Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.
“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.
“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.
“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.
Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.
At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.
What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mark Bofill,
“This empty invocation of formal semantics is nothing less than a heroic effort on Jan’s part to keep his eyes firmly shut to the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for 16 years, even though atmospheric CO2 has steadily been climbing all the while.”
What I find fascinating is the casual way that people like Jan wave away the stalled warming. I know, I know, there is a narrow sense in which Jan is right, that a stalling of warming does not prove the absence of a longer trend, and there are any number of reasons for why the trend may have stalled.
But surely, anybody with a modicum of curiosity – that is, anyone with more than 2 brain cells – would find this observation to be of great interest. Any open minded person, I would have thought, no matter how much they believed in cAGW, would surely be thinking that maybe, just maybe, they’ve got things wrong. Maybe, just maybe, it isn’t worse than we thought.
But they don’t. There is instead, a concerted effort to beat down countervailling evidence, as if they have to be right at any cost. And that tells me all I need to know about the openess – or otherwise – of their so called minds.
Vince Causey –
“Railroad engineer – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – A railroad engineer, locomotive engineer, train operator, train driver or engine driver is a person who operates a train on a railroad or railway. The use of the term “Engineer” to describe this occupation should not be confused with professional engineer.”
It is ironic that Lord Monckton, who frequently and vigorously defends his qualifications, feels a need to mischaracterise Dr. Pachauri’s.
Tongue in cheek
The fallacy was in expecting global warming to be manifested by increased temperatures. A lack of increased temperatures, therefor, should not be considered as evidence contrary to global warming. Since we know that it does exist, we must now find the appropriate metric that demonstrates it and the best label for it. There is something happening out there. Of that, we can be sure.
Vince Causey says:
February 23, 2013 at 1:01 pm
…
What I find fascinating is the casual way that people like Jan wave away the stalled warming.
… Any open minded person, I would have thought, no matter how much they believed in cAGW, would surely be thinking that maybe, just maybe, they’ve got things wrong. Maybe, just maybe, it isn’t worse than we thought.
But they don’t. There is instead, a concerted effort to beat down countervailling evidence, as if they have to be right at any cost. And that tells me all I need to know about the openess – or otherwise – of their so called minds.
——————–
Yep. I like being right and dislike being wrong as much as anybody, probably more than most. I’ve always figured the best way to do that is to change my mind when reality doesn’t look to be supporting the theory. I don’t really see the point in playing make believe.
Thanks Vince.
– – – – – – – –
bladeshearer,
Your emphasis on Monckton’s reference to Pachauri’s railroad education and experience has some element of irony in it too.
Pachauri’s podium to speak from in order to defend himself from critics is vastly larger in reach than Monckton’s. Pachauri has an amount of easy MSM access at his mere pleasure that Monckton can only dream of having.
Cannot Pachauri surely explain from his powerful podium how important his railroad related education and experience uniquely qualifies him more than many eminent climate academics to lead the IPCC? N’est ce pas?
Are you concerned that he can’t?
John
John Whitman –
I am only concerned that at WUWT we’re seeing the same level of innuendo that the CAGW crowd uses when calling us “deniers.” I had hoped we were above that.
– – – – – – – –
bladeshearer,
Thanks for your reply.
Although I am occasionally concerned about excesses in the dialog on WUWT, even mine ; ) , it seems to self-dampen due partly to concerns coming from the commenters themselves.
Voices like yours being a sincere example of the tendency of WUWT dampening itself . Thanks.
John
@ur momisugly ‘No warming for 17 years’
I dont see my question to Monckton of Brenchleyanymore why he is not publising the data before 1998?
and also no answer;
isn’t it a good idea that when we talk about trendsand when pretending ” No warming for 17 years” we see what happened before this rather short periode of climatechange (pause)?;
Dr. Pachauri is not a “railroad” engineer. He is an industrial engineer. His field is engineering and economics as it relates to development. He has been working in the field of energy and resource management for more than 30 years. Whatever criticism one might have of him, his knowledge base or education would not be one of them. If that is how he is characterized in the article, how reliable is the rest of the information in it? It casts doubt on the entire article in my mind. After all, it is not intended to present information in an unbiased way. It is intended to mislead. Quoting this source is not all that much better than quoting a supermarket tabloid as evidence that Elvis is still alive or aliens have been cited recently. It is, pure and simple, bad journalism.
Vince Causey,
I agree with your analysis that the log effect of additional CO2 results in very little warming. I have made that same argument many times, repeatedly posting this chart as corroboration.
But the alarmist crowd still argues otherwise. I have been in a running debate with two specific individuals, both of whom insist that global warming is “accelerating” due to the rise in CO2. I understand that they do not speak for everyone on their side. But ever since Michael Mann’s original hockey stick chart was published falsely showing skyrocketing acceleration of global warming, many believers take MBH98/99 and Mann08 as gospel.
Unbiased scientific data falsifies their assertions. There is simply no acceleration of global warming. Quite the contrary; global warming has stalled for the past decade and a half. But none of that matters to true believers in the “carbon” scare. A large number of them believe, contrary to widespread empirical evidence, that the rise in CO2 is causing acceleration of global warming. They are probably beyond being convinced otherwise. But their claims should not go unchallenged. Otherwise, casual readers could get the incorrect idea that global temperatures are rising exponentially.
For once and for all, silence. There is no such thing as global warming. If there was, it would be warmer now than it was ten years ago. Just think of it in simple terms like that. Warm current temperatures usurping past temps. That’s the pattern we should expect. But it’s not what is happening. If not, why not? Is global warming taking a rest? Is global warming looking on like a disinterested tag team wrestler waiting to be tagged back into a game already won? No.
Look. Temperatures have not increased significantly. More than that, they have not increased…significantly. The temps now are not significantly higher than they were in the past. But because of error bars, a definite fact of no temp rise = temps could have possibly risen 100%.
Logic has left the nest. It is no longer a requirement of science. Tell a good story, and you tell good science. There is zero interest in facts any more. Just emote. If you make a passionate argument it is a thousand times more effective than a truthful argument. People need to act as instructed, not with their own control. There are too many individuals for the Earth to support them. The only answer is physical murder. Populations must be reduced 1000% for life to continue. Hence why human life is referred to as a plague.
Furthermore: in the present we only glimpse at the future. Why would anyone stop now? The punishment is never-ending. Carbon Dioxide is released, and the Devil Himself approves of the disorder created. There is no rational counter-argument…because the initial argument is not rational itself. Because the initial assumptions are that CO2 must have this effect due to its physical, radiative properties. Therefore no matter what happens, it proves and confirms the initial argument. If temps increase, then of course that is right because CO2 increases mean it must. If temps remain stable or decrease, then that is evidence of CO2 influencing the atmosphere on a more subtle way. There is nothing that can disprove the ultimate hypothesis. The hypothesis cannot be tested because everything is expected. Warmth and coldness are one. Everything has been and always will be again. Nothing is different enough to ever prove anything. Proof is not science. Science is not evidence. Evidence is not proof. Proof is not proof. 2+2=5 if that is the safest conclusion. 2+2=4 is a dangerous conclusion. Take the lesser road in every case. Trust no-one.
I can’t quite summarise it enough. Everything that happens in reality is such sublime satire that nothing can ever make the equivalent perfect point, and match it. It passes for science because it is so ludicrous that it cannot be considered to be satire, therefore previously rational minds recognise it for reality. If it is not a joke then it must be real. We are literally talking about alarmism, related to a warming planet, where in fact all evidence points to nothing having changed…but still, we are told it must have changed. There are people praying for the death of civilisation just so they were right about a tedious nothing.
There are people praying for an increase in temps, so they can say “I was right”. I was right, we will all burn, we have destroyed the Earth, humanity is a plague, we burn and rape all the Earths resources. We deserve to die. We should pray for the annihilation of all humanity. And yet…nothing is up. It’s just a bunch of people praying for our bloody demise. Because their ego insists that they have changed the Earth.
Thank you
I strongly suspected there was no direct quote from Pachauri admitting no warming for 17 years, but wasn’t willing to spend the dollar to find out. He like others is still talking of roughly a decade “pause”, and requiring a full climate definition period of 30 years or more. Tempest in a teapot time, unfortunately
Dr Ben Santer claims 17 years’ data is needed for statistical significance.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
Dr Ben Santer, specializes mainly in statistical analysis of climate data sets, and detection/attribution of climate change forcings. Santer was the convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report,
@Graham W – I hear you! Conversation with my 20 year old this morning. Agreeing that we actually do live in the best time possible to be alive, my daughter says that she constantly feels there must be something bad just round the corner. She says she “can’t help feeling like something bad will happen”. I see the “middle-class guilt” everywhere, I used to have it myself, when I believed in AGW. I’m so lucky, I don’t deserve it. I think that’s where it is. It’s crazy!
How about we enjoy the stable temps and good life?
No one of us alive no how it feels to be in a climate optimum. So nobody can now that this is the best time to be alive. We are tolt so that this is the best time. But is that true?
Than my Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley i trust you be richt in the first place becaus you now where you talking about. But can you give us the proof that Pachauri said there is no warming?
All i get is a paper where i have to pay and there at this time the tekst is removed allrady.
So it would be need to have some hard proof. Most funny would be a video.
I see that the trolls are out in farce again, trying to deny that Engineer Pachauri has admitted that there has been no global warming for 17 years..
Here is the opening sentence of Graham Lloyd’s article in “The Australian”:
“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”
If anyone wants to claim that Engineer Pachauri did not say what Mr. Lloyd reported him as having said, perhaps some evidence would be more convincing than unfounded denial..
Of course it is disconcerting to the trolls that the current absence of global warming approaches two decades in length (and, on the RSS data, approaches a quarter of a century). It is no doubt still more upsetting to them that Engineer Pachauri now admits what the mainstream media had been trying so very hard to conceal. None of the wretched models on which the global warming scam is unsoundly founded predicted this long stasis. Yet it has happened. Follow Engineer Pachauri’s example, and get used to it.
many of the above ”do not get it”!
So called GHG’s help cool the planet. The moon, no atmosphere, has a ”day” solar zenith temperature of 121C with the same insolation as we get a desert temperature of +60C max and a rainforest temperature of under 40C. How do GHG’s heta anything they are not an independent source of energy.
I am skeptic so AGWers call me a troll. But the fun part is that trolls appear only in fantasies and we now that AGW all is about fantasies. Be leaving in things not there.
And dear lord Monckton of Brenchley your right about the data clear as
ice but AGWers don’t see that. So the head of the IPCC admitting there is no warming is a big deal and they will do every thing to declare there is not some statement about this any where.
And I already think the newspaper has edited the evidence out of the paper so there is no proof anymore.
Having hard evidence of the statement proofs that
A Pachauri rely mate the statement
B we cane all see that the newspaper had edited out the important stuff to hide the truth.
@ur momisugly trolls
this is what Graham Lloyd wrote in the Australian:
Dr Pachauri said global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.
“The climate is changing because of natural factors and the impact of human actions,” Dr Pachauri said.
“If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.
“What is quite perceptible is, in the last 50 years, the trend is upwards.
“This is not to say you won’t have ups and downs – you will – but what we should be concerned about is the trend, and that is being influenced now to a large extent by human actions.”
He said that it would be 30 to 40 years “at least” before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.
“If you look at the last century, records tell you that the increase in average surface temperature has been 0.74C,” he said.
“If you have five or 10 years when you don’t have the same trend, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are deviating from the trend – you are still around the trend.”
Well,
Although he is relatively correct in his interpretations of the data on this issue only, I retain extreme anathema to believing any conclusion that quack espouses.
Martin van Etten,
““If you have five or 10 years when you don’t have the same trend, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are deviating from the trend – you are still around the trend.”
Not five or 10. Fifteen or 20!
This Pachauri PR event in ‘The Australian’ has limited implications wrt damaging the AGW scare.
Here is a personal analysis.
The alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 position (aka the IPCC position) was constructed on a ~3 tiered foundation. The IPCC house, if you will, can fall down but not in the way some independent critics might think.
Tier #1 => The uppermost foundational tier of the IPCC house (supported by the other tiers) is the science research that was ‘selected’ / ‘endorsed’. The structural weakness of this foundational tier is significant because of the significant bulk of science research that was ignored or blocked to achieve the IPCC’s position (the alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 position). This tier is crumbling rapidly in the broader climate science community. But the IPCC house can still be supported by the other tiers even if tier #1 fails.
Tier #2 => is the ideological creators / organizers and the motivators for both : a) the funding of tier #1 , and b) the creating, continuance and funding the IPCC house itself. The significant weakness of this tier is its preference for a hidden presumption of there being a fundamental need for a drastic current political orientation shift toward a more totalitarian one . If that hidden preference is clearly opened to the public then this tier collapses. This tier is no where near a state of collapsing. But there are increasing numbers of publicly announced red flags about this foundational tier of the IPCC house. But even if both tier #1 & #2 entirely collapse the IPCC house can still stand if foundational tier #3 still stands.
Tier #3 => is the media, whether the MSM or the independent blogosphere. Without the broad foundational support of this tier the IPCC house cannot exist even if tier #1 & 2 are intact. Is this critical tier weakening in support of the IPCC house? I do not know. Opinions?
Wordiness . . . : )
John
Monckton of Brenchley, on February 23, 2013 at 9:22 am, in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/#comment-1231222
wrote:
Well, Mr. Monckton, I suppose you appreciate the ones who only applaud to your drivel, blindly believe your assertions at face value, and do not care about fact checking. Let’s see who really has got the facts wrong and is doing the misleading.
This statement is just a repetition of your previous assertion. And it still contains the same scientifically invalid reasoning. Lack of statistical significance for a given probability threshold of a trend estimate done for a time-series does not allow the conclusion of the absence of a trend, since it cannot be excluded the possibility that this lack of statistical significance is just due to a too small sampling size of the data set. This is just Statistics 101. Concluding an absence of global warming from the lack of statistical significance of a trend estimate of the temperature for a limited data set is logically a non-sequitur. The difference between non-detectability and absence of a trend is not just semantics. It is a difference in the substance.
I do not see that you have explained why the logical reasoning usually valid in statistics is not supposed to apply for your reasoning, based on which you assert a “stop” of global warming or similar. Therefore, you have not refuted what I replied to your assertion, nor have you provided any scientifically valid evidence for the alleged “stop” in global warming, which you are asserting. Just endlessly repeating your assertion does not make it true.
Obviously, if Pachauri says at the same time that this was not enough time “to break the long-term global warming trend”, according to the second hand source “The Australian”, Pachauri does not think “a 17-year pause in the global temperature rise” means that global warming had stopped. You cannot both have the physical process of global warming and don’t have it at the same time. A statement and its negation can’t be both true at the same time.
And let’s do some fact checking regarding the assertion about those 17 years, which is also your assertion, Mr. Monckton.
These are the trend estimates, together with their 2-sigma intervals, in Kelvin/decade for the period that starts at the beginning of 1996 (based on http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php):
GISTEMP: 0.111+/-0.124
NOAA: 0.084+/-0.116
HadCRUT4: 0.091+/-0.120
RSS: 0.035+/-0.205
UAH: 0.125+/-0.206
All those five data sets have a positive trend estimate for the recent 17 years, although RSS seems to be an outlier to the downside. The trend in GISTEMP is statistically significant with at least 90% probability, the trends in the NOAA and HadCRUT4 data sets are both statistically significant with at least 80% probability over the recent 17 years.
Thus, how do these data allow the assertion of an “absence” of a trend in allegedly all of the major data sets of the temperature? Your assertion, Mr. Monckton, does not hold up to fact checking.
If Pachauri really had said that there had been “a 17-year pause in the global temperature rise” I would dispute his statement, based on those numbers above. Only, I do not trust hearsay newspaper reporting about these things. First, I would have to see a full transcript of what Pachauri actually said, before I believed that.
What “consequences”? I did not talk about consequences of global warming at all. Now you are just making something up I have not said. I was explicitly talking about the increase in the global ocean heat content and the melting of the polar ice caps. These are primary physical processes related to global warming, which are occurring now, not just some consequences. Actually, the tropospheric and surface warming are more physical effects of a cause, which follow the increase in the ocean heat content. More than 80% of the energy from the radiative perturbation due to increasing greenhouse gases goes into heating of the oceans. The energy is accumulated in the ocean, which, in turn, are the major component that heats the troposphere then. The heat release from the oceans to the atmosphere just does not happen in a linear fashion. Thus, I would say, for the diagnosis of global warming as a physical process, the long-term increase in the global ocean heat content is more relevant than the increase in the tropospheric/surface temperature. For the just mentioned physical reasons.
I deliberately said polar ice caps. The Antarctic sea-ice is only a minor component of the southern polar ice cap. Most of the ice mass is accumulated in the glaciers on the Antarctic continent. The Antarctic glaciers are net melting, according to published science, e.g., the most recent paper by Shepherd et al., Science (2012). The abstract:
“We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142+/-49, +14+/-43, –65+/-26, and –20+/-14 gigatonnes year^1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59+/-0.20 millimeter year^1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228102
In Figure 5 in the paper, one can see that the ice melt has not “stopped” in recent years. Neither in Antarctica, nor in Greenland. The trend has been about steady (note: I correct my statement from my previous comment with respect to that.) downward in Antarctica, whereas the melting has accelerated in Greenland in recent years. The combined rate of decline has increased as well.
My statements about the melting of the polar ice caps are based on scientific references, on results from scientific research published in peer reviewed journals. What do you have to offer to back up your statements, Mr. Monckton, except for the one about the Antarctic sea ice, which I do not dispute?
Which would say something about the simulations done with the models, if this was true, nothing about the fact itself. However, please provide a source for your assertion, according to which the observed increase in the global ocean heat anomaly was four and a half times slower than the rate of what has been predicted with models. Otherwise, it is just another one of your assertions that are backed up with nothing.
Now, that is just a falsehood by you. I have not made such a statement. Again, you are inventing something I have not said. Are you trying to distract the audience? Or, if you insist that I allegedly said this, what about a quote with proof of source?
The proper response would have been here to provide the evidence for your assertion that the alleged statement can be found in the NOAA Report, by providing a quote to the alleged statement and a link so that everyone can do the fact checking.
However, you only have replied here by a mere repetition of your previous assertions, still not backing it up with anything, and an ad hominem comment about my person. Is this all, Mr. Monckton?
I could speculate about the reasons why you shy away from providing a quote and a proper link.
So, in your posting, when you were talking about the “discrepancy” between predictions published by the IPCC and observed data, like when you said, “now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates”, were you merely talking about the IPCC Report from the year 1990? Really? Is this how you want to sell now your statement from your posting to which I replied? That the observed temperature record was in contradiction to projections that were done about 25 years ago, with early climate models, which still were relatively simple? And this was “embarrassing” for the IPCC? There have been three more IPCC Reports since the first one. The projections for the long-term global temperature rise due to greenhouse gases, given in the IPCC Report 1990, were not even based on fully dynamic coupled ocean-atmosphere models. The given estimates in the report came with severe caveats. The models and the modeling capabilities have developed a lot since then.
But, OK. Let’s talk about those early projections. For instance as summarized in the Executive Summary of Chapter 6, “Time-Dependent Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change”, on page 178 of the IPCC Report 1990. There, following projections can be found:
“e) Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2.0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1°C”
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.USpyoVHPyso)
The trend since 1990 has been about 0.15 K/decade. That makes about about 0.3 K, halfway to the year 2030. Assuming the trend linearly continued, this would make about 0.6 K in 2030. So, the real world temperature change would be about 0.1 K below the lower bound of the estimate for the year 2030. Perhaps, the estimates 25 years ago were somewhat on the high side. So what? Do you have to offer anything that is based on a comparison between observed temperature and predictions from more recent publications of the IPCC?
Mr. Monckton, you must have a very strange understanding how such an accusation against a person can be substantiated with evidence, since your reply to my comment consisted of only a repetition of previous assertions by you to which I had replied, but which you have not backed up with anything. You seem to think that merely repeating your previous assertions was evidence enough. You have not shown any of my statements to be a “falsehood”. I have demonstrated that I can back up my statements about facts with references, though.
I also have demonstrated that following assertions or suggestions by you do not hold up to fact checking:
1. Your assertion that all of the major data sets for the tropospheric or surface temperature do not show a temperature rise for the recent 17 years.
2. Your suggestion that the land ice in Antarctica was not melting, that it even was accumulating.
With respect to the alleged discrepancy between temperature projections done with climate models and published in IPCC-Reports and observed temperatures, you have tried to weasel yourself out by now talking about projections in only the first IPCC-Report from the year 1990.
You have not backed up your assertion about the alleged discrepancy between the observed increase in the ocean heat anomaly and what has been predicted with models.
You have not backed up your assertion about the alleged statements in the NOAA State of the Climate Report 2008.
You have not given any explanation why a reasoning that is usually invalid in statistics is supposed to be valid for your conclusions you draw from the fact of a lack of statistical significance of the temperature trend for recent x years.
In two cases you have invented statements, I allegedly made, although I didn’t make these statements.
My reply to this statement, with which you try to belittle me as a person is that you, Mr. Monckton, perhaps should do something in your profession instead, like tabloid writing about inconsequential stuff, but refrain from writing and pretending to be an expert regarding things you do not understand, like climate science or anything that has to do with statistics.