocean heat content and mean temperature for the 0-700 m layer for the world oceans and individual basins was 0.168 C during the entire 39 years from 1969-2008. Let’s round it off: 0.17 C in nearly 40 years. That’s a 1/3 degree Fahrenheit in four decades.
See the Levitus, et al, findings here on page 14:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
The rest of the site you linked to is equally hyperbolic and half-cocked in its assumptions.

richard verney
December 25, 2012 2:37 pm

The proposition that CO2 causes significant warming is even more suspect in the light of the satellite record.
Surely, the starrting point is to ask why should one not consider the satelitte record as the best data set for the past 33 years? After all, it does not have the UHI issue nor the poor siting issues. Further, it is not continually basterdized in the same manner as the land temperature data set and the equipment theoretically is capable of better and more accurate resolution. .
Unless one can put forward a convincing argument against considering the satellite data set as the best quality data set we possess of recent events then one should look at the satellite data set and see what it says. It clearly suggests that there has been no CO2 induced warming these past 33 years (not 16 years). The satellite data set is essentially flat between ’79 and ’97 and between ’99 and 2012. There is only a step change around the super El Nino of ’98 and unless someone can suggest a process whereby CO2 is responsible for that event, the unavoidable conclusion is that there is no discernible CO2 signal in 33 years worth of data. This covers a period when approximately 2/3rds of manmade CO2 emissions have occured!
I firmly consider that one should press home precisely what the satellite data set is telling us, namely that temperature sensitivity to CO2 at around 370ppm is statistically zero. Since response may well be logarithmic, it follows that at around 400ppm it is unlikely to be any greater and there is reason to suspect that it may be even less (if that be possible!).
PS. I accept that one needs to consider aerosols but is there any good quality evidence to suggest that the concentration of aerosols is greater today than it was 33 years ago? There is reason to be extremely sceptical of the argument that aerososl are masking some underlying warming. The empirical evidence on aerosol concentrations needs very careful scrutiny.
Of course, the real problem is that presently the politicians do not want to listen to the shortcomings of the science regarding AGW, Indeed, it is incredible to consider why there has not been more critical thinking about why is a temperature rise of 3degC or 5degC or even more, a problem?
Is there any evidence that life did not flourish during the holcene optimum? Is there any evidence of any mass extinctions at that time? Indeed, does not the history of man’s civilasition firmly demonstrate that warmth is good and that the era of each great civilisation is related to the warmth. Look at the spread of the iron and bronze ages across the globe. It is no coincidence that whilst man in the UK was building stonehenge, the Egyptians were building wonderful temples and pyramids. When you do not have to struggle for your very survival, greatness can be achieved. Why anyone should wish to hamper western civilasation throwing them back towards the stoneage, beggars all sentinent comprehension.

Werner Brozek
December 25, 2012 2:41 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 25, 2012 at 7:45 am
The measure of global temperature favored by the IPCC, the HadCRUt data series, shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years.
This result is supported by the UAH and RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperature datasets.

I applaud your generosity of spirit, however you are too generous with the facts in favour of the people who believe in CAGW.
For example RSS has a negative slope for the last 15 years and 16 years. However:
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For RSS: +0.135 +/-0.147 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1991
For RSS: +0.142 +/-0.159 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1992
For RSS: +0.107 +/-0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1993
For RSS: +0.069 +/-0.174 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For RSS: +0.043 +/-0.190 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For RSS: +0.036 +/-0.210 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
For RSS: -0.003 +/-0.229 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
For RSS: -0.045 +/-0.250 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1998
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3: 0.075 +/- 0.120 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For UAH: 0.123 +/- 0.190 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For UAH: 0.120 +/- 0.211 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

highflight56433
December 25, 2012 2:42 pm

Lord Monckton, it might be appropriate to and in the light of being precautionary, compose a Requiem nam Rattus…just to be prepared spiritually on their behalf. 🙂

December 25, 2012 2:42 pm

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, thank you very much for this most thoughtful of Christmas gifts, perspective. Who would have ever thought we would re-fight alchemy ~13 centuries later, this time around turning carbon into gold…….
Climate Alchemy, I think you nailed it.

tmlutas
December 25, 2012 2:42 pm

Dear Lord Monckton – Get well soon. I had to look up norovirus and it sounds ghastly. Keep up the hydration and what I’ve read says you should pull through fine.
Merry Christmas.

Konrad
December 25, 2012 2:58 pm

Lord Monckton,
Two points I feel need to be made.
Firstly, AGW is physically impossible on this planet. Even you have made the same mistake with your maths. The vertical circulation of air masses via convection is dependant on energy loss at an altitude higher than where the air is heated. There is only one mechanism for this in our atmosphere, IR radiation from radiative gasses. Without this convection stalls. The most basic empirical experiment will show you what happens to the temperature of a vertical column of air that is heated at its base when the vertical position of cooling is changed. CO2 cools our atmosphere. AGW is physically impossible.
The second point is that there can be no Rat Holes in the age of the internet. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget. A quiet and civilised end to this hoax is ultimately a great risk to all human civilisation. Those who escape will just try again. Avoiding a vicious end game does not justify the future risk posed by those involved in the scam.

Lewis P Buckingham
December 25, 2012 3:00 pm

‘Icarus Icarus ubi es’ Icarus Icarus where are you?
When the theory does not fit the observations then the theory has to be changed, not the observations.
To give an analogy Icarus flew too close to the sun and his waxen wings melted and he fell to the earth and was lost. A Greek myth maybe but sobering example of a theory of flight that subsequent observation proved invalid.

phlogiston
December 25, 2012 3:02 pm

Common ground is what needs to be found. There may never be full consensus on what drives climate, although an emergent paradigm manifestly more successful than the current one might well drive the current model to effective extinction. However total polarisation in the climate scientific community is unhealthy for the long term.
Politically, skeptics need to step back from a position that appears to say that nothing humans do can harm the earth’s ecosystem or climate. We can harm it. This apparent complacency is what enrages activists on the other side. CO2 does not warm the planet – or if it does, only negligibly. However plant cover does cool the planet and excessive loss of vegetative cover could possible cause either local (UHI) or global warming, and other adverse effects such as aridity. Damage to ecosystems in other ways such as chemical pollution is also a reality.
As Monkton himself has pointed out, the Versailles treaty at the end of WW1 which humiliated Germany stored up trouble for the future and was a mistake. This should not be repeated.

JoBrighton
December 25, 2012 3:02 pm

Of those last 16 years, how many have been in the top 10 hottest since global record keeping began? 9. The last decade was of course the hottest decade since record keeping began and in fact there has been warming over the last 16 years. The trend in the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset since 1997 is 0.084 ± 0.152°C per decade (GISS and NCDC datasts show a similar warming trend since the cherry picked starting point of 1997). While the trend is not statistically significant (to 95% level) the value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has warmed over this period. The “no warming over the last 16 years” was of course just another factually challenged Daily Mail article by David Rose (challenged by the Met Office- his alleged source of a non existent report).

richard verney
December 25, 2012 3:13 pm

The problem is there is no accountability in public office and there is no prospect that the ruling [class] will pass a law making them personally accountable for their misdeeds. Democracy is but an illusion, and hence we are left with a situation whereby the ruling class can commit gross negligence with impunity. This means that they can promote there preferred cause de jour without consideration of the consequences for those adversely affected by it.
Until there is real accountability in public office nothing will change.
As regards CAGW, this will come to a natural end relatively quickly because of the conjunction of the the fact that the west has run out of money with western economies being in stagnation for at least a decade to come, and natural variation making it clear that the climate system is far more complex than CO2 alone controlling the temperature knob. It is the combination of these two facts which will bring this unsavoury edifice crashing down. During the next 5 years or so there will be an ever increasing number of ‘scientist’ and politicians jumping ship and it is [likely] that things will turn nasty as the blame game begins (as it inevitably will).

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 3:17 pm

The pseudonymous “Ratduke” gets picky about the date of birth of the Lord of Life, but – as I had already pointed out – I am no expert on that. He worries that the Gospels are “not reliable witnesses”: yet the considerable quantity of independent, verifying documentation from other sources gives us an excellent idea of the stunning power of what Anglican theologians splendidly call the “Christ-Event”. Ratduke may like to read “Jesus, an Experiment in Christology” by Father Schillebeeckx for further details of what can be discerned of His life, death, resurrection and electrifying effect on the known world without relying upon any religious texts at all.
Ratduke, who seems anti-Christian, criticizes me for touching briefly upon my own religion in the head posting while challenging climate-extremists who parade quasi-religious views. The distinction is that I admit that my religion is incapable of scientific demonstration and that I believe it nonetheless, while the adherents of the New Religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarm (CACA) pretend that the daft notions in the Holy Books of IPeCaC are science when they are in truth not science but logically-insupportable quasi-religious beliefs masquerading as science.
Ratduke also considerably over-stretches the bounds of Bayesian probability, which is of no help whatsoever in determining the probability that an uneducated guess may prove to be true. Nor do I recall, anywhere in the Four “Gospels” of IPeCaC, any attempt to assign Bayesian probabilities to anything, and particularly not to the value of the strongly net-positive overall feedback gain multiplier, central to the CACAistes’ case for panic, without which there would be no global warming problem.
That value is a guess. It is not verifiable by any method except waiting up to 3000 years and, in the meantime, taking measurements more detailed and precise than anything we are yet capable of. Because it is a guess, it does not merit the assignment to it of any form of probability, whether frequentist or Bayesian – or, for that matter, of any probability distribution or probability-density function. A guess is a guess is a guess. It is not science, not science, not science.
Because it is a guess, it is not Popper-falsifiable. Perhaps Ratduke would like to explain to me the role of random guesses in science. If they have a role, no doubt he can make a fortune in the casino at Monte Carlo.
It is always possible that I am missing something. But I was brought up in the Classical tradition of observation, measurement, meditation, deduction, hypothesis, and experiment. I was taught that “I guess” and “I believe” had no place in science, and that “Wow!”, “I wonder why that happened”, and “I’d better check” were the way forward.
Ratduke is entitled to alter his “degree of belief” in CACA if he wants, and, indeed, to the extent that CACA is quasi-religious, “degrees of belief” in it are perhaps not inappropriate. But – call me old-fashioned – science to me is not a matter of belief, but of seeking the truth by objective methods, not subjective beliefs. Al-Haytham called the scientist “the seeker after truth”, not “the believer”. Huxley called blind faith “the one unpardonable sin”.
Unless Ratduke can assure me that IPeCaC’s current central estimate of ~3 for the overall feedback gain factor by which it wishes us to multiply the tiny instantaneous warming caused by additional CO2 concentration so as to create a climate “crisis” is based on anything better than unverifiable guesswork, I decline to regard that estimate as science. It is religion. Ratduke is entitled to his religion, but he is no more entitled than the CACAistes to maintain that his religion has anything to do with science.
Even if climate alarm were appropriate, economically speaking it would still be one or even two orders of magnitude more cost-effective to meet the invoice for adaptation to warming’s adverse consequences the day after tomorrow than to spend trillions futilely trying to prevent it today.
Finally, since Ratduke seems to think today is Newton’s birthday, I shall be as picky with him as he has been with me on the matter of birthdays. As a result of the adjustment to the calendar in the 17th century, Newton turns out to have been born on January 4, 1643, not December 25, 1642. The deletion of 11 days from the calendar was not received kindly in all quarters: in Russia, peasants demonstrated under the slogan “Give us back our 11 days!” One imagines their descendants now write IPeCaC’s reports.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
December 25, 2012 3:26 pm

JoBrighton says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm
The last decade was of course the hottest decade since record keeping began and in fact there has been warming over the last 16 years.

Darn I did not realize that humans only learned to write, and measure temperature just 16 years ago.
😉
Larry

jim
December 25, 2012 3:38 pm

Clay Marley says:—-This Christmas I am spending time with relatives who I consider moderate politically. They believe AGW is a serious problem, that the Polar Bears are in trouble, that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, that the earth is warming, and that Greenland has largely melted (!).
JK—–Try this on them:
1. What actual evidence have you seen that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming? (We all know that unusual weather is not proof that man is the cause; nature puts out 96% of the CO2 compared to man’s 4%; that Al Gore’s ice cores show CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature by about 800 years; that Al Gore’s temperature chart showing a sudden recent rise is a fraud and that the climate was warmer in the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian and Minoan times without man’s CO2, previous warmings have been at the same rate as the current one, and that no one has explained what caused those earlier warm periods AND why that cause is not the cause of the current warming.)
Note that each of the statements are easily verifiable.
2. Separating out the last of the above:
We know that many (or all) of Medieval, Roman, Egyptian and Minoan times were warmer than the current warm period. Explain what caused those warm periods and why that cause is NOT the cause of the current warm period.
Thanks
JK

Other_Andy
December 25, 2012 3:39 pm

@policycritic:
Please follow the conversation.
My reply was to Boehm’s question about icarus62’s previous post.
Also read my post at 1:06 pm.

Russell Seitz
December 25, 2012 3:43 pm

[snip. Too much snark, as usual, from Mr Seitz. Please stop being a Grinch. — mod.]

December 25, 2012 3:44 pm

I was searching for some famous quotations about rats, but only found one, which coincidentally was about rats finding a way out:
When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats.
– Claude Swanson (1862 – 1939)
I found many more about aristocrats, bureaucrats and democrats. Oh well, close enough:
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends… that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.
– Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 – 1965), Speech during 1952 Presidential Campaign
You get fifteen democrats in a room, and you get twenty opinions.
– Senator Patrick Leahy (1940 – ), May 1990
Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy.
– Charles Peters
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
– Oscar Levant (1906 – 1972)
Art forms of the past were really considered elitist. Bach did not compose for the masses, neither did Beethoven. It was always for patrons, aristocrats, and royalty. Now we have a sort of democratic version of that, which is to say that the audience is so splintered in its interests.
– David Cronenberg, Rocketboom, 07-19-06
I am from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.
– William Duncan Vandiver, US Congressman, speech at 1899 naval banquet
The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy.
– Nick Nuessle, 1992
Most managers were trained to be the thing they most despise — bureaucrats.
– Alvin Toffler

Pamela Gray
December 25, 2012 3:45 pm

Not to downplay the importance of unemotional examination of scientific rhetoric, touching briefly on beliefs, in this case religious ones, is no more offensive in scientific discussions than mentioning that I am Irish, or short, or a flaming redhead, or female, or talkative, or a newly confirmed independent. Sometimes it just makes sense to include these dressings. No big deal and tends to bring color and context to discussions.

richard verney
December 25, 2012 3:51 pm

Lord Monckton accepts (at any rate for the purpose of argument) the general premis behind GW because to challenge that premise is considered to be a step too far. However, should CO2 emissions continue unabated and should temperatures not correspondingly rise, then there will come a time when one will inevitably have to consider whether the reason for the lack of temperature rise is because the so called basic physics has been misunderstood, or misapplied.
One facet of the theory is that whenever there is a rise in CO2 concentrations temperatures must rise; they cannot stand steady, they canot fall. That means that in any year where there is a rise in CO2 concentraions but no rise in temperature an explanation is required as to why the temperature has not risen. Natural variation, is a convenient explanation, namely we cannot identify why there has not been a rise in temperature but it must because there is some natural unknown and unexplainedd process at work which has cancelled out the rise that would otherwise occur.
Of course, with better understanding of the cliamte system, we should be able to identify the natural process involved that cancelled out the temperature rise. But there may well come a time when we shall have to put our arms up and accept that the radiative model is wrong (at least in part).
If temperatures do not rise in the next decade, it will be interesting to see to what extent the radiative model survives in its present form.
I understand why Lord Monckton does not wish to question this and prefers to emphasise other issues. But I envisage that there may well come a time when it is openly questioned in scientific circles since I consider that the two most likely candidates for explaining why there is no warming is (1) that feedbacks are negative, and/or (2) that the radiataive model is simply wrong..

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 3:52 pm

I am grateful to Werner Brozek for pointing out that according to HadCRUt, which is IPeCaC’s favored dataset, there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 18 years (v. 4) or 19 years (v. 3). I have indeed been too kind to the true-believers.
Jo Brighton, however, seems to think that a positive trend that is not statistically significant “means the average surface temperature has warmed”. Not so. Any trend that falls within the measurement uncertainties in the dataset, whether that trend be up, down, or flat, is not statistically distinguishable from zero. Zero means zero.
Jo Brighton goes on to attack David Rose of the Daily Mail (actually, it was the Mail on Sunday) for having pointed out, based on data in a report that she says the Met Office had not issued (actually, it had), that there had not been any global warming for 16 years (actually, there hadn’t been any).
The Met Office has been reported to the prosecuting authorities for fraud in having attempted to keep its climate-change-related grants well-padded by falsely maintaining that Mr. Rose had been wrong to say there had been no global warming for 16 years. He was and is correct. The Met Office is now a standing joke in the UK. Its obsession with global warming has caused it to get its seasonal forecasts hopelessly wrong time and time again.
Piers Corbyn, a solar physicist, produces more accurate 45-day forecasts than the Met Office’s 5-day forecasts. Now that there are so many private-enterprise weather forecasters capable of doing a far more reliable, more honest and less prejudiced job than the Met Office, I am not the only politician wondering whether it should be shut down.
Jo Brighton also uses the bogus statistical device of attempting to nullify the embarrassing recent absence of global warming by saying, “Of the last 16 years, how many have been in the top 10 hottest since global record-keeping began? Nine.” So what? After 300 years during which global temperatures have recovered following the Maunder Minimum, where would one expect the warmest years to be? At the beginning of the period, in the middle, or at the end?
An earlier posting by me explained how to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a dataset. Perhaps Mr. Brozek and I should get together to produce monthly updates to show just how long a period without warming there has now been.
There has been no global warming for getting on for two decades. Get over it. Serially-inaccurate attempts at statistical nit-picking merely serve to emphasize how very little warming there has been in recent decades. The models were wrong. The scare is over.

observa
December 25, 2012 3:53 pm

I’ve tried Christopher, I really have offered up the Chamberlain side of me. I know it’s Christmas and turn the other cheek and all that but the Climate Cleansing brigade just stir the Churchillian Bulldog in me and now I can’t rest til these Holocaust people are brought to their knees begging for mercy with perhaps a Marshall Plan for them all. It’s in the genetic makup my good man-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/musicologist_of_death/

gnomish
December 25, 2012 3:54 pm

Dear Dr. Brown.
I almost always read any post you make and generally learn something of value from them.
I wonder if you will remark on tactic of mocking your name or comment on the individual’s ratiocinations which are based on his faith while acknowledging faith as non-science.
I hope you may skillfully evade his trollish distractions and engage him on a valid issue in spite of the terrible temptation to pwn his butt over his demonstration of kinship with his favored species?
The concept of rights is the razor occam would use. I wonder if you might apply and develop that long-lost concept to this. It was never about faith or science, to be sure.
The ONLY valid ethical considerations are RIGHTS and DAMAGE, after all.

mpainter
December 25, 2012 3:58 pm

JoBrighton says: December 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm
“While the trend is not statistically significant (to 95% level) the value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has warmed over this period.”
In fact, the margin of error of .152 means that no trend is attributable. It means, in fact, that actual cooling cannot be ruled out, as an actual result. You need to educate yourself on the significance of the term “not statistically significant”.
“The last decade was of course the hottest decade since record keeping began”
This is good, because a warmer world is a better world. A warmer world means higher humidity levels, a longer growing season, more arable land in production as deserts shrink, and this means greater food production. This is most important in a world where population is expected to double and redouble over the next century. To prevent mass famine, food production will have to be doubled and doubled again. Famine and the death of billions through starvation is the danger that the world is faced with over the next century, not warming.
Warming also means milder winters. Why would you lament this? People are dying of the cold, not of the heat. And this brings us to the temperature trend of the last ten years: we are cooling, and this trend will continue indefinitly, some believe. This is chilling news because a cooler world means shorter growing seasons, less rainfall, a shrinkage of arable land, and mass famine worldwide, if this trend continues. Cooling is what extinguished the Norse settlements of Greenland.These were established in an era that was warmer than today. This is history, JoBrighton.
“The “no warming over the last 16 years” was of course just another factually challenged Daily Mail article by David Rose (challenged by the Met Office- his alleged source of a non existent report).”
Actually, the “no warming over the last sixteen years” is obvious from glancing at the temperature trends since 1997. You don’t have to be a genius to see it. But some people cannot think for themselves and can only repeat what they are told.You need to resist the scare talk, or you will never figure things out for yourself. So brighten up,and wise up.

JoBrighton
December 25, 2012 4:01 pm

Larry, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the work of the NOAA, we’ve got pretty good global temperature records going back the 1850’s and detailed country records well before that. According to the NOAA, the top 3 hottest decades in the last 16 have been the last 3. The top 15 hottest years all occurred in the last 15 years. We’re now 333 months where every single month globally has recorded a temperature above the global 20th Century average. Every single month.
The last decade was the hottest on record globally despite both a predominance of La Nina phases and the lowest TSI in over a century. That should have indicated a strong cooling phase, instead we had the hottest decade on record. Nuccitelli et al. (2012) gives provides all the observational evidence an impartial observer would require to show the earth is still warming and why natural variability is in the long term smaller than the long term warming trend. If you want the longer term, then ice core records give us excellent evidence, which confirms that CO2 levels are far higher now than at any period over at least the last 750,000 years and that they’ve risen more rapidly in the last 150 years than at any time over that period. Now, if you’re lucky enough to have total knowledge know with complete certainty the nature of all the interactions of the climate system, and you’re conclusion is that everything will carry on as before, then good for you. Sadly, you’re not. The evidence in so far shows the scientists have been too conservative in their estimates of how fast and strong those climate change impacts will be.
😉
Jo.

December 25, 2012 4:02 pm

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you Christopher. I thank you for the extraordinary contribution you have made over the years in the war against climate corruption.

Werner Brozek
December 25, 2012 4:03 pm

Greg House says:
December 25, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Politicians and journalists can save face only blaming “climate scientists”. “Climate scientists” have no one else to blame and will suffer face loss accordingly.
I believe this needs to be carried one step further. Who is it that pays climate scientists the huge amounts of money to come up with scary scenarios due to warming?

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2012 4:05 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm
The pseudonymous “Ratduke”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I presume your slur against rgbatduke by labeling him “Ratduke” was unintentional. You can be forgiven given your state of ill health. If you wish to duel with him over matters of religion, by all means, have at it. As to your remarks regarding his science, I presume also that you don’t know that he is Robert G Brown, one of the most respected contributors to this blog, holds a PhD in physics, and is a respected researcher and professor at Duke. You may wish to reconsider your remarks in that light.

Monckton of Brenchley
December 25, 2012 4:07 pm

Russell Seitz says: “You don’t have to be depressingly illiterate and ill-informed to accept Monckers as an authority figure, but it certainly helps.”
The argumentum ad hominem – the logical fallacy of attacking the man and not his argument – is a shoddy sub-species of the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, the fallacy of introducing an extraneous consideration or red herring to the discussion, demonstrating that one is ignorant of the manner of conducting a rational argument, and implying that one is ignorant of its matter as well.
Mr. Seitz was lucky to get his little item of pointless malevolence through the moderators, but if he really cannot raise his game – on Christmas Day of all days – he may perhaps be more profitably engaged in reading Charles Dickens’ “The Christmas Carol” or playing in someone else’s sandpit.
[It did pass, but only after thought and consideration. That is, thought and consideration of what your response might be. 8<) Mod.]

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2012 4:16 pm

JoBrighton says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Of those last 16 years, how many have been in the top 10 hottest since global record keeping began? 9.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I put $10 in a jar every day for 100 days, I’ll have $1,000. If, for the next 100 days, I put in one penny each day, at the end of 200 days, I will have $1,001. While it could be said that over the last 10 days, I’ve had more money in the jar than ever before, and that the trend is positive, the fact is that the tax man cometh and he has no interest in my pennies. They are not statistically significant.
Beyond that, of which global record do you speak? The geological record falsifies your position. The historical record falsifies your position. The ice core record falsifies your position. The records of monks in Europe, China and Japan falsify your position. Crop records going back hundreds of years falsify your position. Most recently, Keith Briffa published updated work to his own tree ring analysis which falsifies his hockey stick graph cited by the IPCC and, also…your position.

Werner Brozek
December 25, 2012 4:20 pm

JoBrighton says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:02 pm
The last decade was of course the hottest decade since record keeping began and in fact there has been warming over the last 16 years.
To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets.
Data sets with a 0 slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
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.
Now with regards to “ the hottest decade”, that is not relevant as far as NOAA is concerned. They are only interested in WARMING and not BEING WARM.
PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”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
Another fact that may be of interest: With RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far to the end of November, and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest, and 2008 is 22nd. So if things do not change here, three of the last five years will not even be in the top ten!

RWT
December 25, 2012 4:32 pm

This thread has made my Christmas, It has renewed my hope that sense will one day prevail. However, I suspect that I may have to wait a while longer, but will rejoice that there are still those for whom rational argument remains the only way forward. Don’t give up, truth will out…!

DirkH
December 25, 2012 4:33 pm

richard verney says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:51 pm
“Lord Monckton accepts (at any rate for the purpose of argument) the general premis behind GW because to challenge that premise is considered to be a step too far. However, should CO2 emissions continue unabated and should temperatures not correspondingly rise, […]”
You are trying to make the case that if CO2 continues to rise yet temperatures stay constant, this would indicate that the radiative physics behind the CO2AGW theory are to be questioned. But that is not a necessary conclusion (and one I would dismiss).
The Earth’s climate has proven to be nearly perfectly homeostatic over millenia, with only tiny variations of average temperatures. This is strong indication for an abundance of negative feedbacks. A system with strong negative feedback would easily compensate the tiny influence of the pressure broadening of the absorption lines in the CO2 spectrum, and you would get no influence on temperatures while CO2 is rising – the IR would just be emitted through other frequencies – or cloudiness would rise, reflecting more short wave radiation into space.
So, that would be my explanation – the radiative physics are ok; but unimportant with regard to the average temperature.
Also, don’t forget: The natural carbon cycle exchanges way more CO2 than we produce; the derivative of CO2 concentrations looks nearly the same as the SST graph; CO2 levels are far more controlled by temperature than temperature is by CO2.
The climate models do not fail because the radiative physics are wrong. They fail because the modelers have denied the mathematical foundations that tell us that they must have zero predictive skill over longer time ranges. Weather models are far more precise than climate models; we all know they have 50% accuracy after 5 days.
The assumption that climate models can beat weather models has no basis in fact. Their predictive horizon is at most also 5 days. Not 100 years. This should be the default assumption for any rational human, otherwise, why would we not use climate models to tell us how warm next summer gets in our 50 times 50 km grid box, we don’t except for the British Met Office, and the Brits have lots of fun with it for years now.

AlecM
December 25, 2012 4:36 pm

Lord Monckton graciously mentioned my contribution about the real GHE. My estimate of ~9K is with respect to the Hansen 33 K which he claims, after Houghton, is via the moist lapse rate, their claimed cause of the GHE.
This is of course balderdash but to prove it you have to show there can be no CO2-AGW so no change of the moist lapse rate by CO2 change. This is quite easy to an engineer unencumbered with the Schuster-Schwarzchild two-stream approximation, which breaches Maxwell’s equations so can’t be true.
The interference of opposing plane waves at the surface means the weaker is annihilated, the origin of the S-B1 -S-B2 calculation. Unfortunately, silly people imagine two S-B equations mean two radiation streams. Until the net flux is created, the vector sum of the Poynting Vectors, no thermodynamic work can be done. (The PVs are the temperature signals so a pyrgeometer does not measure energy flow.)
It gets a bit more complex because the atmosphere is semi transparent and there is a hitherto unreported bit of physics for GHG bands in self-absorption which means a radiometer in the atmosphere measures a very different signal to one in a vacuum, hence the stupid belief that self-absorption of the thermal CO2 15 micron band at TOA proves absorption of surface-emitted CO2 IR in that band when there is none!
Basically, these climate people have made 7 mistakes in the physics and expect us to kow-tow to incompetents. The modellers are OK though, just badly led.
[pyrometer ? Mod]

December 25, 2012 4:42 pm

“Even if climate alarm were appropriate, economically speaking it would still be one or even two orders of magnitude more cost-effective to meet the invoice for adaptation to warming’s adverse consequences the day after tomorrow than to spend trillions futilely trying to prevent it today.”

It would be interesting to see a properly conducted and published study to support this claim. How do we know what the cost would be to prevent it, if we haven’t yet figured out what technology to use? How do we know the cost of adaption if we don’t yet know what the adverse consequences will be? It’s not obvious to me that a scheme for sequestering billions of tons of CO₂ and/or other greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere would necessarily be more expensive than, say, moving hundreds of coastal cities inland as sea level rises.

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2012 4:45 pm

(The PVs are the temperature signals so a pyrgeometer does not measure energy flow.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mods ~ this is classic Doug C*tton sl@yer sh*t. close to verbatim.

AlecM
December 25, 2012 4:46 pm

I see the fragrant JoBrighton is here telling us we are heating because the World has reached its highest temperature [since the MWP, the RWP and many prior to that]. The World is cooling as shown by the jet streams moving nearer the Equator and come 2015 we’ll start to really feel it.
There can be no CO2-AGW because the surface cannot emit that band IR. The real GHE is the rise in surface temperature because GHGs increase the impedance to heat surface transfer, most of which is convective/evapo-transpiration with the emitted water vapour side bands and the atmospheric window.
As for the real heating – last Century was a solar Grand Maximum, high solar magnetic field, low cloud cover. That has reversed now. The real AGW was Asian pollution reducing low level cloud albedo but that has no saturated.

handjive
December 25, 2012 4:57 pm

In Australia, the “canary in the coal-mine*”, it is drought free after 10 years** and despite the highest levels of carbon (sic) in 15 million years***.
* [ http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article6789-australia-faces-collapse-as-climate-change-kicks-in.aspx ]
** [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2012/may/11/weatherwatch-drought-australia-floods ]
*** [ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm ]
Like Monckton of Brenchley’s announcement in Doha, this great news is met with silence.

AlecM
December 25, 2012 5:06 pm

Note to Mod: Pyrometers calibrate the measured equilibrium temperature of the sensor, or it could be an energy flux, to the source temperature in the view angle. A pyrgeometer is a pyrometer with an IR filter calibrated in W./m^2 against a cavity black body.
However, that too is a temperature signal convolved with emissivity, what you should get with the S-B equation. But it gets more complicated because the atmospheric window AW means a pyrgeometer can never equilibrate radiatively with a clear sky — it would have to cool until the radiative energy entering the sensor outside the AW equals the radiative energy leaving in the AW and for 16 °C air temperature, it would cool to -13.5 °C.
What takes over is internal convection hence all the funny equations with thermistors at various places. Pyrgeometers can radiatively equilibrate with a cloudy sky because the AW radiative loss [difference of Poynting Vectors integrated over all wavelengths] is much lower. In short pyrgeometers measure something very different to that claimed and don’t do it very well!

December 25, 2012 5:06 pm

HA Nice to see L. Monckton (sorry I have problems calling someone Lord, no offense meant) responding here 🙂
He’s a better man than I am I suspect.
If anyone desires he writes some good stuff on WND site.
Thank you sir for what you, and also everyone here, does.

mpainter
December 25, 2012 5:08 pm

Well, now
Any Christian might find himself offended at what he sees as public slurs against his religion posted on this day, of all days.
Not the smartest play in the playbook to make such a slur. Not the smartest play to defend such a slur. If the offender meant no offense, then he needs to explain himself. By the way, was Newton irreligious?

climatebeagle
December 25, 2012 5:09 pm

richard verney says:
>> One facet of the theory is that whenever there is a rise in CO2 concentrations temperatures must rise; they cannot stand steady, they canot fall.
I can never seem to find the step that takes me from CO2 is a greenhouse gas to temperatures must rise, can you point to that? Namely why temperatures must rise in a chaotic open system due to the addition of a greenhouse gas?

ocker
December 25, 2012 5:12 pm

There is a Sun Tzu quote along the lines of (paraphrase), “always leave you enemy a line of retreat, otherwise you will have to massacre everyone of your enemy”.
I think this is a case where I want to massacre the lot.

Greg House
December 25, 2012 5:16 pm

Werner Brozek says, December 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm:
Greg House says:December 25, 2012 at 2:29 pm Politicians and journalists can save face only blaming “climate scientists”. “Climate scientists” have no one else to blame and will suffer face loss accordingly.
I believe this needs to be carried one step further. Who is it that pays climate scientists the huge amounts of money to come up with scary scenarios due to warming?
================================================================
I do not know exactly, how this machinery works. I do not think we can expect “climate scientists” to give up and denounce AGW, that is the point, no rat hole for them is possible.
But we can work with the press and politicians. We should, however, keep in mind what sort of education most of them have.
Once the impression is established that the AGW ship is about to start sinking, the first “climate rats” will start leaving it and others seeing that will follow.

Rex
December 25, 2012 5:17 pm

JoBrighton says :
>> The last decade was of course the hottest decade since record keeping began”
A perfect example of how to use language to influence people’s thinking.
What, pray, is ‘hot’ about 14-15C ???

JoBrighton
December 25, 2012 5:18 pm

davidmhoffer, your analogy makes no sense in relation to the fact that 9 of the top 10 hottest years on record occurring in the last decade. As you’ll note in my post, I refer to the NOAA, which is the world’s leading global climate body as regards data gathering- as opposed to say the local historical records of monks. Furthermore, I note you say my points are refuted -for example on ice core data- but you didn’t elaborate which was refuted or why. Is there evidence in the ice core records CO2 higher in the past? Nope. Is there evidence it increased at any point in that record as fast as it has now? Nope..
Werner Brozek,
you say ” Now with regards to “ the hottest decade”, that is not relevant as far as NOAA is concerned. They are only interested in WARMING and not BEING WARM”
Actually, the NOAA makes a point of noting the last 3 decades on record are the warmest on record (with each subsequent one warmer than the previous one), because that’s indisputable evidence of a warming trend. If the next 3 decades on record are increasingly cooler, I’d say that was clear evidence of a cooling trend, but we both know that’s not going to happen. I’d happily take bets the current decade will be the warmest on record. Would this convince anyone who has yet to be convinced of a warming trend? Doubt it. The evidence is quite clear already, if you don’t want to accept it now, you’re not likely to in future.
This from the NOAA:
“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”

December 25, 2012 5:26 pm

AlecM says:
December 25, 2012 at 4:36 pm
And the physics at an end extreme interglacial would be………
Just in case there are those of us still inclined to a Hoyle steady-state universe…..
Not that I am averse to your proposition

DirkH
December 25, 2012 5:27 pm

“[pyrometer ? Mod]”
Pyrgeometer I assume.

mpainter
December 25, 2012 5:28 pm

JoBrighton says: December 25, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“The evidence in so far shows the scientists have been too conservative in their estimates of how fast and strong those climate change impacts will be.”
==============================
What climate change impacts, pray tell? Perhaps you refer to the record ice accumulations in Anarctica.
Certainly you cannot mean the milder winters that AGW theory projects, so tell us please, what impacts? Do you refer to the panic talk of James Hansen et al, citing drought, flood, killer heat wave, etc.? Is this what you mean? Then you should read the second order draft of IPCC AR5, recently librated. This reports that the claims of Hansen et al has no basis and that extreme weather events have not increased.
Once again, instead of pushing science, you push the panic button. You talk evidence, but where is it?

richard verney
December 25, 2012 5:37 pm

DirkH says:
December 25, 2012 at 4:33 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I would not disagree that the mere fact that life conditions have existed on planet Earth for approximately 4 billion years is in itself strong evidence for negative feedbacks. Indeed, I put that forward as one of my two prime candidates which may explain why temperatures have not risen as predicted.
However, there are reasons to suspect that the radiative model may not be correct. AlecM has alluded to some of this. Further there are potential question marks regarding DWLWIR and water. The absorption characteristics of LWIR in water means that approximately half of all LWIR is absorbed within the first 6 microns. If DWLWIR is of the magnitude suggested by K&T then this would mean that there is such an absorption of energy within the first few microns of the oceans that one would expect to see rapid and significant evaporation of the top layer of the ocean unless the energy could some how be disippated downwards to the deeper ocean below. However, there are problems in disippating that energy downwards to depth since the temperature gradiatent at the top layer is upwards (the very top few microns are cooler than the next 20 or so microns such that one would have to explain how heat can be conducted against the flow of the temperature gradient and I have yet to see a satisfactory mechanism put forward to do this), or unless the ocean overturns at a rate faster than the rate at which DWLWIR is being absorbed. Again there is a problem since ocean overturning is a mechanical process measured in many many hours whereas DWLWIR is being absorbed almost instantaneously (photonic energy being inputted effectively at light speed).
I would not be surprised to see a reexamination of the radiative physics model should temperatures remain static or fall over the course of the next decade. In expressing this view I am not saying that just because the temperature does not increase the radiative model is wrong. I am merely suggesting that in these circumstances question marks are raised.

December 25, 2012 5:42 pm

Notwithstanding all the above.
IT IS NOT ABOUT FACTS
These members of the agw fraud cult care not one whit about 1 or 100,000 facts proven beyond a doubt.
Agenda, agenda, agenda.
Redistribution, revenge, wealth transfer, tax and spend, asset transfer by any means possible.
Media liars enable, rich descendants foolish guilt willingly transfering some of the wealth to feel good and the assistance of others of the feel good .
It is a cult.
They wish the current way of life dead and if we others have to go along to a mass gulag end of life so be it in their mad rush of selfdestruction.
It is not going to end with any hand shake and meeting of the minds on facts.

Pamela Gray
December 25, 2012 5:49 pm

Sometimes the tongue in cheek quips of moderators eclipse the schooled and carefully writ words of Lords.

DirkH
December 25, 2012 5:54 pm

AlecM says:
December 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“There can be no CO2-AGW because the surface cannot emit that band IR.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
“Radiation from mammals and the living human body: Mammals at roughly 300 K emit peak radiation at 3 thousand μm K / 300 K = 10 μm, in the far infrared. This is therefore the range of infrared wavelengths that pit viper snakes and passive IR cameras must sense.”
Given that CO2 has absorption lines around 15 micrometer I would say it has a chance of absorbing some IR produced by surface objects cooler than 37 deg C. But interestingly, a hot landscape at about 37 deg C would indeed have the IR radiation maximum at 10 mikrometer and those IR photons would not be affected by CO2’s absorption.

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2012 6:02 pm

Jo(notso)Brighton;
Is there evidence in the ice core records CO2 higher in the past? Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep. Thousands of ppm in fact. Plant stomata studies from fossils show the exact same thing.
Jo(notso)Brighton;
Is there evidence it increased at any point in that record as fast as it has now? Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The evidence is that it increased after temperature increases and that it dropped after temperature decreases, suggesting that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. Not only does the ice core record show the opposite of what you claim, even warmist scientists accept that this is true, though they come up with some rather convoluted explanations for it. Point being that you clearly are not familiar with the ice core data and haven’t a clue what it actually says. You’re making statements that are pure bluff in the hopes that the audience will take you at your word. FAIL.
There’s plenty of threads on this site regarding the ice core data. You may want to become familiar with the actual data before spouting off and making a fool of yourself.

Werner Brozek
December 25, 2012 6:14 pm

icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm
It’s not obvious to me that a scheme for sequestering billions of tons of CO₂ and/or other greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere would necessarily be more expensive than, say, moving hundreds of coastal cities inland as sea level rises.
See: http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/longannet-carbon-capture-scheme-scrapped/
“Environment Canada wants to spend $6 billion to reduce the atmospheric concentration of a trace molecule by 0.01 ppmv, and assuming there is any advantage in doing so, supposedly cutting global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree”
When an oil company in our province asked for input for their carbon capture plan, I wrote about the huge costs for little gain. They thanked me for my input but it made no difference.

temp
December 25, 2012 6:15 pm

While I agree with many of the concepts and reality that lord monckton speaks of. One must also take a stand and say there is a line in the sand which you do not cross no matter the excuse. We drew that line one time by the rats who said “I was just following orders”.
When we look back at recent history we see both the population bomb and global cooling. They should be fresh in most minds. In both these cases we lets the rats run free and look at the plague they have brought us in global warming…
For the good of mankind clearly most of these rats must be caged and some put down so that other rats in the future understand. This is not some isolated incident anymore. If the rats are allowed to escape again they will be back… smarter, stronger and much more in numbers. They have tasted the cheese, in fact they have gouged upon it. They will never be able to live without that taste and feeling of fullness again. They will plot and scheme and be back.
We reap what we sow and we sowed into the very soul of ivory tower elites that they may rape and pillage across the land without punishment when they were given freebies for those last two events… we can not allow them to keep this idea. A line in the sand must be draw and if it cuts off a few rat heads along the way all the better.

John West
December 25, 2012 6:17 pm

@ Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I’m afraid you have made a huge error in judgement. After being treated to such a thread we may have to form a secret ninja type squad to make sure you’re infected and isolated on a regular basis.

Darren Potter
December 25, 2012 6:26 pm

Truthseeker says: “… but it has the premise that these governments, bureaucrats and NGOs ultimately want to do the ‘right thing’ …” “The real problem is that the CAGW meme is just a justification for getting money …”
Not just money, but power and control. Whether that be to promote population control or exert power to control countries and their citizens. CAGW is a Cerberus, if not a Hydra.

Werner Brozek
December 25, 2012 6:26 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Perhaps Mr. Brozek and I should get together to produce monthly updates to show just how long a period without warming there has now been.
Thank you for your response! I have actually done this on both WUWT and on Dr. Spencer’s site whenever the latest monthly UAH anomaly appears on each site.
Here is the latest:
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to November)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) But see * below.
RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
See the graph below to show it all.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend
*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.

thingadonta
December 25, 2012 6:32 pm

Nobody will probably read this far, but rats display a curious feature in underground gold mines-they leave and head for the surface when they sense that things are wrong (such as danger of a cave in). They seemed to sense this before the old miners did, so miners in the old underground gold mines used to pay careful attention to the rats, because if they were heading up hill and towards the surface, it was time to down their tools and do the same thing. The rats also knew the fastest and best way out, so the miners used to just follow the rats.
Alarmists are fond of quoting ‘the canary in the coal mine’, who were sensitive to subtle changes in gases which might indicate trouble, but they don’t seem to quote ‘the rats in the gold mine’, who were sensitive to changes in ground and water conditions which might indicate trouble. Perhaps it is too close to their current situation.

Darren Potter
December 25, 2012 6:34 pm

JoBrighton says: “Actually, the NOAA makes a point of noting the last 3 decades on record are the warmest on record (with each subsequent one warmer than the previous one), because that’s indisputable evidence of a warming trend.”
Actually, that is disputable. Raw temperature records do not show any warming.

Geoff
December 25, 2012 6:36 pm

rgb recommends Richard Cox’s short treatise “The Algebra of Probable Reason” above.
It’s an excellent reference (which he probably gave from memory, the actual title is The Algebra of Probable Inference) and is available as a pdf at http://www.yaroslavvb.com/papers/cox-algebra.pdf .

Werner Brozek
December 25, 2012 6:39 pm

JoBrighton says:
December 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm
If the next 3 decades on record are increasingly cooler, I’d say that was clear evidence of a cooling trend, but we both know that’s not going to happen.
I would suggest that you view the hour long video:
More WUWT.TV: Interview and presentation with Dr. Sebastian Lüning
He wrote “Die Kalte Sonne” (The cold sun) with Dr. Franz Vahrenholt
Then you may wish to comment on that thread and set Dr. Sebastian Lüning straight.

highflight56433
December 25, 2012 6:45 pm

Group think always digresses to the lowest common denominator….and here we are. First,a civil statement, then a rebuttle, then a counter rebuttle, then the personal attack, followed by the counter rebuttle and consequent digression. ho hum…so goes the marraige of division.

John F. Hultquist
December 25, 2012 6:53 pm

When I see comments about how warm it is and expressed in a manner suggesting I should feel guilty about this because of my lifestyle, I bring up a report stored on my computer and re-read it. This report shows the northern Canadian treeline, or more specifically the extent of northward movement of the Canadian Boreal forest-tundra ecotone. After reading for a few minutes I remember why I do not feel guilty and why I intend to drive my car and heat my home. Others might like to try this exercise.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
The title and author:
Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline
HARVEY NICHOLS [no date listed on this site]

Bernie Hutchins
December 25, 2012 6:55 pm

It would indeed be a shame if Christopher Monckton and Robert Brown were at odds against each other. While Monckton is sometimes treated with disrespect, he almost always (always?) remains courteous himself. Accordingly, we should likely assume Monckton’s use of “ratduke” instead of “rgbatduke”, derived from Brown’s email address (hardly anonymous), was inadvertent. Further, Brown’s comments on WUWT, on both scientific and philosophic issues, are always well-argued, sincere, and kindly intended.

Darren Potter
December 25, 2012 7:06 pm

JoBrighton says: “I refer to the NOAA, which is the world’s leading global climate body as regards data gathering …”
If NOAA is the world’s leader, I would hate to see the world’s non-leaders.
Analysis of GHCN data maintained by NOAA has shown cherry-picking and lemon-picking of Weather station data. Weather stations in colder locations have been dropped from GHCN database in favor of Weather stations in warmer locations. The GHCN adjusted data, which AGW Alarmist use, was adjusted upward over the raw data. The exact opposite of what should happen when correcting for Urban Heat Island effect on Weather stations that were original located outside populated areas. Finally, NOAA GHCN data is not comparing Apples to Apples, in that over past three decades they have drastically reduced the number of Weather stations being recorded. Going from 5,996 in 1970 down to 211 by 2006. Except in 2010, when 367 Weather stations were added in for the record year of 2009. Thus when the GHCN data didn’t fit the AGW Alarmism, Weather stations were Lemon picked to fit the meme.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod)
December 25, 2012 7:07 pm

JoBrighton says:
December 25, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Larry, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the work of the NOAA, we’ve got pretty good global temperature records going back the 1850′s and detailed country records well before that. According to the NOAA, the top 3 hottest decades in the last 16 have been the last 3. The top 15 hottest years all occurred in the last 15 years. We’re now 333 months where every single month globally has recorded a temperature above the global 20th Century average. Every single month.

I am well aware of NOAA’s data records. I am also aware that you have no clue what you are talking about based on your responses to comments above. Please see Werner Brozek’s comment at December 25, 2012 at 6:26 pm above those are the temperature records you are actually talking about. even if you do not realize it.
Larry

Henry Clark
December 25, 2012 7:13 pm

Good article by Lord Monckton (though I would add to the article itself a link to data for any who have not seen it before, such as RSS satellite temperature measurements since the 1998 El Nino at
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend ).
Taking the opportunity to comment:
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.
That is a very illustrative example.*
And the impact of mathematical illiteracy extends to far more than CAGW alarmism alone. For instance, I could give some really good examples with radiation matters…
Lord Monckton wrote:
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.

As a diplomatic insight in many circumstances, in many negotiations, that is often a superb observation, a very important and productive strategy no doubt.
But I can’t say I hope for such an out for the CAGW movement.
The best thing for the future of mankind is if they can’t retreat, if they end up continuing to claim warmest-ever temperatures right through much of a transition to a Little Ice Age perhaps later this century, if many core members get increasingly detached from the pulse of the public meanwhile in isolated self-reinforcing groupthink, if the final result is not smooth backpedaling but a severe crash ending in epic absurdities, mocking, and backlash. That is what is needed to indirectly tar a wide range of associated ideologies, political groups, and media outlets who had practically no qualms whatsoever about supporting the dishonesty, who are far too habitually dishonest on many other matters as well.
(As a distant loose analogy, what really most destroyed racism and forced eugenics in the Western world was probably the horror and crash of the Nazi regime, which had a rippling effect for decades afterwards, with few wanting to be associated with them afterwards).
That would not be bad for the credibility of real science and of science pursued in order to increase (not decrease) mankind’s material capabilities, but it would often take away the blinders of uncritically believing anything slapped by one or more anonymous guys with the label “peer reviewed” and of the false belief that environmentalist groups (with 100% of their finances and success directly dependent on selling memes) are generally any more trustworthy than producers in industry (who sell products of physical value, being only partially rather than predominately meme-sellers, and, due to their association with real-world engineering which has to actually work, often at least have people with a habit of mathematical literacy).
the appreciable decline in solar activity since the Grand Maximum that peaked in 1960
The picture of solar activity and temperatures can be seen in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg (click to enlarge). I understand your wording there was just a tiny excerpt of a larger article in context. However, without being misleading to a hypothetical uninformed reader, the earliest one could meaningfully say the Grand Maximum ended (or started to end) would be the 1990s, as solar cycles 21-22 (1976-1996) were quite intense.
After warming up through the mid 20th century which was particularly strong, there was then a downturn in solar activity with cycle 20, which coincided with the global cooling scare. The cooling was quite substantial in the data and articles of the time, such as http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l , before history was rewritten much later (to make next to nil temperature downturn in revisionist temperature data, as if the global cooling scare occurred for no reason without a cause!). Then there were high-activity cycles 21 and 22 (1976-1996), during which time the world’s troposphere
warmed up until and through the 1998 El Nino. The 1998 El Nino was an echo effect presumably, releasing into the atmosphere some of the heat previously absorbed by the oceans. There is a partial lag time, a little like a pot of water does not reach maximum temperature the moment the stove’s dial is first on max. From the late 1990s onwards, both solar activity and temperatures have been more declining than not.
Overall, the 20th century had much higher solar activity than the prior century. There are propagandist attempts to hide that, but, to use an example of a metric which can’t readily be fudged, if one understands that shorter cycles tend to be more intense, the average solar cycle length over 1901 to 1996 was 10.5 years, compared to the slower weaker cycles averaging 11.5 years each over the prior century from 1798 to 1901 ( ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/docs/maxmin.new ).
Also see http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif as well as the http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg illustration.
Anyway, the CAGW movement deserves no credit for natural influences stopping the claimed temperature rises. Although the giant IPCC document itself has a few partial admissions of solar influence (quantitatively wrong) mixed in, the real message which the core of the CAGW movement aims to convey to the public is and always has been that solar variation has no effect, conveyed through the traditional propagandist strategy of the Big L** — sheer shameless repetition — famous in other contexts since WWII and before.
The history of the CAGW movement and its spread teaches an enormous amount about the average honesty and intelligence levels of huge segments of the population, of how easily GIGO style over substance tactics allow abusing the mantle of science & “peer review” in media portrayal, and of what kind of people (the worst kind of no-lifers & enviroreligionists) tend to gravitate towards and rise within bodies ranging from Wikipedia to environmental studies institutions to most democratic governments.
Most of those observations are highly negative, but that is reality (not to detract from happier thoughts on this pleasant day on other things).
That does not always necessarily mean there is any better alternative available to present institutional structures. For instance, regarding governments, Churchill’s famous quote on how “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried” can often apply.
But it can be kept in mind. (For example, in principle, a future version of something like Wikipedia could be created in a manner less vulnerable to small teams of ideologues and less susceptible to deletionists rising to power; a system in which admins tend to be people who make thousands of edits leads to problems, since people don’t tend to make that many edits predominately through major constructive additions).
The lessons which can be drawn from the most almost-fully global dishonesty movement in human history must not be swept under the rug. To do so and miss the lessons of history would be no more appropriate than to delete mention of all 20th-century genocides and related regimes from history books. (There has already been too much of that with the first powerful watermelon, the envirocommie Pol Pot).
I hope many save examples of CAGW false predictions, of “97% consensus” claims (based on misleading trick questions including if any temperature rise since the LIA but them not reporting that), and much else.
While there are some hangers-on just motivated by money (an ordinary corruption not quite as potentially destructive as ideology) and many naive casuals just misled, the ideology of the core of the CAGW movement will remain after it: a pseudoreligion with an emotional heart which believes mankind’s energy usage is inherently excessive (as if human energy waste really compared to trillions of terawatts dissipated into empty space by each star), that mankind’s destiny both is and should be to stay on this planet until dying out, and which seeks to shackle mankind, giving feelings of penitence for man’s enviro-sins while transferring the penance to involuntary recipients (like harming hated SUV owners) to leave a personal feeling of self-righteousness. Some believe in CAGW while not being part of that pseudoreligion, like those who do so while wanting massive expansion of nuclear power plants; but those are more likely to be misled casuals as opposed to the core group immune to conventional rational counterargument.
In prior history, at least almost all regimes did not have reducing the energy and material consumption (prosperity) of their subjects as an intentional ideological goal in itself. This new evil, very dangerous if the safeguard of competition between nations was successfully stopped by international regimes, is not to be underestimated as a potential threat, even though there appears a high chance of enough future global cooling to destroy at least the CAGW head of its hydra (and maybe, maybe set part of the rest of it back decades).
* (though even that, by being generous for the sake of argument by using their figures for CO2’s effect, even itself does not fully convey the sheer absurdity, versus such as the extreme lack of CO2-temperature correlation seen in http://tinyurl.com/3d4mrbt for the past 200-11000 years and explained in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ — and the major relative net harm to
plants from not having as much CO2).

JPeden
December 25, 2012 7:20 pm

icarus62 says:
December 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm
It’s not obvious to me that a scheme for sequestering billions of tons of CO₂ and/or other greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere would necessarily be more expensive than, say, moving hundreds of coastal cities inland as sea level rises.
Therefore in a full-blown panic, you’d move “hundreds” of whole cities for a stable x 100+ yr., 3.1 mm SLR/yr.? What cities have been moved so far or even impacted at all? Your words do not align with reality. Your thinking is in the realm of pure fantasy. Stop being victimized by the unhinged verbiage and fear-mongering of the AGW scam!

markx
December 25, 2012 7:46 pm

JoBrighton says:December 25, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“…We’re now 333 months where every single month globally has recorded a temperature above the global 20th Century average. Every single month….”
While not disputing that the world is warming slightly, I’d be interested to see how many of those months recorded a temperature below the global 20th Century average……

mpainter
December 25, 2012 7:51 pm

JoBrighton says: December 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“if the next 3 decades on record are increasingly cooler, I’d say that was clear evidence of a cooling trend”
=======================================
Well, now JoBrighton, let us examine that statement. If you add thirty years of cooling to the last ten years of cooling, you will have a forty year cooling trend. Forty years of cooling would be the longest trend on record and you say that would be “evidence” of cooling? You are jesting, I think.
As far as quoting Jane Lubchenco, she is a political appointee and is known here and elsewhere as Jane Lysenko. The data sources that she cites show the opposite of what she claims, i.e., the last sixteen years show no warming by any index. If you had any sense, you would not quote such rubbish. If you had any sense.

markx
December 25, 2012 7:53 pm

ocker says: December 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm
“…There is a Sun Tzu quote along the lines of (paraphrase), “always leave your enemy a line of retreat, otherwise you will have to massacre everyone of your enemy”….”
Ah. Sorry; outdated philosophy. In those days it was all manual labour, arm strength, swords and spears, etc.
Now that the process is fully mechanized and largely automated that policy can safely be changed.

HB
December 25, 2012 7:56 pm

Thank you Lord M, for that gracious Christmas message. I agree with you as well. When I became aware of the lack of evidence behind the global warming I’d been scared of, I was at first, disbelieving, then angry, then determined to discover the “truth” of the issue. As many posters here have said before me, the truth is out there, but we don’t have it all here yet! I understand where people like Icarus are coming from. From their viewpoint, this is a terrible plague upon us and we need to do something NOW! How can you just stand there and say we don’t know enough?
Even poor old Icarus is forced to paint his evidence in the most impressive way to make the point. Checking out his posts in sodahead which seem to inform him for his comments here.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/global-warming-proceeding-as-fast-as-predicted-global-sea-level-rise-faster-than-predicted/question-3362387/
Foster and Rahmstof results which attempts to adjust for ENSO rather than one of the standard temperature records. Sea level graphs that stop before 2010 when the sea levels dropped with the La Nina. and the seriously dodgy 0-2000m heat content numbers (hint: check the graph with error bars).
People like Icarus need a welcome to come out of the cold. They need to be able to look at all the data in the WUWT Reference pages, check the sources themselves rather than just taking the food they’re given by the likes of Skeptical Science and desmogblog.
If Icarus had a look at the reference pages here, he could find unbiased information to choose from, he could see that the temperatures have been lower these last few years, that sea level are decelerating if anything. But while they think we’re evil, and we think they’re evil it won’t happen. We are all human, we all care for the planet and our continued life on it.
Merry Christmas and thank you to the Lord M, Anthony, and all contributors and mods. Merry Christmas to all, including Icarus.

December 25, 2012 7:58 pm

I hear them gentle voices calling….
poor old Jo!

Bill Illis
December 25, 2012 8:02 pm

I don’t think they will give up easily and there is no reputation-saving out that they will take.
There are at least 20,000 scientists and 500 million followers who have staked their personal reputations and inner belief system on this theory. $100 billion was spent on Climate Change by the top ten economies in 2011. The 20,000 scientists probably directly received up to $3 billion of these funds.
It is an industry, (egotistical) reputations are on the line and 500 million followers is bigger than almost all religions.
But let’s say temperatures stay flat or even go down for the next 10 years. They will have to reinvent another “aerosols” explanation or come up with some other excuse or re-write all the records once again.
Which is more likely – give up or reinvent.
It takes a long, long time to stamp-out a movement. Terrorist organizations, gangs, cults, any movement does not just go away. A concerted effort over decades is usually required. This is just the way it goes in human history.

JamesC
December 25, 2012 8:22 pm

Jo Brighton,
I notice that you have ignored Lord Monckton’s dismantling of your original premise that statistically insignificant is somehow significant, and instead keep on repeating the same talking points. There is a description for this mindset: confirmation bias.

December 25, 2012 8:34 pm

Geoff Sherrington says December 25, 2012 at 4:17 am
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.

[Bolding mine – _Jim]
Geoff, indeed, and I will spot you that more and more of this takes place today on any given internet forum, whether it’s regarding banking/the origin of banking (where con-spiracy theories abound), business and the origins of some of the larger companies (more tall tales of so-called robber-barons when in actuality they economized production through larger-scale operations), or something as seeming innocent as an ‘End of the World’ prediction (according to ‘interpretations’ of a Mayan calendar.)
Well, let’s face it, all of this, on many, many fronts is as Walter E, Williams kinda puts it, vis-a-vis:
We’ve got to keep “… pushing back the frontiers of ignorance …” in order to survive as a civilization rather than making our way back into the caves, believing in a cadre of behind-the-scenes and all-powerful bogey-men, believing ourselves to be utterly helpless …
.

December 25, 2012 8:44 pm

DirkH says December 25, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Given that CO2 has absorption lines around 15 micrometer I would say it has a chance of absorbing some IR produced by surface objects cooler than 37 deg C. But interestingly, a hot landscape at about 37 deg C would indeed have the IR radiation maximum at 10 mikrometer and those IR photons would not be affected by CO2′s absorption.

But, Dirk, the thermal energy spectra from that warm ground is a curve, not a discrete spectral line at 10 um … so a correct ‘tally’ of total energy would be integration under the entire Planck curve … of course, you knew that <grin> …
.