Monckton: Of meteorology and morality

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

To those of us who have dared to question on scientific and economic grounds the official story on global warming, it is a continuing surprise that there is so little concern about whether or not that story is objectively true among the many who have swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker.

For the true-believers, the Party Line is socially convenient, politically expedient, and financially profitable. Above all, it is the Party Line. For those who think as herds or hives, it is safe. It is a grimy security blanket. It is the dismal safety in numbers that is the hallmark of the unreasoning mob.

But is it true? The herd and the hive do not care. Or, rather, they do care. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?” They are offended, shocked, outraged. They vent their venom and their spleen and their fury on those of us who ask, however politely, “But is it true?”

Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.

They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.

The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.

Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? What you get is the global warming scare.

As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.

Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.

“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What We’re Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus!”

And so, round and round, ad nauseam, ad ignorantiam, ad infinitum.

Every one of those exclamatory, declamatory statements about the climate is in substance untrue. Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities and government bodies. For instance, the notion that there is a 1 in 10 chance the world will end by 2100 is the fundamentally fatuous assumption in Lord Stern’s 2006 report on climate economics, written by a team at the U.K. Treasury for the then Socialist Government, which got the answer it wanted but did not get the truth, for it did not want the truth.

Previously, you could count on getting nothing but the truth from the men in white coats with leaky Biros in the front pocket. Now, particularly if the subject is global warming, you can count on getting little but profitable nonsense from your friendly local university science lab. They make the profits: you get the nonsense.

The central reason why what Professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” is damaging to civilization arises not from the staggering cost, soon to be $1 billion a day worldwide. Not from the direct threat to the West posed by the avowedly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian policies of the UN, the IPCC, and the costly alphabet-soup of unelected busybody agencies of predatory government that live off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity. Not from the dire environmental damage caused by windmills and other equally medieval measures intended to make non-existent global warming go away.

The damage caused by the Great Lie arises from the fact that just about the entire global governing class has found it expedient or convenient or profitable to adopt the Great Lie, to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on, regardless of whether anything that it says on the subject of the climate has any truth in it whatsoever.

The fundamental principle upon which Aristotle built the art and science of Logic is that every individual truth is consistent with every other individual truth. The truth is a seamless robe. Religion – or at any rate the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe (practising but not perfect) – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.

Science, too – or at any rate the classical scientific method adumbrated by Thales of Miletus and Al-Haytham and brought to fruition by Newton, Huxley, Einstein, and Popper – was also rooted in the understanding that there is only one truth, only one physical law, and that, therefore, every truth unearthed by the diligence of the curious and hard-working empiricist or theoretician must, if it be truly true, be consistent at every point and in every particular with every truth that had ever been discovered before, and with every truth yet to be discovered.

It is in the understanding of that central principle of the remarkable oneness and self-consistency of all truth that men of true religion and of true science ought to have become united. For there is an awesome beauty in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Keats put it, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all.”

The beauty of the truth is sullied, the seamless robe rent in sunder, if not merely a few individual scientists but the entire classe politique not merely of a single nation but of the planet advantages itself, enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.

The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie. Those scientists who have been caught out trampling the truth, and those universities in which it has become near-universally agreed that the best thing to keep the cash flowing is to say nothing about the Great Lie, are by their actions or inactions repudiating the very justification and raison-d’être of science: to seek the truth, to find it, to expound it, to expand it, and so to bring us all closer to answering the greatest of all questions: how came we and all around us to be here?

We who are not only men of science but also men of religion believe that the Answer to that question lay 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem. The very human face of the very Divine was “perfectly God and perfectly Man”, as the Council of Chalcedon beautifully put it.

We cannot prove that a Nazarene made the Universe, or that any Divine agency takes the slightest interest in whether we tell the truth. But, for as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we are free to believe it. And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.

Science, though, is not a matter of belief (unless you belong to Greenpeace or some other Marxist front organization masquerading as an environmental group). It is a matter of disciplined observation, careful theoretical deduction, and cautious expression of results. The true scientist does not say, “I believe”: but he ought, if there is any curiosity and awe in his soul, to say “I wonder …”. Those two words are the foundation of all genuine scientific enquiry.

Yet the global warming scare has shown how very dangerous is science without morality. The scientist, who takes no one’s word for anything (nullius in verba), does not accept a priori that there is any objectively valuable moral code. He does not necessarily consider himself under any moral obligation either to seek the truth or, once he has found it, to speak it.

Science, therefore, in too carelessly or callously rejecting any value in religion and in the great code of morality in which men of religion believe and which at least they try however stumblingly to follow, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

Yea, truth faileth (Isaiah, 59:15). The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.

That being so, we should no longer consider ourselves as laboring under any obligation, moral or other, to pay any particular heed to scientists seeking to meddle in politics unless and until they have shown themselves once more willing to be what al-Haytham said they should be: seekers after truth.

Two hundred and forty-six feet of sea-level rise, Dr. Hansen? Oh, come off it!

A merry Christmas an’ a roarin’ Hogmanay to one and all.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
604 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Weber
December 24, 2013 12:04 pm

Outdid yourself with a moving tribute – very honorable sir.

John Tillman
December 24, 2013 12:09 pm

Truth beautifully expressed.
Truth told to power will eventually triumph. The truth shall make men and women free & the long-suffering subjects of misgovernment shall overcome.
And in case you were wondering: “inspissate”, from the Latin for “to thicken”, hence to thicken, congeal or condense, as from evaporation.

tallbloke
December 24, 2013 12:10 pm

“The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.”
Jerome Ravetz came to a similar if more secular conclusion:
“The way I see it now (which I certainly don’t say is True) is that there is a connection between truth and integrity. This might be cast as attempting ‘the truth as best as I can achieve it’, or, more fundamentally, ‘being true to myself’.”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/jerome-ravetz-pns-truth-and-science/
There is of course a link between the integrity of the secular and the morality of the religious. Science is an area in which diligent and honest atheists and believers can work together towards the generation of useful knowledge and in the pursuit of truth.
Merry Christmas and a cool Yule to one and all.

Bill
December 24, 2013 12:10 pm

May the Good Lord bless you and yours.
You are a beacon of truth in a thick fog of self serving lies and wicked deceptions

ED, Mr. Jones
December 24, 2013 12:15 pm

Heretic!

jorgekafkazar
December 24, 2013 12:18 pm

Amen.

December 24, 2013 12:23 pm

A wonderful Christmas present Lord Monckton. I wish this could be printed in every newspaper in every country.
Very warm Christmas greetings to all.

Kelvin
December 24, 2013 12:24 pm

Thankyou and Merry Christ’s mass to you sir.
P.S. Please inform Sue Wynne-Boult, Phil Banks & Hyde Quick, US Attorneys-at-Law that their definition of Happy Holidays may offend half the globe. Celebration of ‘Winter’ solstice indeed!
Yours
Kelvin Kubala
New Zealand

troe
December 24, 2013 12:24 pm

That is the thing isn’t it. Not the particulars of this case but the corruption it exposes in our foundation. That is why we fight.
Thank you for putting it so well.
Merry Christmas to all of you

Doug Huffman
December 24, 2013 12:28 pm

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a God Jul! Thank you Lord.

December 24, 2013 12:32 pm

Lord Monckton of Brenchley, thank you for such a cogent commentary on the intellectual divide that separates us from our deluded fellow humans. This article is an instant classic!

December 24, 2013 12:35 pm

The power of the messenger of false information is diminishing. Brainwashing masterminds of a hundred years ago never envisioned invention of the internet and power of crowd sourcing.
People now instinctively know not to trust the corporate owners of old news media. They know they’re purposefully deceiving people for their own greedy gain. Virtually no one goes to TV news channels for information anymore because they know they’ve been lied to constantly by them. Why give the enemy any more of your money when free true crowd sourced information is available at a moments notice on the internet?
Monckton points out what has become a silly brainwashing tactic, shutting down the conversation to maintain the mind control gains. That tact is now so transparent it isn’t working anymore and just helps to shine a bright light on the enemy and useful idiots.

Editor
December 24, 2013 12:38 pm

“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” – Stephen Schneider
“The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.”
– Edmund Burke

Rick
December 24, 2013 12:39 pm

Just as Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans, we live in a world that worships the ‘created’ rather than the Creator.
Merry Christmas everyone.

Kirk c
December 24, 2013 12:41 pm

One should never compare political truth and religious truth in the same context as scientific truth. The definition of “Truth” has been hijacked. In politics it means “as far as I’m concerned I’m speaking The truth as I recall it perhaps to be”. In religion, “I believe this is the truth as far as I have been told, but I really have no way to back it up”. Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone .
As a denier myself, I normally enjoy Christopher Monckton’s shenanigans but in my opinion, the call to truth and biblical objective morality detracts from his credibility.

Gunga Din
December 24, 2013 12:44 pm

To not attempt to live by a standard greater than yourself opens the door to “the end justifies the means” mentality.
A few verses from Proverbs,
Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. ( KJV)
Pro 12:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits. (KJV)
Pro 21:22 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. ( KJV)
I know that some will object to “the LORD” part of these verses. Sorry, but that is the Truth.
A “Moral Compass” won’t work if you don’t know which way is North.

Peter Miller
December 24, 2013 12:48 pm

Eloquent and relevant, also sad but true.

Doug Huffman
December 24, 2013 12:49 pm

Mike Jonas says: December 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm ““The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Speaking of integrity; Edmund Burke wrote “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” (Thoughts on the Present Discontents, 1886) (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2173/2173-h/2173-h.htm accessed 24 December 2013)
There is little integrity in grabbing a quote from out of context unread.

December 24, 2013 12:55 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with your excellent commentary of the nonsense of AGW,
But I find your correlation with the preposterous re-telling of much older fairy tales contained in the King James or your own religions version of “the new testament” at odds with any concept of logic or reason.
As for the violent and wrathful dissertation known as the old testament – I prefer George and Ira Gershwin’s musical commentary on those absurd fairy tales, “it ain’t necessarily so”.
As for enlightenment, Buddha the teacher and philosopher told it succinctly and without malice or the need to cower before a mythical, revengeful solitary or triumvirate set of heavenly figures – after all, isn’t that precisely what enlightenment means?
All the best for a happy and joyous festive season whether or not you accept it is a patently obvious plagiarism of much older celebrations.
It has become a time where even the hardest cynic can enjoy a few days of respite from a world that is increasingly more ignorant, greedy, slothful and complicit or worse, perpetrating in terrible acts against their fellow man. Peace and goodwill to all.

Area Man
December 24, 2013 12:57 pm

Another well-written post, but please don’t refer to such activities as “profitable” or the spoils of such activities “profits”.
To do so besmirches those noble folks working hard to create genuine profits and thus power the economic engine that leads to improved quality of life for all.

Area Man
December 24, 2013 1:00 pm

A better description might be “lucrative”. As anyone who has run a company knows, it’s not easy to make a profit and those who are able to do so are worthy of respect.

Gunga Din
December 24, 2013 1:09 pm

(“Anthony”. MOD ALERT! Snip if you see fit. No offense taken if you do.)
The best gift I can give is the best I know about the greatest gift ever given and what it meant.
“Go North, young man! Go North!” (OK, not an exact quote.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/12/zeke-mosher-and-rohde-and-the-new-best-dataset/#comment-1502986

Tobias Smit
December 24, 2013 1:14 pm

@ Lord Moncton, A sincere thanks for simple but eloquent article I am a partial lapsed Catholic but the reasons I left the Church at that time was exactly what you wrote about in the Church during those 1960’s.
I (hopefully) still live within the tenants of truth and morality, I totally agree with you how you described the current morality on this planet and it’s leaders, it is spot on.
Sir I wish you an incredibly MERRY CHRISTMAS, a great 2014 and keep your sanity flowing out to us, Thank you. Tobias Smit and family.

FrankK
December 24, 2013 1:20 pm

Tim Collins says:
December 24, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with your excellent commentary of the nonsense of AGW,
But I find your correlation with the preposterous re-telling of much older fairy tales contained in the King James or your own religions version of “the new testament” at odds with any concept of logic or reason.
As for the violent and wrathful dissertation known as the old testament – I prefer George and Ira Gershwin’s musical commentary on those absurd fairy tales, “it ain’t necessarily so”.
As for enlightenment, Buddha the teacher and philosopher told it succinctly and without malice or the need to cower before a mythical, revengeful solitary or triumvirate set of heavenly figures – after all, isn’t that precisely what enlightenment means?
All the best for a happy and joyous festive season whether or not you accept it is a patently obvious plagiarism of much older celebrations.
It has become a time where even the hardest cynic can enjoy a few days of respite from a world that is increasingly more ignorant, greedy, slothful and complicit or worse, perpetrating in terrible acts against their fellow man. Peace and goodwill to all.
—————————————————————————————
+1
But Me Lud you do have and extraordinary ability as a wordsmith
Best regards for the season and I look forward for your contributions in 2014.

Gail Combs
December 24, 2013 1:25 pm

Thank you and a Merry Christmas from an Agnostic (me) and an Atheist (my husband)
Honesty and Integrity are not the sole province of the Judeo-Christian religions but of civilized men and women because without honesty and integrity all you have is raiders, parasites and their prey whom they eventually will destroy.

CEH
December 24, 2013 1:47 pm

Merry Christmas everyone.

Curious George
December 24, 2013 1:48 pm

Peace and goodwill to all. No exceptions.

bobl
December 24, 2013 1:54 pm

Morality is at the core of the problem. The replacement of the love of ones fellow man with the concept that the collective, the hive, is more important than the individual. Even worst is the emergence of a hatred for ones own species, in a lower species of course such thinkers would not last long. The dog that attacks its own pack is dooming itself to extinction, natural selection at work. Ironically, it’s christian morals that gives these misanthropic views oxygen in the first place, a tolerance exploited for gain by the misanthropists.
Frankly I find it odd that it is the so-called progressives that want us to regress back to the stone age, and it is the so-called conservatives that want to progress our science and technology for the betterment of all. I will forthwith be calling “progessives” regressives. The hive (collectivist) mentality is so caustic, so deleterious because it aims for a collective mediocrity, a race to the lowest common denominator. Only individualism, individual responsibility individual excellence and competition results in real progress. Consensus by its very nature exposes the collectivist mediocrity of “The team” and produced by decree “right answers”
Collectivism, and the mediocrity of the lowest common denominator is why Communism fails, even China has had to embrace capitalism, and individualism in order to challenge the west.
PS, the mediocrity of the group pervades our thinking, as anyone who has ever been subjected to 360 degree aseessment in business can attest. The aim of 360 degree evaluation is not to promote excellece… it can’t, its aim is to minimise divergence, to herd a group to a mediocratic centroid. I refuse to do 360 degree assessments on this basis. Excellence loves disagreement and argument and arms length dealings, Mediocrity loves agreement, consensus, and group hugs.
Merry Christmas, Lord M, Anthony and blog readers. May 2014 bring good things to each and every one of you.
Bob

Roger Dewhurst
December 24, 2013 2:01 pm

Sadly Lord Monckton morality is not the property of religious belief. Others, without religious belief, can come to a morality essentially that of the major religions simply on rational grounds. Quite simply an educated rational person can accept that the ten commandments, or most of them anyway, should form the basis of the way we behave to others.

Bruce Cobb
December 24, 2013 2:01 pm

Perhaps Mann and his ilk need to be paid a visit from the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, in order for them to fully comprehend the horrors they are creating for science, and for mankind.
In the words of Tiny Tim “God bless us, every one!”

Kohl
December 24, 2013 2:02 pm

Lord Monckton makes a point with which I disagree, although the general thrust of the article towards truth in science and so on is entirely apposite in these times when ‘spin’ and the product of spin (bullshit?) is almost universal.
He says: “For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.”
But the pursuit of true knowledge is the whole and sole quest of science. So, whilst science can be wrong, it is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral.
Of course, the morality or otherwise of an individual scientist’s actions in dealing with science is most certainly a proper subject for examination. If s/he ‘cooks the books’ or knowingly promulgates false theories or carries out experiments upon subjects which would be unethical or makes false accusations against other scientists or seeks to mislead a gullible public with false information or …… oh wait. Yes, with the exception of carrying out experiments which are unethical because they affect the subject in a harmful manner, that appears to be precisely what some have done isn’t it!
However, I think that it is not the pursuit of science per se which is moral or immoral, rather it is the manner in which it is dealt with by the scientist or observer which is the proper subject of ethical enquiries.
In that regard it seems that there are many who might be well and truly found guilty of pursuing an immoral quest.

albertalad
December 24, 2013 2:02 pm

This makes the boys on Wall Street blush they never came up with so beautiful a scam. The wolves of “science” have the best of all possible scams – stupid people. You can’t lose and the money keeps flowing – what’s not to like if you’re in on the scam? Can anyone think of a more perfect money making scheme? The models don’t have to make sense, and this is where stupid journalists get their cut pushing the scheme, just add stupid people and there you have it, the perfect scam. Add governments who get to blame everything on global warming – they’re not responsible for anything, throw in the UN and it automatically turns into a self perpetuating money making machine.

December 24, 2013 2:12 pm

Dear Lord Monckton,
What a masterful essay in scope and span.
For a while now I have been thinking of writing something vaguely similar on the lines of the practices of the medieval church .Its groupthink on matters like transubstantiation ,the sale of indulgences, purgatory….and what Luther and the reformation achieved in the face of the establishment of the time.
In Kent where I live ,and all over England and parts of Scotland there were Marian persecutions with numerous martyrs burnt at the stake until the truth asserted itself during the Enlightenment. This to the advantage of religion generally.
I am sure there are other historical precedents that may be even more powerful; perhaps the idiocy of the Easter Island establishment in sculpting their amazing but useless stone heads. The wind turbines of their day?
You have given me much food for thought !
With all good wishes for Christmas and the New Year -please keep up your excellent posts.

M Courtney
December 24, 2013 2:28 pm

Kirk c says at December 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone.

Not the point. That leads to a far too restrictive definition of knowledge.
Many things that are observable once or twice only, or vaguely by inference from direct observation, or even just by deviating from the purely theoretical expectation (Bayesian statistics) – are reasonable to accept as true.
That is that the evidence is plausible but not necessarily verifiable by everyone.
The virtue of this article is that it discusses the various forms of truth and why we should use them… trust them.
Could debasement of the scientific method, such as clinging to failed AGW models after the “pause” of 15 years, have occurred without the loss of a fixed, shared morality?
In my opinion: No.

M Courtney
December 24, 2013 2:29 pm

Although Lord Monckton’s implied association of socialism with immorality is questionable to say the least.

Santa
December 24, 2013 2:34 pm

Merry Christmas Christopher!

normalnew
December 24, 2013 2:35 pm

My christmas present to all. An amazing map of the ever growing antarctica. I call ths art.
http://i.imgur.com/3q97srO.jpg
Merry whatever 🙂

andud
December 24, 2013 2:41 pm

I guess normal posting rules re religion have been suspended for the day. You lost me with the bit about Jesus creating the Universe about 2000 years ago.

December 24, 2013 2:44 pm

I disagree with the premise of your arguments. I agree Science is about objective truth. It is a scaffold built from interlocking chains of demonstrable evidence, and whenever a link in the chain is broken everything after that link becomes addled and has to be reconsidered. So to tamper with the evidence, or method by which that evidence is being assembled, is bordering on an act of evil. Science is a good thing for humanity, it is important that we treat it with reverence.
But not all truth is built on objective truth. Science knows what a bird is, it is a provable fact worked out through the study of genealogical evidence. A bird is a scientific fact that is backed up with objective truth through a chain of fossil records and DNA analysis. But the word bird existed before science. Before the age of science and Darwin a bird was not an objective thing, it was a concept. It was a plastic concept made up by a brain that interpreted the world for the benefit of survival of living things. The bodies of nature were not built like aeroplanes, they were not assembled by a God that drew up plans, they were assembled through the workings of a different sort of truth. Our bodies and brains are the product of extreme plasticity of design for adaption to ever-varying and changing circumstances.
Aeroplanes are built for a specific function – to fly. Birds fly, but they fly with adapted limbs that once were fins, sometimes birds transform their wings into becoming flippers for swimming when evolution demands. So when a scientist builds a wing for an aeroplane it is a fixed idea, for a fixed purpose, but this sort of fixation, which is assembled from notions of objective truth does not apply to nature. Because Nature’s truth is always plastic. A wing is a flipper when nature wants it to be a flipper.
When the monks looked at bees they said they were the smallest of birds. For scientists this is a lie, because it goes against objective truth of what a bird is in the language of science, but for the monks it was truth. An an Ostrich was not a bird because it did not have wings and did not fly, a bee was a bird because it did fly. If the monk woke up another day in another frame of mind he would have said a bee is not a bird because it has six legs, and an ostrich is a bird because it has a beak. The monk was not being untruthful.
I am not making a silly point. I am putting it to you that objective truth is very useful way of looking at the world, and an excellent way to make machines, but it is not the only way. Sometimes using plastic truth provides us with another way of thinking that is rewarding and life enhancing and vital to our survival. Plasticity truth produced life, it produced consciousness and all the things we value most.
I think we have to separate these two concepts of plastic and objective truth. They mix badly, and the way the AGW crowd have tortured objective truth for political ends and personal gain is to my mind a crime against humanity, in that thought I agree.

Admin
December 24, 2013 2:44 pm

People who wholeheartedly embrace religion can be moral, but they can also be profoundly immoral.
Immoral people of faith who are immoral find excuses for their immorality, they perform great acts of piety, they start religious wars, to convince themselves that all the “good” they are doing somehow balances all the evil they know in their hearts they have committed. Many of the most brutal tyrants had committed their brutality in the name of religion.
So to suggest that the values of Religion can make somebody behave in a moral way is not supported by the evidence.
The evidence instead supports the idea that a good person will behave in a moral manner regardless of their religions views. And that a bad person, even if they truly believe in God, and have strong religious convictions, will perform mental limbo, will find ways to twist their faith into paths which allow full expression of their immorality.

Richard Barraclough
December 24, 2013 2:48 pm

I agree with one or two others that continued references to a mythical being of your choice don’t have too much place in a science blog. Many of us atheists manage to make a good attempt at respecting our fellow human beings, and all the behaviour which that entails, while at the same time appreciating the truths which come from science. There are plenty of examples from many centuries back until the present day of despicable behaviour in the name of religion – and, of course, plenty of examples which have nothing to do with religion. People can behave in a civilised way, or not, regardless of which religion they follow.

December 24, 2013 2:55 pm

Gotten? Gotten? Aaaaaarrrrggghhhh!

December 24, 2013 3:08 pm

Monckton: “For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.”
If I read him correctly, what Monckton is saying is that, since the quest for Truth is the sole aim and raison d’etre of Science, any deviation from that quest perpetrates a falsehood, which is inherently immoral. Now whence the standard of Morality? Clearly it is a priori, which cannot be proved or disproved, but if accepted must be taken as axiomatic. The Warmists by sullying and perverting the scientific quest for Truth have either violated the moral foundation of Science, or abandoned any moral standard altogether.
For Monckton the source of the moral standard is the Christian religion. For others it may be a different tradition, or an innate faculty like Conscience. For some, perhaps too many these days, there is no such standard. That may account for the ease with which they will depart from the hard quest for Truth in favor of venal and self-serving pursuits and misguided causes, too often in the name of ‘saving’ Mankind or the Planet.
/Mr Lynn

Janice Moore
December 24, 2013 3:12 pm

A powerfully stated, lucid, and timely description of the way things are. Well done!
And a very merry Christmas, to you, too (and to ALL of you!), Lord Monckton. Thank you (and to your wife, Juliet, also) for sharing that spectacularly beautiful image, a perfect metaphor for “truth,” of F(z) = z² + c {z ranging from 0 to ∞, but limited to 250K iterations}.
Yes, indeed, Christianity may be disbelieved in, but it has never been falsified.
With gratitude for all you have done for truth and for the Truth,
Your sister in Christ (who, like you, is not perfect, just forgiven!),
Janice
P.S. The starvation and deaths directly caused by socialism as proven in objective experiments around the world (e.g., U.S.S.R., China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, …) have proven it to be, indeed, “ev1l.” Of course, “one death is a tragedy; millions of deaths are mere statistics” — (Envirostalinism’s grand old man quoted from memory, only). Very ev1l, indeed. And all the more so due to its wolf-in-sheep’s clothing disguise that fools even some of the best of us.

albertkallal
December 24, 2013 3:18 pm

Science cannot prove itself. The VERY concept of truth is that of a self-evident truth in which all Math’s and science is based on. And you need a society with a significant portion of those in research with such integrity. The Christians of Europe rejected pantheism (so no God in grass and no wind God and no Moon god). If you have a wind god then why would you study why the wind blows? You will not!!
So the combination of honesty and that the truth MATTERS resulted in science rising out of Christian Europe (we were walking on the moon when most cultures were still cooking their dinners with Camel dug).
As society heads to less morality then so does the ability of that society to have good science.
And science cannot explain itself. There is no science experiment that can prove 2 + 2 = 4.
Without a society based on codes of honesty and integrity, then you WILL not have science rise up like it did in the western cultures of Europe. And the state of science today is a HUGE mess. If the people involved don’t have honesty and believe in the truth, then how can you have any science??
Dr. Craig in this short video explains this concept that science cannot not prove science!
Watch as Dr. Craig absolute roasts and pawns Atkins

December 24, 2013 3:21 pm

misquoting Keats and misunderstanding his romantic philosophy.
coal in your sock monktopus

Martin A
December 24, 2013 3:21 pm

John K. Sutherland says:
December 24, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Gotten? Gotten? Aaaaaarrrrggghhhh!

I assume you were not brought up in North America where this usage, once standard in England, is still in normal use.

Cheshirered
December 24, 2013 3:28 pm

Terrific piece, Lord Monckton. Not for the first time and I’m sure nor will it be the last.
Merry Christmas everyone.

Peter Crawford
December 24, 2013 3:30 pm

Hey Moncko, can a Welsh atheist commoner wish you a Merry Christmas and a kiss on the lips?
Not with tongues
MERRY CRIMBO AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR.

Paul767
December 24, 2013 3:39 pm

Merry Christmas to all!
A good dissertation my lord, my only quibble is the fact that a morality based on reason is possible, not one handed down from a mythical or mystical being.
The socialists tell us that self-sacrifice (Altruism) is the moral way to live. You must sacrifice yourself for your fellow man, Since you are evil (selfish) they must force you to sacrifice yourself.
I don’t believe in human sacrifices, particularly the sacrifice of the productive to the non-productive! Are you listening M. Courtney?
Only one person in the history of the world has postulated a moral code which is based on reason and reality: Ayn Rand. I paraphrase: Human Joy is the ultimate goal of each individual. The required VALUES for attaining that goal = Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem. The VIRTUES required to attain those values = Independence, Rationality, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness and Pride.
The primary virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride are tied down to Reality by her PHILOSOPHY. By the nature of existence and consciousness; each one of her stated virtues, required for human life, are connected to reality.
Reason is our means of survival. Rationality is the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and guide to action. Rationality requires a person to do his own thinking (Independence) and stay true to it in action (Integrity). It requires Honesty – the refusal to fake reality – because the unreal does not exist and can be of no value. It requires Justice – the moral evaluation of others – because rational, productive people are good for us, while irrational parasites are worthless or dangerous.
Survival requires an all-encompassing purposefulness, with all of one’s other purposes integrated to a central productive purpose. Productiveness is the application of reason to the creation of the products and services necessary for survival. To define and achieve rational purposes, a person must be certain of his competence and worth – he must achieve self-esteem. This requires the virtue of Pride – a commitment to living up to the highest rational standards. Thus Rand calls pride “moral ambitiousness.” It is, in effect, productiveness applied to character: “as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul”
Take the oath: “I swear, by my life and my love for it, that I will never be a slave to another man, nor allow another man to be a slave to me”!
Merry Christmas to all!
(I acknowledge the existence of who the holiday is for, no sweat) Peace and Joy to ALL mankind and a Happy New Year!
Paul R.

December 24, 2013 3:43 pm

Paul R. – You bring me to my sad, but serious question…When to the “Greenies” actually decide they have the right to a Jihad??? That’s REALLY scary!

RoHa
December 24, 2013 3:51 pm

“The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality?”
Yes, since religion is not necessary for morality. (It frequently seems that religion is detrimental to morality.) However, science cannot function properly in the absence of morality.
(And “gotten”? I expected British English from Lord Monckton.)

K-Bob
December 24, 2013 3:53 pm

Steven Mosher = The Grinch
Maybe someday his heart will grow.

Rhoda R
December 24, 2013 3:55 pm

Thank you Lord Monckton. Merry Christmas to you and to every one writing, moderating and reading this site.

K-Bob
December 24, 2013 3:58 pm

I agree with the argument that liberals toe the party line and claim that AGW is real because the democratic party said so. But we are also victims of conservatives (Republicans) who do just the opposite. They make ludicrous claims that only give the warmers reason to make the claims that “Deniers” are stupid people who don’t understand science. Thank you Lord Monckton for helping to shine the light for those of us who follow the science and see the truth.

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
December 24, 2013 4:01 pm

Merry Christmas to all on WUWT, especially Anthony Watts

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 4:03 pm

K-Bob says:
December 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Steven Mosher = The Grinch
Maybe someday his heart will grow.
—–
As we speak, The Mosh is on his sled, dressed as Santie Claus, heading down to Whoville to take every last incandescent bulb from the Who’s Christmas trees, including Cindy-Lou Who, who is barely more than two.
Happy Holidays to all (including the Mosh)!

pochas
December 24, 2013 4:05 pm

Lord Moncton, you have made a eloquent statement on the morality necessary for the pursuit of science, and you have shown how that morality transcends reason and connects with the realm of religion.

Pat Frank
December 24, 2013 4:07 pm

Agree with the general view, but too much of florid phrasing and bombast for me. To my mind, the great conundrum of the social condition confronting us is how all of the institutions of science were swept away by AGW alarm. A diagnosis of “expedient or convenient or profitable” is far too facile, I think.
One can only just understand the NAS under Ralph Cicerone going along with alarm, as he published on the idea prior to Jim Hansen’s 1988 testimony. But that understanding requres one to presume that Dr. Cicerone put his inner fears ahead of his scientific integrity. As an atmospheric scientist, Dr. Cicerone must have been aware of Fritz Möller’s 1963 warning that only a complete theory of climate could substantiate a dangerous AGW effect. No such theory was then in hand, nor is now. And so Dr. Cicerone must have proceeded to manipulate the NAS knowing that his fears had no scientific basis. And then one must further assume that inner hierarchy of the NAS followed his lead without protest. After all, what scientist actually employed by the NAS (as opposed to being a member of the NAS) has ever spoken out, protested, or resigned over the official and scientifically insupportable position on AGW officially taken by the NAS?
But more than that, in the US we have the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics, both of which have a profound responsibility to the integrity of science, and each of which has with both arms embraced the alarm and made it official policy. I’ve read the internal APS report of the Kleppner committee, and it is shamefully uncritical.
The surrender of scientific institutions to the AGW idea demands a studied, complete, and careful explanation. These institutions are composed of individuals, all of whom must have either likewise surrendered to the idea, or surrendered to the internal politics of AGW-as-party-line. Either case is accompanied by a surrender of scientific integrity to politics.
How did that happen at all, much less so globally and so quickly? How does politics attain such power? The group of scientists pushing AGW alarm were at first a small fraction of the community. How did they sweep all before them? In their private meetings, they must express astonishment at their incredible success.

Konrad
December 24, 2013 4:09 pm

There is a world of difference between morals and ethics. Morals just require feelings, for ethics you have to think.
Many naughty boys and girls, believers and sceptics alike, may be hoping for a visit from Santa Claus. Santa is a somewhat political character, making moral judgements, weighing naughty and nice in the balance.
But while many would like a visit from Santa, who would allow “there will be warming, just far less than we thought”, Santa may not be coming. While politics may have motivated many, the battle ground was science. This requires a visit from both the Krampus and Sankt-Nikolaus, and Krampus only carries the list of who’s been naughty.
1.2C for a doubling of CO2?
Have you been naughty Christopher?
“there will be warming, just far less than we thought”, may be good politics but it is poor science. After all it is not just the magnitude of the effect in error but the very sign. There may be no path back to reason through morals.
Those that hide from the sting of the Krampus’ birch (or bristlecone as the case may be) may miss a visit from Sankt-Nikolaus. He may be carrying more than sugar cookies. He may be carrying the future of science and reason, and that is sure to take away the sting of the birch 😉

December 24, 2013 4:10 pm

Beautifully written. Very true. Should be repeated again and again – I hope your words spread far. A Very Merry Christmas to you, Christopher Monckton, and a Very Merry Christmas to Anthony, to the mods, and to you all.

Warren
December 24, 2013 4:14 pm

So if we are to accept Lord Moncktons position on AGW, shouldn’t we ask Where is his peer reviewed scientific rebuttal? Several studies, including those by Dr James Powell and Naomi Orestes, have shown about a 99% consensus on AGW. Can we consider Monckton serious, or responsible, to engage in armchair criticism without engaging in the true scientific debate in scientific journals?

thingadonta
December 24, 2013 4:15 pm

Well, I’m not a fan of the idea of an Essene -trained revolutionary in ancient Judea having much relevance to the modern world, but I agree that in the absence of a strong moral code people seem more prone to pursue political agendas at the expense of others.
Richard Pipes, the scholar of communism, believes that the rise of two of the 20th century’s greatest evils-Nazism and Communism- can be attributed partly to the idea that developed within the scientific revolution that man does not have a soul. In the absence of a religious or moral compass, what stops people from believing that other people are expendable for the sake of a political cause?
I’m still working on the idea of whether one can have a sufficiently humane morality in the absence of what we call traditional religion (such as the declaration of human rights, which is a pretty good start), but I agree that there is a danger to humanity without such a code.

jones
December 24, 2013 4:22 pm

Peter Crawford says:
December 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Hey Moncko, can a Welsh atheist commoner wish you a Merry Christmas and a kiss on the lips?
Not with tongues
.
No tongues?….You ain’t no Welshman then……

December 24, 2013 4:22 pm

What a joy it is to encounter your clever alliterations:
somehow snuck sneakily
assent to assertions
parroted the Party Line
fundamentally fatuous
to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on
(and in the title too, I notice)
A joyous Christmas to you and an equally good new year.

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 4:25 pm

@ Warren — You might have a point, unfortunately Climategate exposed the complete corruption of the peer review process. You’re flogging a dead horse. Read the Climategate emails an educate yourself on seedy underbelly of Climate Science.
Have an open mind and Happy New Year!

James Abbott
December 24, 2013 4:29 pm

Another convoluted tirade weaving fantastic imagery from the noble Lord – sent down from his high tower in the land of Nid.
But its Christmas – best time of the year for some nuts.

Chad Wozniak
December 24, 2013 4:39 pm

All I can say is – wow.
Lord Monckton, again you demonstrate that your nobility is not merely in your bloodline. So very well said.
I am not a religious believer, but certainly for many, TRADITIONAL religion provides a basis for a moral compass that I would never question, and you are absolutely right to connect that moral compass to scientific integrity.
But there are other bases besides religion – there are the golden rule, the agreement to disagree, the rule to do no harm, and the support of well-being – for a moral compass. Lying violates all of these four basic rules: it treats another as one would not be treated, it disrespects another’s right to believe, it willfully does tangible, concrete harm to another, and it diminishes another’s well-being.
On the other hand, we have the new religions – Marxism, environmentalism and global warming – which explicitly eschew morality (except to abuse it as a method of manipulating uninformed people). In these new religions, the doctrine is everything; there is no concept of truth or falsity, fact or illusion. To the ideologue, these concepts are irrelevant – to him or her, there are no such things. There is only what is, according to their doctrine.

Warren
December 24, 2013 4:41 pm

Thanks Reg. But that leaves the only basis for an anti-AGW position as a Worldwide Conspiracy of scientists who have corrupted the scientific process…an assertion that I assume you uniquely apply to climate scientists. That seems a slim reed, to put it mildly.

December 24, 2013 4:42 pm

They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?”

That’s the title of a 1995 book by Aaron Wildavsky that is still very relevant. Its subtitle is, “A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues.” Chapter 11 is a 35-page look at global warming theory; it’s measured and skeptical. Here’s its book description on Amazon:

We’ve eaten Alar with our apples and PCBs with our fish, drunk arsenic with our water, breathed asbestos in our schools. Someone sounded the alarm, someone else said we were safe, and both had science on their side. Whom are we to trust? How are we to know? Amid this chaos of questions and conflicting information, Aaron Wildavsky arrives with just what the beleaguered citizen needs: a clear, fair, and factual look at how the rival claims of environmentalists and industrialists work, what they mean, and where to start sorting them out.
Working with his students at a risk analysis center, Wildavsky examined all the evidence behind the charges and countercharges in several controversial cases involving environmental health and public safety. Here he lays out these cases in terms an average citizen can understand, weighs the merits of the claims of various parties, and offers reasoned judgments on the government’s response. From Love Canal to Times Beach, from DDT to Agent Orange, acid rain, and global warming, from saccharin to asbestos, nuclear waste, and radon, Wildavsky shows how we can achieve an informed understanding of the contentious environmental issues that confront us daily. The book supports the conclusion Wildavsky reached himself, both as a citizen committed to the welfare of the earth and its inhabitants, and as a social scientist concerned with how public policy is made: though it is bad to be harmed, it is worse to be harmed in the name of health.
http://www.amazon.com/But-True-Citizens-Environmental-Health/dp/0674089235/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387931659&sr=1-1&keywords=But+is+it+true%3F

Pops
December 24, 2013 4:46 pm

“Others, without religious belief, can come to a morality essentially that of the major religions simply on rational grounds.”
Well, of course they can. God is nothing if not rational. He gave us moral law to ensure that we would get it, as not all are clever enough to arrive at the proper destination through reason alone. (It’s not really a good excuse for dismissing God.)

Konrad
December 24, 2013 4:47 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm
James Abbott says:
December 24, 2013 at 4:29 pm
—————————————————
Say guys, checked the decorative lights on the tree? No lose wires?
St. Nick moves with the times. This year it may not be a lump of coal, it could be a litre of shale gas 😉

Chad Wozniak
December 24, 2013 4:52 pm

@Warren –
For your information, the REAL divide between AGW believers and skeptics is represented, on the one hand, by the 75 out of 77 polled, carefully cherry-picked, who support AGW according to der Fuehrer (that’s the source of his “97 percent” lie); and on the other, by the 31,000+ degreed practicing scientists who signed a statement, the Oregon Petition, saying that there is no discernible effect of either human activity or carbon dioxide on climate. That’s about a 450 to 1 majority who REJECT the AGW hypothesis. But in any case, if der Fuehrer were correct about his percentages, he is still committing a basic logical fallacy, taught in freshman philosophy courses – the argumentum ad verecundiam, the appeal to authority (which, when this is resorted to, you can be just about dead certain that the authority is wrong).
You are a perfect example of the sort of ideologue I referred to in my last post here who recognizes not truth or falsity, not fact or illusion, but only doctrine – and a false doctrine, as that.

Hoser
December 24, 2013 5:01 pm

Authoritarian government must affirm at all times in all ways it is the only legitimate authority. Consequently, logic, education, knowledge, experience, etc., do not matter. If you get the stamp of approval from government, you are known as an authority until you go astray, and then woe unto you.
Climate is the focus here. Other examples of authoritarianism include: Armed government thugs taking children from parents who wish to exercise what once were called parental rights (in accordance with the unratified Convention on the Rights of the Child. Schools not educating, but instead teaching propaganda according to state and federal standards (Common Core being the latest perversion) for the same reasons. The loss of any real property rights, because of the expansive ‘stakeholder’ concept of UN Agenda 21. Mismanagement of forests leading to excessive catastrophic wildfires (human hands off, very bad science), because of the Yellowstone to Yukon policy in the UN Biodiversity treaty. National health care in which a government official instead of a doctor will decide what treatment, if any, you receive. Attacks on your first amendment rights through abuse of the concepts of “hate speech”, and “separation of Church and State”. Attacks on the 2nd amendment, amounting to only government authorities should have the right to defend themselves. And soon we can expect the right to education turning into students being told what they can study, and a right to work being turned into being told what job you will do, each decision handed down by government.
You see, it’s much worse than we thought.
When a buffoon like Albert Gore, Jr. can ever be considered an authority on anything, you know authentic scientists’ days are numbered. At least nobody takes Prince Charles seriously. Score some points for the UK.

December 24, 2013 5:07 pm

Monotheism gave us Sunday off. The old politicians thinking that they’re God gave us Saturday off. Now the new politicians are making sure that we all get the rest of the week off, by making us all unemployed through expensive energy that the investors/employers cannot afford.
A HAPPY CHRIST-MAS TO ALL.
Great dissertation Sir. It’s saved on the cloud.

December 24, 2013 5:13 pm

It an essay about truth the monktopus not only misquotes Keats, but he gets the meaning exactly backwards. I find that ironic. Further the point of science is not “truth” in its religious or philosophical sense. It’s far more pragmatic than that. The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.

pat
December 24, 2013 5:18 pm

merry christmas anthony & family (many thanx), lord monckton, other guest bloggers, mods & fellow commenters:
23 Dec: Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial: Global warming on ice
The arrogance required to boldly predict anything that could happen on this planet — whether it’s in five years, 20 years, 100 years or more — is laughable.
The alarmism is less about “preventing” climate change than it is about raising gobs of money, which countless groups then use to push their agenda: to ratchet back first-world economies and living standards by making energy much more expensive and much less available.
Sure, there’s climate change. We like to call it “weather.” Enough with the hysteria. Stay cool, Mr. Claus.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-global-warming-ice
hysteria?
23 Dec: InTheCapital: Anthony Sodd: This Is What DC Will Look Like If Sea Levels Rise [PHOTOS]
If global warming continues unabated and every glacier in Antarctica and Greenland were to melt, it would raise the global sea levels by as much as 80 meters — about 260 feet higher than today’s sea level. Without context, those numbers don’t mean much. Luckily, a deep-sea biologist named Andrew Thaler created some illustrations of what some of America’s largest cities would look like under various climate change scenarios…
At any rate, given the lack of headway we have made in curbing climate change you may want to invest in swimming lessons or a house in Kansas City. Stay dry and enjoy the city before it’s rechristened as “Atlantis.”
http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2013/12/23/this-is-what-dc-will-look-like-if-sea-levels-rise-photos/#ss__97586_1_5__ss
perfect fodder for the MSM:
20 Dec: The Weather Channel: Andrew Thaler’s ‘Drown Your Town’ Webpage Projects Sea Level Rise Hundreds Of Years From Now (PHOTOS)
Today, #DrownYourTown has been tweeted millions of times from more than 100 countries, and Thaler still receives daily requests (which he answers) at the site he set up to collect them all, drownyourtown.tumblr.com…
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/drownyourtown-sea-level-rise-your-city-20131219
AUDIO: National Geographic: December 15, 2013: Paddling Through The World’s Biggest Rapids, Swimming in the World’s Coldest Oceans and More
Posted by Justin O’Neill in NG Weekend Radio Show on December 17, 2013.
If all of the world’s ice melted instantly, a flood of water would cause the seas around the world to raise by 262 feet, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Wanting to know what that would look like, marine biologist Andrew Thaler used Google Earth to increase the ocean depth and flooded several major global cities that live along the oceans. “Drown Your Town” became popular online in his social media and science blog. He tells Boyd about how sea level rise will become a more pressing concern in future generations, and is already having an impact on cities around the world.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/17/december-15-2013-paddling-through-the-worlds-biggest-rapids-swimming-in-the-worlds-coldest-oceans-and-more/

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 5:21 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Thanks Reg. But that leaves the only basis for an anti-AGW position as a Worldwide Conspiracy of scientists who have corrupted the scientific process…an assertion that I assume you uniquely apply to climate scientists. That seems a slim reed, to put it mildly.
—-
No Strawman., it doesn’t. That not what I asserted.
You claimed Monckton lacked credibility because he wasn’t published in peer reviewed journal. I responded by pointing out that the peer review process has been corrupted by politics and funding — something that was clearly demonstrated, in their own words, by Jones et al.
I never claimed it was conspiracy (as you assert). I only pointed out that the peer review process is meaningless now. Look at BEST, over a year after making his PR tour, Mueller (sp?) was forced to publish his work, in a “peer reviewed”, pay-for-play Indian start up website.
If you don’t agree with Monckton, fine, then debate him on the facts. Can you?

December 24, 2013 5:23 pm

You make me proud to be a Catholic, Sir.

Warren
December 24, 2013 5:24 pm

Chad: No, my 99% refers to multiple peer reviewed counts of tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers that support AGW, not to a poll of scientists. I contend that Reason requires consideration of the scientists, facts, and papers that pass peer review. If demonization is your tool of choice, I don’t see how you win the argument.

James Abbott
December 24, 2013 5:25 pm

Thanks Konrad
All the tree lights working fine thanks.
The Noble Lord M certainly brings some festive cheer – I like this one best:-
“The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie”
What is he on about ? Space-time ? Energy density ? Curtains ?
Clearly The Great and Noble Lord M likes to sound grand with his faux Shakespearean prose.
But actually read what he is saying and its just a disjointed diatribe against climate science written by someone with extreme prejudice.

Hlaford
December 24, 2013 5:27 pm

Brilliant.
Merry Christmas to all.

Warren
December 24, 2013 5:34 pm

Reg: Five independent studies concluded that the Climategate Controversy was without foundation…and that there was no substance to the claims against the Scientists. It made good fodder for the antiAGW folks, but that’s all. Do you really dismiss the near unanimous conclusions of thousands of scientists worldwide working on the problem, and the 99% of peer reviewed papers that support AGW? If so, there’s no amount of scientific reasoning that will convince you.

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 5:38 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Chad: No, my 99% refers to multiple peer reviewed counts of tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers that support AGW, not to a poll of scientists.

And guess what, every one of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers was wrong. As Monckton pointed out over and over in his easy.
Name one of James Hansen’s (our any other AGW scientist’s) “peer reviewed” predictions that have proven to be correct. You can’t.
Why do you still believe in this?

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 5:40 pm

Warren;
Can we consider Monckton serious, or responsible, to engage in armchair criticism without engaging in the true scientific debate in scientific journals?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And the Warren went unto the skeptics and said
What is written in the Journal shall be the Truth
And if it not be written in the Journal,
Then no Truth shall it be
All you’re missing from the narrative Warren is the claim that only you understand what is written in the journal and the rest of us should listen while you explain it to us. Ooops, I mean, we should pay you money to study the Journal and explain it to us. Got it.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 5:42 pm

Warren;
If so, there’s no amount of scientific reasoning that will convince you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh. How about testing your hypothesis. All I’ve seen so far is huffing and puffing, there hasn’t been a single smidge of science presented by you in any of your comments. If you are so certain, by all means, explain the science.

Warren
December 24, 2013 5:45 pm

So Monckton ASSERTED every paper was wrong. Assertion is not proof. In my book he still qualifies as an armchair critic with no scientific standing until he publishes and his work survives the scientific scrutiny of his peers. Until then, he earns the title of Eloquent Blowhard.

Khwarizmi
December 24, 2013 5:48 pm

It is an essay about truth, period, followed by a capital letter at the start of a new sentence, Mosher.
Google tells me the line comes from Ode on a Grecian Urn – so it isn’t a misquote:
http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 6:00 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm
So Monckton ASSERTED every paper was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Did he? Could you please quote the exact words in his essay above where he said what you claim?

Richard D
December 24, 2013 6:02 pm

The conflation of science with religion is fallacious and no less nauseating as the conflation of science with extreme green beliefs.

James Abbott
December 24, 2013 6:03 pm

Lets see, faced with an issue of potential global significance, who do we believe:
Thousands of qualified climate scientists working away for decades in their fleld, whose published work is peer reviewed
or
One scientifically unqualified person whose work has never been published as peer reviewed and who not only claims to understand climate science better than the climate scientists but also claims to have developed a means of curing Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.
That’s a tough one.

Kirk c
December 24, 2013 6:08 pm

Apparently the religion whip has been locked in the tool shed for this evening.
… “The virtue of this article is that it discusses the various forms of truth and why we should use them… trust them.”
My point being there are no”various forms of the truth”. Only one truth.. If you can’t confirm it you can’t claim it.
……”Could debasement of the scientific method, such as clinging to failed AGW models after the “pause” of 15 years, have occurred without the loss of a fixed, shared morality
In my opinion: No.”
There is no “fixed /shared” morality. Morality is an ever changing state that evolves as society progresses and is totally defined by the society in which it finds itself. The fact that AGW is still being pressed forward as “legitimate” is a political issue – not a moral one.
Any average person can weigh the facts as presented and arrive at a conclusion, independent ( hopefully) of the religious dogma (imagined truths) they may carry with them.
Science is about measurable testable fact. That is it!
Have a wonderfully magical evening everyone. (No sarc)

H.R.
December 24, 2013 6:13 pm

Hoser says:
December 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/24/monckton-of-meteorology-and-morality/#comment-1512334
The bad news is, you’re an optimist, Hoser. I wish it was as rosy a picture as you have painted.
.
.
.
Merry Christmas, Lord Monckton. Thank you.
.
.
.
Merry Christmas Anthony and The Mods (Doo-wop, doo-waaahh).

RoHa
December 24, 2013 6:24 pm

@Pops
“It’s not really a good excuse for dismissing God.”
We don’t need an excuse for dismissing God. We need a good reason for believing in God. And so far no-one has provided one.

Warren
December 24, 2013 6:24 pm

Davidmhoffer: I’m responding to the comment that Monckton proved every peer reviewed paper was wrong. I disagree with that comment. Until his rebuttals survive peer review, they only qualify as assertions in my book, or at best, proposals.

RoHa
December 24, 2013 6:26 pm

@Warren
“Reason requires consideration of the scientists, facts, and papers that pass peer review.”
Wrong. Reason requires consideration of the facts.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 6:26 pm

“faced with an issue of potential global significance…………..”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All based on the predictions of models. They are wrong. All of them. It is indisputable that global warming is not occurring as predicted by the models.
It’s also indisputable that a billion plus people live in extreme fuel poverty, whose lives would be vastly improved with access to energy for electricity to provide light, warmth, clean water, etc. that liberal elites take for granted.
Rather than stabilize these populations with energy and development, extreme greens like ex president of the World Wildlife Fund Prince Philip dream of reincarnation as a killer virus. Sick….

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 6:30 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Davidmhoffer: I’m responding to the comment that Monckton proved every peer reviewed paper was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then quote the comment you are responding to. We cannot read your mind. It is simply a matter of cut and past as I have done above. It is also a matter of common courtesy. I’m sure you are capable of that much?
I’m still waiting for you to cease huffing and puffing about what you claim other people say and to explain the science. Can you?

Warren
December 24, 2013 6:31 pm

James Abbott: a little snarky at the end, but generally well put. Unfortunately the scientific near consensus is not matched by a consensus among voters, who seem unlikely to accept policy measures until we (or more accurately, our grandchildren) reach the point ( or temperature) of deep regret.

Robert_G
December 24, 2013 6:31 pm

Lord Monckton,
Thanks for the link to your really beautiful Christmas and New Year “card.”
Best wishes to you and all of WUWT’s readers

Richard D
December 24, 2013 6:34 pm

Wrong. Reason requires consideration of the facts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly, much peer review (and dissertations) is crap, so no wonder even Nobel winning scientists, for medicine no less, are calling for boycotts of elite science journals.
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-nobel-scientist-boycott-science-journals.html

Richard D
December 24, 2013 6:37 pm

until we (or more accurately, our grandchildren) reach the point ( or temperature) of deep regret.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Predictions solely based on models – all of which are indisputably wrong, so your fallacious arguments based solely on appeals to authority and/or emotion are laughable………..

Colin Porter
December 24, 2013 6:52 pm

We are greatly indebted for the wisdom of the great Lord’s annual Christmas message.
Yet I feel that others will be even more indebted and will use it to question the judgment, not only of the great Lord Monckton, but all those associated with him in the sceptic movement. They will ignore the fact that many on the other side are also believers and especially the vast majority of politicians for whom it is a prerequisite to believe in God and also in the Greater Global Warming.
It should surely be an anathema for any one arguing from logic and documented facts to be at the same time accepting a superstitious doctrinal dogma formulated from between 4000 and 1400 years ago because of man’s inadequacies to understand powerful natural processes and to have an overriding need to exalt a super deity fashioned in his own image and with his own moral code to enable him to comprehend the infinity of space and time and creation.
I find it difficult to understand that in all things secular, we can make logical valued judgments, but in the matter of religion, we are happy to accept at face value the consensus view of the intellectual elite who produced this model of man, life and the universe all those years ago with less evidence even than the modern religion of Climate Change. Surely a person who is capable of arguing on the minutia of climate sensitivity, (but who may even be almost as far from actuality in this respect as the warmist hierarchy), should be able to argue the nonsensicality of for example, religious food rules of Judo-Christian-Islamic religions formulated before the advent of the modern refrigerator, or the need for the same religions to have mechanisms to flagellate, or otherwise abuse themselves and go on guilt trips and abstentions, all in the name of worshipping this great mystical ethereal deity.
These days, I would rather not make such arguments, preferring instead to let people live in blissful ignorance if it makes them happier. But there can be no place for religion in the Global Warming debate, especially from such a prominent ambassador as Lord Monckton.

troe
December 24, 2013 6:54 pm

Yes yes we know. Youse guys only do that good peer reviewed science. I challenge you to explain the glacier melt by 2035 scare in the spm. Lets hear it.

NikFromNYC
December 24, 2013 6:55 pm

Steve Mosher of the MOSTEMP reproduction of Hansen’s GISTEMP would prefer to debate Keats this week, as Steve Goddard and crew have dug up more *deleted* NASA data and plotted the Orwellian data disfigurement, cumulatively, over time:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/killing-off-the-dust-bowl/
Hey Steve Mosher, why aren’t you over there, defending this radical reversal of trends in the US temperature record, or don’t you debate matters of faith subjected to reason?

Warren
December 24, 2013 7:00 pm

Davidmhoffer: in reg Nelson’s post at 5:38 pm today, he said (I paraphrase, because I’m on an ipad and can’t cut and paste). “And guess what, every one of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers was wrong, as Monckton pointed out in his essay”.
Also, your request for me to provide my scientific reasoning for AGW is welcome, but there’s not time or space on a web forum for anyone to do it justice. There are many excellent science books, but if you want a top notch explanation, I recommend a series of 12 half hour lectures by Physics Professor Wolfson of Middlebury College, published on DVD by the Teaching Company. For $20 you get clear explanations, many good charts, and a small book with recommended reading and references, and summary points.
My last point is that AGW is not one question, it’s several. 1st, is the Earth warming? On this point, the data is so irrefutable, that a prominent skeptical scientist, named mueller in believe, publically recanted his skepticism after participating in a Berkeley study funded by the Koch Brothers and Bill Gates. 2nd, is man the cause? The lab data on the properties of co2 is well documented and quantified. So is the amount of carbon that man has put in the atmosphere during the Industrial Age, and stll climbing. So the physics supports the co2 temperature correlation. And 3rd, how much will the earth warm as more co2 is added. This is the prediction of modelling…2- 4.5 C by 2100, depending on the economic and fossil fuel mixes assumed. And about double that over polar regions, and northern land masses., or as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit. And 4th, So What? That’s when the complexities of predicting the effects come in. Sea level increases, extreme weather events, species migration, precipitation effects, drought, are all in the mix.
There’s not space here for more, so I recommend the many science publications for details. Meanwhile, for those of us who are not Climate Scientists, I urge us to pay attention to mr Abbot’s challenge as to whom to believe.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 7:02 pm

The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yep, and worse belief based on faith violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Bill Adams
December 24, 2013 7:03 pm

I’ve been a professional writer and editor for nearly forty years without having even seen the word “inspissate.” I guess it’s my Christmas present. Thanks!

troe
December 24, 2013 7:10 pm

Warren. Answer the challenge. How did that make it into the summary for policy makers?
BTW enjoyed your work in ” There’s Something About Mary”

ED, Mr. Jones
December 24, 2013 7:12 pm

Mosher says: “The truth of science is contingent.”
It appears to have become ‘contingent’ upon the agenda of the Scientist, and the needs of Political Correctness.
If religious belief gets Fatuous Twit Humans to consider that there is something ‘out there’ more significant than themselves, it would be a good thing.
It would be hilarious(!) if some future Carbon-Hygenic, Quasi-Industrial/Agrarian/Plutocracy were to be wiped out by a well-aimed Asteroid.

December 24, 2013 7:15 pm

“……..how came we and all around us to be here?”
Well, climate, actually!
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.”
state Trauth et al in Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 399–411.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396841_Trends_rhythms_and_events_in_Plio-Pleistocene_African_climate/file/9c96051a83a42b7ed0.pdf
As it turns out, “maximum climate variability on high moisture levels” gins up the larger braincases in the genus Homo!
I found your discussion on religion and science intriguing. As always, you have provided much food for thought and research.
I thank you for that and wish you a very Merry Christmas. It has been many a happy year to ponder your thoughts, I wish you another 🙂
William

Warren
December 24, 2013 7:15 pm

Troe: if your asking about davidmhoffers challenge, see my recent post. Re your other comment about the movie, if you’re relying upon demonization ( or snark) to win your arguments, the rest of us have little to fear.

ED, Mr. Jones
December 24, 2013 7:22 pm

James Abbott says:
December 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm
“Lets see, faced with an issue of potential global significance, who do we believe:(?)”
Follow the money – it will lead you to the Con-men (and their “Thousands” of hangers-on).
Common sense is more common than you may have thought.

troe
December 24, 2013 7:26 pm

So no answer is the answer then. An admited fabrication made it into the gold standard of climate science and you refuse to address this fact head on. Read Monckton again Warren. He is writing about you.

Ulric Lyons
December 24, 2013 7:28 pm

“The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.”
They could be gaslighting victims, they would want to pass it on for reinforcement, a contemporary leaven of the Pharisees if you like. They sure as hell don’t know what they are up to, so best to forgive them really 😉

Richard D
December 24, 2013 7:30 pm

And 3rd, how much will the earth warm as more co2 is added.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
None, apparently for the last 17 years, a fact I attribute to natural climate variability dwarfing what little effect CO2 exudes on atmospheric temperature. In fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations should be expected to rise after increases in temperature, e.g. Henrys Law.

Ed_B
December 24, 2013 7:38 pm

“James Abbott says:
Lets see, faced with an issue of potential global significance, who do we believe:”
I trust the data the most. So far, the data says that we cannot prove ANY unusual warming due to our CO2. Meanwhile, there is irrefutable evidence of higher crop yields, faster forest growth, etc.
I suspect we will get 0.4C or so of warming with a doubling of CO2. The earths ability to dissipate to the poles any extra heat from the CO2 is so efficient that the amount of warming will be a fraction of the theoretical amount.
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all!

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 7:39 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excuses. I’m on an iPad and can’t cut and paste. Whine, whine, whine. How hard is it to type the name of the person you are responding to and the time of their comment. Look, just like I did above, without any cutting and pasting.
As for the rest of your diatribe, your tinker toy DVD really isn’t worth my time. I’ve read AR3, AR4, AR5 and many of the papers they reference as well. Have you? As for the lab experiments you reference, I’ve read quite a few. I can explain the greenhouse effect that they measure, and how they measure it. Can you? I can explain the limitations of lab experiments in terms of simulating the atmospheric air column. Can you?
As for your anecdotal story about a scientist who changed his mind, I suggest you read carefully the views he actually expressed before he claimed to have changed his mind, and I can advise you that there are many who have changed their mind in the opposite direction. Does my citing Lovelock negate your cite of Mueller?
No it doesn’t, because I don’t make up my mind based on what you tell me other people think. Stick around Warren, participate in a few threads where specific papers are being discussed. See if you can keep up.

Janice
December 24, 2013 7:42 pm

Lord Monckton, thank you for following the lead of Sir Isaac Newton. He was also known for his profound understanding of both science and religion. As Sir Isaac Newton wrote “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Lord Monckton, thank you for letting us stand on your shoulders from time to time, as the view from there is quite astounding.

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 7:46 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Davidmhoffer: in reg Nelson’s post at 5:38 pm today, he said (I paraphrase, because I’m on an ipad and can’t cut and paste). “And guess what, every one of those tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers was wrong, as Monckton pointed out in his essay”.

Warren, I repeat,: name one prediction\projection\model by Climate Scientists that what right, or even remotely accurate over the past twenty years.
It can’t be that hard can it? Out of tens of thousands of “peer reviewed” papers, random chance says at least one of them must be correct.
Just one. I beg you.

Warren
December 24, 2013 7:47 pm

Richard: yes, Co2 is given off by the oceans as temp rises…if you read the science, you’ll find that co2 is thus both a cause of temp rise, and a result of temp rise. This is the commonly found phenomenon of positive feedback, seen elsewhere in both engineering and science. As a result, atmospheric temperature increases due to co2 emissions from fossil fuels are larger than they would be otherwise.
Actually, the oceans have taken up a larger portion of the temp rise from co2 emissions, while the atmosphere is warming more slowly so far in the 21st century. To understand anthropogenic climate change, one has to consider time periods of at least 25 years to see trend lines within the yearly variability, and to consider that the warming includes both oceans and atmosphere.

December 24, 2013 7:49 pm

Warren says:
“1st, is the Earth warming? On this point, the data is so irrefutable…”
Despite Warren’s false assertion, the data is irrefutable that the Earth is not warming, and has not warmed for many years.
Next, Warren asserts:
“2nd, is man the cause?”
There is no verifiable evidence that human activity is the cause of any global warming. Warren is not capable of posting any testable scientific evidence showing measurable global warming due to human activity. His conjecture is based entirely on assertion, not on any measured evidence showing that mankind causes X degree of warming, per unit of CO2 produced. The alarmist scare is all based on such assertions and conjectures — not on any verifiable, testable measurements.
Next, Warren asserts:
“3rd, how much will the earth warm as more co2 is added. This is the prediction of modelling…2- 4.5 C by 2100…”
As usual, Warren once again falsely asserts, based on vague ‘models’. But the Real World refutes Warren’s True Belief: despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global temperatures have not risen, as predicted incessantly by the alarmist crowd. Empirical scientific observations prove conclusively that Warren’s assertions are flat wrong.
Warren is free to post his own empirical observations, but he chooses not to. Instead, Warren chooses to make false assertions, based on the debunked conjecture that catastrophic AGW will result from rising “carbon”. But Planet Earth demonstrates that is not happening.
If Warren were honest, he would now admit that he and the rest of the climate alarmist crowd have been proven wrong by the ultimate Authority: our own planet. But such basic honesty seems to be scarce among the alarmist crowd.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 7:53 pm

Stick around “OP”, participate in a few threads where specific papers are being discussed. See if you can keep up.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good advice. This isn’t the Guardian or Huffington post,
I tripped across criticism of the policymakers summary that some of you may have seen.
Pierre Darriulat. 50 years in particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. Former Director of Research at CERN.
“The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the [climate] model predictions, which is far from being the case”. …………and …….”When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and…recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions…or they try to convey what they “consensually” think…at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter…they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message”
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360

Warren
December 24, 2013 7:53 pm

Reg Nelson: any science publication or peer reviewed paper dealing with your question will illustrate the main point…that the models duplicate the rise in earths temperature seen in the 20th and 21st century (not year by year, as I explain in my last post, but trend lines) and also predict relatively flat temperature trends when the CO2 emissions from human activity are excluded. Sorry to disappoint you, but if you don’t believe that, check the Wolfson lectures I recommended earlier, or other sources.

Warren
December 24, 2013 7:58 pm

Dbstealy: what is your source? Mine is from scientific papers. You can check any of them for this info. I’m afraid you are deeply uninformed

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 7:59 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Reg Nelson: any science publication or peer reviewed paper dealing with your question will illustrate the main point…that the models duplicate the rise in earths temperature seen in the 20th and 21st century (not year by year, as I explain in my last post, but trend lines)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. As I expected, you have not read the AR reports. Else you would not say something so foolish.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 8:01 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Dbstealy: what is your source? Mine is from scientific papers. You can check any of them for this info. I’m afraid you are deeply uninformed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Confronted with facts, unable to discuss them or the science, Warren retreats into argument from authority.

Warren
December 24, 2013 8:06 pm

I don’t what you mean by AR, but you can see the modelling results I cited in Wolfsons lectures, or in other science books. Are you reading the 0.2% of papers that dispute something about AGW, or the 99.8% that support it?

acementhead
December 24, 2013 8:07 pm

Ah the Catholic Church. The wonderful, truth-seeking Catholic Church. Would that be the same Catholic Church that burnt Giordano Bruno to death just over four hundred years ago?
For the benefit of the great mass of people here, the vast majority of whom have never heard of Bruno, I’m sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Anyone who wants to be taken seriously in scientific matters will leave out all mention of god and church and religion.
Religion: Applied ignorance.

Warren
December 24, 2013 8:08 pm

Dbstealy: Youre the one that made unsubstantiated assertions. Let’s see your science sources.

David L. Hagen
December 24, 2013 8:09 pm

Thanks for a colourful Christmas gift from a Lord of vivid exposition. May you wax even more eloquent in defense of the Truth and the poor.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 8:11 pm

Warren says: December 24, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Richard: yes, Co2 is given off by the oceans as temp rises…if you read the science, you’ll find that co2 is thus both a cause of temp rise, and a result of temp rise. This is the commonly found phenomenon of positive feedback, seen elsewhere in both engineering and science.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fail. Not supported by data. As you allude to science, recall that all positive feedback systems at least in biology exist within larger negative feedback systems. I suspect equilibrium laws govern the atmosphere and climate, e.g. Le Chatelier’s principle
=============================================
As a result, atmospheric temperature increases due to co2 emissions from fossil fuels are larger than they would be otherwise.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fail, not supported by data and indistinguishable from natural climate variation.
__________________________________________________________________
Actually, the oceans have taken up a larger portion of the temp rise from co2 emissions, while the atmosphere is warming more slowly so far in the 21st century.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wishful thinking and mere assertion on your part. BTW, temps are falling this century.
_____________________________________________________
To understand anthropogenic climate change, one has to consider time periods of at least 25 years to see trend lines within the yearly variability, and to consider that the warming includes both oceans and atmosphere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who says??? I imagine when that threshold is met the goal posts will be moved again

December 24, 2013 8:13 pm

Looks like they’re getting ready to drop a geo-engineering bombshell on us. Will we buy it from them?
Volume 121, Issue 3, December 2013
Special Issue: Geoengineering Research and its Limitations
http://link.springer.com/journal/10584/121/3/page/1

troe
December 24, 2013 8:14 pm

Billions of dollars, pounds, euros, and yen yielding 10, 000 papers all predicated on ‘ if what isn’t happening were happening I think the following would happen’
It’s the old Russian joke about stealing wheelborrows. The facts or truth of the science are what we are arguing while the smart fellows are rolling out the gate with a new wheelborrow everday.
In response to climategate The Chairman of the House Science Commitee said “we need more research”

December 24, 2013 8:14 pm

Warren says:
“…what is your source?”
My sources are very easy to see: just look at the address bar of the links, and you will see sites such as Wood For Trees — which is a database of empirical observations from GISS, HadCRUT, etc., and which are accepted by all sides of the debate. Only you seem to question them.
On the other hand, you do not provide any empirical observations yourself; only [always-inaccurate] computer models, and Pal-Reviewed papers <–[arguments from corrupt authorities].
When we look at empirical [real world] observations – versus your models and papers – we see that the climate alarmist case has been thoroughly debunked. As stated above: make your arguments based on the real world.
But you will not, for the simple reason that the real world falsifies your belief system. Your "carbon" scare is complete nonsense. But don't take my word for it, listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling you.
So, who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or Warren?
Because they cannot both be right.

john robertson
December 24, 2013 8:18 pm

Nice bit of writing, Merry Christmas .
Warren, are you real? Or are you a joke made up to reinforce Monckton’s point?
Those bitching about the religious component, read the article again.
God, Gods or The Universe, whatever you call it changes very little, the fact we barely comprehend the immediate environs we live in, could offer humility to our thinking.
There is a whole lot more.
Lying, choosing to mislead for gain, are acts that undermine human interactions,destroying trust. A global fad of falsehood, threatens civilization as we know it.
How can we expect trade, which requires trust, to function in a world of lies?
That former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart said it best.
Proudly proclaiming her choice to deceive for a good cause.
If you have no social values, what is “good’?

Warren
December 24, 2013 8:20 pm

Richard: all of what I reported can be found in Science Magazine or in other peer reviewed articles. The article on warming of the oceans vs warming of the atmosphere was published this year, and peer reviewed. Unless you’re personally measuring the oceans temperature averaged over the Earth, as well as the Atmosphere over the earth, you would need to read the science papers to make conclusions. Are you doing either?

Richard D
December 24, 2013 8:20 pm

Because they cannot both be right.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly. On the one hand we have the models. They are wrong. Every one of them. Why? Simple human error, confirmation bias, rent seeking, malfeasance and fraud, ………..On the other hand we have reality – the data.

December 24, 2013 8:26 pm

Warren = Troll…that simple. Isn’t there a bridge to return to?

Steve
December 24, 2013 8:27 pm

The idea, expressed by several commenters, that morality is not dependent on religion can be argued. To get to morality, meaning and purpose must exist. Meaning and purpose require a sufficient reference point (a hammer has purpose only in the hands of a user). If the universe is totally explainable as a natural system and human beings are nothing more than complex machines, then free will is an illusion, and without free will there can be no meaning or purpose or morality. How can one fight one’s brain chemistry if it makes one lie, cheat, or steal? Similarly, how can there be virtue in altruism if altruistic acts originate solely from brain chemistry? Those who think science provides all the answers should ponder these questions carefully. Philosophers have been thinking about them for thousands of years and have not derived a foundation for meaning or purpose on the basis of science and/or logic. Simply stating, I have meaning and purpose because I think I do, doesn’t count. As a Christian I can say that I have meaning and purpose because the creator of the universe says that I do. Read Francis Schaeffer’s, “How should we then live?” if you aren’t afraid to expose yourself to the logic that led a philosopher to traditional Christianity. Then there is also the case of Anthony Flew, a life-long atheist philosopher, who decided in his later years, based solely on reason, that it was likely God does exist. To quote a phrase that is well known in science, absence of (physical) evidence is not evidence of absence (of God). There is nothing unscientific about faith and naturalism leads only to nihilism.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 8:34 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm
I don’t what you mean by AR, but you can see the modelling results I cited in Wolfsons lectures, or in other science books. Are you reading the 0.2% of papers that dispute something about AGW, or the 99.8% that support it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. I’m going to help you out Warren in the hopes that you learn to think for yourself.
The AR reports are the official state of climate science as summarized by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC for short. The first report was called AR1, the second AR2 and so on. AR5 is the most recent. This is the official literature which supposedly represents the consensus position of the world’s climate scientists. You can read all of their reports here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
I suggest that you do. WG1 is the section that deals with the science. I urge you to read it and understand it. It is the actual science, not a marketing gimmick like your precious DVD.
Once you read the actual reports, you will learn that the models are NOT in fact accurate at all. Oh, they do a fine job of reproducing the past, but none of the predictions that they made in previous reports have come true. Every last model prediction, all 22 models, and all the predictions from all the models, have failed. This isn’t some random paper from 0.2% of the scientists, this is the exact science as published by the 99% that you claim support your position.
Here’s an excellent article that goes into depth as to what the models predicted, with the graphs taken directly from the science published by the supposed 99% that you are so certain say what you think they say:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-how-the-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/
Note carefully the changes that were made to what the scientists presented. Note that these changes were made not by the scientists, but by politicians. Even with all the spin that the politicians managed to put on it, the fact that the models have over estimated warming by a considerable margin is readily apparent. In fact, the very scientists (most notable Hansen and Santer) who claim to represent the consensus, argued that the models would have to be thrown out if they were wrong for a period of 10 years. They then revised that to 15 years. Then they revised it to 17 years. It has now been 17 years and they are mumbling something about perhaps as much as 30 years.
Read and learn my friend. Learn what the scientists ACTUALLY say instead of relying on what other people claim they say. Learn what the models ACTUALLY predicted and what the observational data ACTUALLY is. Stick around. Read some articles. Ask some questions. Learn.

December 24, 2013 8:35 pm

Warren says:
“I don’t what you mean by AR…”
“AR” refers to the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, noob. Obviously, you are just parroting misinformation you just picked up on one of the alarmist echo chambers.
Warren says: “Youre the one that made unsubstantiated assertions. Let’s see your science sources.”
Look again, newbie. I posted my sources, all of them. And other folks here have asked you questions that you ignore.
Why do you ignore them?
Because you are incapable of posting an answer that would back up your assertions with empirical [real world] data.
You think I’m wrong? Then post your data showing runaway global warming. Or post your measurements showing the degree of global warming due testably and verifiably to human emissions.
In fact, you can’t — because there are no such measurements. All you have are false assertions, and conjectures; speculation and opinion.
But science is based on measurement. We have provided empirical mesurements backing our skeptical view. But you have poisted nothing in the way of real world measurements.
That is why you have lost the debate.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 8:36 pm

Warren says: December 24, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Richard: all of what I reported can be found in Science Magazine or in other peer reviewed articles. The article on warming of the oceans vs warming of the atmosphere was published this year, and peer reviewed. Unless you’re personally measuring the oceans temperature averaged over the Earth, as well as the Atmosphere over the earth, you would need to read the science papers to make conclusions. Are you doing either?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Warren. What I do is based on rigorous peer review, government and insurance oversight, as well as professional standards of conduct. Any moderately educated person in basic science and statistics will conclude that much of what passes as climate science is akin to most psychology and virtually all sociology……..junk science. Engineers and geologists? Good luck convincing them.

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 8:40 pm

Me:
Reg Nelson says:
Warren, I repeat,: name one prediction\projection\model by Climate Scientists that what right, or even remotely accurate over the past twenty years.
It can’t be that hard can it? Out of tens of thousands of “peer reviewed” papers, random chance says at least one of them must be correct.
Just one. I beg you.
—-
You:
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Reg Nelson: any science publication or peer reviewed paper dealing with your question will illustrate the main point…that the models duplicate the rise in earths temperature seen in the 20th and 21st century (not year by year, as I explain in my last post, but trend lines) and also predict relatively flat temperature trends when the CO2 emissions from human activity are excluded. Sorry to disappoint you, but if you don’t believe that, check the Wolfson lectures I recommended earlier, or other sources.

LOL
What main point?
You ignore the main point. Again, name one model that has predicted the climate over the last twenty years with any degree of accuracy. You cannot. I know that. Do you?
Why would any sane rational, reasonable person put any trust in any of this?
Again, please prove me wrong.

rogerknights
December 24, 2013 8:44 pm

Here are quotations on truth from Mencken:

The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
………………….
I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant
The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
The curse of man, and the cause of nearly all his woe, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.
It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked…
Platitude [aka settled science]: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true.
No one ever heard of the truth being enforced by law. Whenever the secular arm is called in to sustain an idea, whether new or old, it is always a bad idea, and not infrequently it is downright idiotic.
The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few dogmas have ever faced it and survived.
Truth – Something somehow discreditable to someone.
How does so much [false news] get into the American newspapers, even the good ones? Is it because journalists, as a class, are habitual liars, and prefer what is not true to what is true? I don’t think it is. Rather, it is because journalists are, in the main, extremely stupid, sentimental and credulous fellows — because nothing is easier than to fool them — because the majority of them lack the sharp intelligence that the proper discharge of their duties demands.
The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.
What is not true, as everyone knows, is always immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than what is true. Truth has a harshness that alarms them, and an air of finality that collides with their incurable romanticism.
Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. In whole departments of human inquiry it seems to me quite unlikely that the truth ever will be discovered.
================ OTHER RELEVANT QUOTES
The public, with its mob yearning to be instructed, edified and pulled by the nose, demands certainties; it must be told definitely and a bit raucously that this is true and that is false. But there are no certainties.
The cynics are right nine times out of ten.
Every contribution to human progress on record has been made by some individual who differed sharply from the general, and was thus, almost ipso facto, superior to the general.
“I am, indeed, against all proselyters, whether they be on my side or on some other side. . . . Their lofty pretensions are all tosh. The thing they yearn for is the satisfaction of making someone unhappy: that yearning is almost as universal among them as thirst is in dry Congressmen.”
Nature abhors a moron.
[It is a delusion] that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will cease thereby to be a moron …
“A professor must have a theory as a dog must have fleas.”
The professor must be an obscurantist or he is nothing; he has a special and unmatchable talent for dullness, his central aim is not to expose the truth clearly, but to exhibit his profundity, his esotericity – in brief to stagger sophomores and other professors.
The plain fact is that education is itself a form of propaganda – a deliberate scheme to outfit the pupil, not with the capacity to weigh ideas, but with a simple appetite for gulping ideas ready-made. The aim is to make ‘good’ citizens, which is to say, docile and uninquisitive citizens.
And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps.
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.
The older I get the more I admire and crave competence, just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology.
Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice.
It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.
The business of a man of science in this world is not to speculate and dogmatize, but to demonstrate. To be sure, he sometimes needs the aid of hypothesis, but hypothesis, at best, is only a pragmatic stop-gap, made use of transiently because all the necessary facts are not yet known. The appearance of a new one in contempt of it destroys it instantly. At its most plausible and useful it simply represents an attempt to push common sense an inch or two over the borders of the known. At its worst it is only idle speculation, and no more respectable than the soaring of metaphysicians.
Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.
Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops. Why is the so-called science of sociology, as ardent young college professors expound it, such an imbecility? Why is a large part of economics? Why does politics always elude the classifiers and theorizers? Why do fashions in metaphysics change almost as often as fashions in women’s hats? Simply because the unknowable casts its black shadows across all these fields—simply because the professors attempt to label and pigeon-hole phenomena that are as elusive and intangible as the way of a man with a maid.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.
Of a piece with the absurd pedagogical demand for so-called constructive criticism is the doctrine that an iconoclast is a hollow and evil fellow unless he can prove his case. Why, indeed, should he prove it? Is he judge, jury, prosecuting officer, hangman? He proves enough, indeed, when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing—that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts.

December 24, 2013 8:45 pm

Yes, democracy (Greek for rule by the herd) is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We are fortunate to live in a time where people of intelligence and integrity have some means to discuss widely the complexities of truth.

Mark Bofill
December 24, 2013 8:49 pm

Enjoyed your post as usual, lord Monckton.
Merry Christmas all!

troe
December 24, 2013 8:49 pm

Off I go. Warren why is it impossible for you to admit to a little healthy skepticism when confronted with a known fraud? If you had it would have added force to your arguments. Very smart people question their own assumptions on this site daily.
That you can’t do the same should trouble you. Adios for now.

OssQssh
December 24, 2013 8:50 pm

Monckton: Of meteorology and morality
Posted on December 24, 2013 by Guest Blogger
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
“They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.”
_______________________________________
I feel for their loss. I do indeed feel for their loss, and I was quickly over it and back in reality……
Video not redacted!

Warren
December 24, 2013 8:51 pm

It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments, or in some cases, simple physics. And some resort to demonization when they don’t like what they hear from those that do accept the Scientific near-consensus. To all skeptics, my question is: of all other near consensus-science issues….relativity, plate tectonics, evolution…do you single out AGW for derision, and if so why? Is it a rational skepticism? Or is it dislike for the implications? I hope for most it’s the former, in which case PUBLISH so the world can benefit from your insight. (So far, almost no skeptics have) If it’s the latter, and you don’t want to see a carbon tax, I ask you to consider that your asking mankind to adapt rather than mitigate. And maybe that’s the discussion that should be conducted on this forum instead.

December 24, 2013 8:56 pm

Reg Nelson says:
“Warren, I repeat: name one prediction\projection\model by Climate Scientists that what right, or even remotely accurate over the past twenty years.”
Warren, not one GCM [computer climate model] was able to predict the halt to global warming over the past 17+ years. Not one!
When someone/something is 100% WRONG, isn’t it time for someone like you to re-assess?
Or are you so pig-headed that you blindly follow people who are always wrong??

Warren
December 24, 2013 8:58 pm

Reg: reread my posting, and listen to Wolfsons lecture. The models as a group show the rise in temp , and when the co2 emissions from human activity are omitted from the models, they show no temp rise. It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly. Sorry.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 9:01 pm

There is nothing unscientific about faith ………..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I recommend that you go study the second law of thermodynamics and it’s implications for belief not grounded in reality.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 9:03 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments, or in some cases, simple physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Would this be the IPCC reports that just a few minutes ago you didn’t know the name of? Stick around Warren. Read the actual reports. Find out what they actually say. They simply don’t say what you claim they do, and if you had read and understood them, you would know that. We’re not skeptics because we are not conversant with the science and have not read the reports. We’re skeptics because we ARE conversant in the science, and we HAVE read the reports. You can become conversant in the issues, or not. I’m inviting you to stick around and pay attention to the wealth of knowledge that is available in this forum. You may be surprised at how many PhD scientists hang out here from both sides of the debate, and if you pay attention, you’ll learn a lot from both.
Or you can continue in your fantasy world where you already know all the answers and stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la la when someone points you to the actual facts. Up to you. Stick around. You may be surprised.

December 24, 2013 9:05 pm

Warren says:
“To all skeptics, my question is…”
Yet, you run and hide out from anwering any questions yourself.
The reason is clear: you are incapable of supporting your belief system by posting verifiable, testable measurements showing the degree of warming caused per unit of human emissions.
You cannot, because there are no such measurements. There are only false assertions, and baseless conjectures. Those are found in abundance in pal reviewed papers, and in computer models.
But there are NO real world, empirical measurements or observations that support your climate alarmist conjecture. None at all. ALL such measurements support the view of scientific skeptics, who point out that what is being observed today has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a greater degree — and during times when CO2 emissions were much lower.
And that, of course, deconstructs the entire global warming scare.
ALL of your arguments amount to hand-waving, nothing more. You have not posted one empirical fact or measurement. Unless/until you do, you lose the debate.

Reg Nelson
December 24, 2013 9:06 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments

Warren, the IPCC Assessments have all been wrong, horribly wrong.
Why should we accept then?
You will not, or cannot answer a direct question. Why should I accept your viewpoint?
You’re welcome to expound on your your views, but at every opportunity refuse.
Unlike most AGW sites, WUWT is a place for open and honest debate.
Engage us, we’re open minded people. Are you?

Janice
December 24, 2013 9:08 pm

Warren, why do we single out AGW for derision, as opposed to relativity, plate tectonics, or evolution? I suppose it is because nobody advocating relativity, plate tectonics, or evolution is asking for unwholesome amounts of money to study them, advocating that we destroy the entire economy of the world to try and mitigate them, or restraining certain liberties and freedoms to supposedly prevent ourselves from being wiped out by them. In addition, I don’t see anyone getting rich, or gaining power and fame from relativity, plate tectonics or evolution. I, personally, feel that it is unnecessary to even know anything about science to single out AGW for derision, because the monetary corruption and misuse of power to push the AGW agenda is so blatant, that probably anyone with a grade-school education could see it, once the facts about the money and power grabbing is presented to them. I don’t need peer reviews to recognize blatant and outright lies and deception. I just need a little common sense, and the experiences of the last six decades of people trying to use fear and ignorance to influence ordinary people into supporting stupid ideas.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 9:08 pm

It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments, or in some cases, simple physics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Skeptics don’t deny that CO2 causes some warming. The question is how much. In case you missed the memo, the models are all wrong. Apparently some of hose feedbacks you alluded to are negative, hmmm?

December 24, 2013 9:10 pm

Warren says:
” It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly.”
NAME ONE (1) GCM that predicted that global warming would stop seventeen years ago.
Name one, Warren. Just one will do.
Otherwise, your pal Wolfson is a climate charlatan and a liar.

Michael in Sydney
December 24, 2013 9:13 pm

“…relativity, plate tectonics, evolution…”
Hi Warren
I do single CAGW out; not for derision, but for a skeptical attitude. No one has ever asked me to pay more taxes or change my lifestyle for relativity, plate tectonics and evolution and no one has ever said that relativity, plate tectonics or evolution should be believed due to a precautionary principle. These theories were to believed because they were backed up with observational data, not just a 90% (now apparently 95%) chance of being true. It is also the CA in CAGW that I am skeptical about.

Mark Bofill
December 24, 2013 9:16 pm

Warren,

It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly. Sorry.

Many of the models and particularly the multi-model ensemble mean used by the IPCC are right on the hairy edge of being invalidated now. Lucia Liljegren at her blog the Blackboard frequently revisits and updates on this topic. Come visit there, you’ll learn more than you ever wanted to know about how the models are doing.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 9:16 pm

Warren;
It’s an urban legend that the models fail to predict properly. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
You’ve been directed to the actual predictions published by the IPCC, and the actual observational results published by the IPCC. Yet still you persist in making a claim that the IPCC does not.

Bob Weber
December 24, 2013 9:20 pm

Warren you might be able to save me from denial – I’m finally seeing the light. You’re just a few steps away from convincing me completely. Can you give me a few links or site a few papers I can review that cover exactly how small atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes cause extreme weather events and climate change? I don’t want any statements or opinions based on percentages of scientists who think one thing or another as your proof either, just a direct cause and effect relationship will do, one that can be tested and measured. How much downwelling LWR from carbon dioxide does it take to initiate a tornado, a hurricane, typhoon or any other weather event that is claimed to be caused by CAGW? I want to know how you link CAGW to Typhoon Haiyan as so many of your fellow faith-based true believers do. Did a blob of CO2 burp out of China and cause that typhoon? If no one can tell me how and why that happens, I am afraid I might slip back into denial. You have my salvation in your hands.
Gotta go – Santa’s here…

Richard D
December 24, 2013 9:28 pm

davidmhoffer says: December 24, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Yet still you persist in making a claim that the IPCC does not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately most of what you hear in the MSM is not even supported by the discredited IPCC. It’s science by press release by pressure groups.

December 24, 2013 9:31 pm

acementhead says December 24, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Ah the Catholic Church. The wonderful, truth-seeking Catholic Church. Would that be the same Catholic Church that burnt Giordano Bruno to death just over four hundred years ago?

I would not be terribly surprised if there were not more to it than that (like most ‘events’, tragedies, history, etc) … call me, um, skeptical? And really, is apolitical (cough), atheist WIki the best source on this?
.
.
. . A Merry Christmas to all WUWTers and lurkers alike!
.

Warren
December 24, 2013 9:49 pm

Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century, but I should have said they do not predict regional or local conditions, nor specific temperatures in a given year, or even within a decade. The IPCC has put Bayesian error bands on their modelling. And that, combined with the range of economic and emission scenarios used by the IPCC in their modeling, yields the IPCC estimated range of projected temp rise by 2100. I, and I suspect you, cannot judge whether the IPCCs error range is accurate or not, but to say that the modelling is useless or invalidates AGW is not valid. It doesn’t invalidate that a) earths avg temp has risen about .65c in the 20th century (that’s just measurement), or that b) it’s due to human activity (that’s physics), or that c) the earth will continue to be incrementally warmer as we add co2 to the carbon cycle via fossil fuel burning, et al.
Btw, you are not alone in questioning the models. No less than Freeman Dyson, the noted physicist, disputes their value entirely.
What I know and have confidence in, are a) b) and c) above. One can ask “what if the earths temp only rises 2 degrees by 2100.. We will have wasted human efforts to forestall AGW” . I think a far more critical question is ” what if the models are right” or what if the models understate?” And the natural follow-on: ” Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?” I don’t view that as alarmist, but rather as prudent.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 9:56 pm

Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’re joking right?

J.H.
December 24, 2013 9:57 pm

A fine article. A truer word has not been said Lord Monckton. 🙂
….. and a merry Christmas to one and all.

climateace
December 24, 2013 9:57 pm

An entertaining blog post, as ever, from Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, mathmatician, birther, self-confessed inventor of a cure for the AIDS epidemic and, of course, Nobel Prize winner for his contribution to climatology. But wait, there’s more:
‘UKIP’s CV for Monckton claims that his methods have produced cures for multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes, as well as reducing the viral load of an HIV patient,…’*
Monckton is surely doing good for humaity and for that we should all be suitably grateful.
There is not a skerrick of science in the Jesus stories – no scientific method, no hypotheses to be tested, no models, no CO2, no cosmic rays, no fossil fuels, no radiation from the sun, no periodic oscillations – only the miracle of endless wine if you attend the right wedding, heaven – if you follow the rules – and eternal damnation, if you do not. There is considerable scope for debate about the historical validity and reliability of the gospels, but there is no scope at all for the science in the gospels because there isn’t any.
Maybe Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, should stick to math, climatology and the health sciences?
Conflating science and religion is, in and of itself, bad science, uncontestably bad logic and, beyond that, a matter of faith, also known as a combination of hope, imagination and emotion over mind and matter.
I trust that all WUWT readers enjoy time with their families over the festive season and also enjoy a 2014 safe from extreme weather events, record temperatures – cold or hot, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, typhoons, and floods.
If you happen to be a farmer, may your kith and kin be healthy, your kine be fat, and your granaries full.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Views_on_AIDS

Warren
December 24, 2013 10:01 pm

Bob weber: great questions. First, it is false that any one extreme weather event can be linked to anthropogenic Climate Change. The Media makes this linkage because it makes for good ratings, but it’s baloney, and the Climate Scientists will say it is baloney as well. I will be glad to provide some links that explain how TRENDS in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events over many years CAN be caused by warmer atmospheric and ocean temps (not caused directly by CO2), and that there is indeed a loose correlation between the documented rise in avg global temperatures and trend lines in these events. but it’s now 1 am here, and I’m ready for bed. So I’ll work on this over the next couple of days for you. Check back later..I won’t forget.

Warren
December 24, 2013 10:02 pm

Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 10:07 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century, but I should have said they do not predict regional or local conditions, nor specific temperatures in a given year, or even within a decade.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The difference between you and me is that I have directed you to the actual model predictions, the actual observations, and pointed out that they don’t support your claim. Now you want to talk about regional results. Well Warren, the models do even worse on regional predictions. But that’s just the IPCC’s opinion. You can have your own opinion of course, you just can’t back it up with the science from the 99% of scientists you claim support your position. When push comes to shove, you clearly don’t even know what they are actually saying. Do you not find it odd that I am refuting your claims by quoting the science from YOUR side of the debate to you?

Richard D
December 24, 2013 10:07 pm

Warren says: December 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.
++++++++++++++
Mitigation efforts contemplated will have virtually no effect on temperature but will affect people’s standard of living. And then there’s the law of unintended consequences and the very real negative environmental consequences of “green” energy policies, e.g. ethanol, wind farms, etc…

ferdberple
December 24, 2013 10:10 pm

Kirk c says:
December 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Science has the only handle on the truth because it can be tested and verified by everyone .
============
This is an illusion. In an infinite universe the “unknown” will always dwarf the “known”. Science seeks to explain the finite, that which is known, while religion seeks to explain the gap between what is known and what is unknown. That region between the finite and the infinite that will be forever beyond our grasp.
Religion and Science in all ages have their charlatans. Very few have a Martin Luther.

davidmhoffer
December 24, 2013 10:10 pm

Warren;
there is indeed a loose correlation between the documented rise in avg global temperatures and trend lines in these events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, the 99% you claim you represent contradicts you. Extreme weather events, hurricanes and tornadoes have been in decline for several decades. Droughts have been flat. Again, that’s the IPCC talking. In fact, AR5 predicts that these trends will continue at least until 2100.
Again, read what the science says. Not what you think it says.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 10:13 pm

the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
right, built in warming and confirmation bias for a few hot years in the 90’s and then all FAIL…..reality shows little variation +/- for millions of years. No data shows deviance from natural variation.

ferdberple
December 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century
================
Not true. the models did not predict the trend line of the 20th century. Any such suggestion is false. What the models have done is to hindcast the past, which is no different than a parrot repeating what it has heard.
There is no skill involved in a parametric model hindcasting the past. Any model that did not would be modified until it did. As any mathematician will tell you, a polynomial of degree N will exactly fit any set of lines with N+1 points. And such a polynomial will have no skill in predicting point N+2. Exactly as we see with the climate models.
If this was not the case, the climate models could just as easily predict the stock market, and climatologist would have no need for government funding. They could simply use their climate computer to predict stock futures, and quickly parlay any small investment into mega millions.

Matt
December 24, 2013 10:20 pm

What prevents Santa from going back home to his family in modern day Turkey? Are they estranged or something? Or is this another case of religious persecution? In which case he could always seek asylum in Germany, when push comes to shove.
Or maybe his Arabic buddy Jesus would let him crush on his couch until he found a new place to hide in Antarctica? I mean, Bethlehem is just around the corner from Turkey, innit?
Btw, it only took me like half an hour to scroll to the bottom of this thread on a tablet.

Michael in Sydney
December 24, 2013 10:21 pm

Warren
You asked a specific question of skeptics to which I replied. Do you not have the politeness to answer or was the question rhetorical in your mind?
Best
Michael

GeeJam
December 24, 2013 10:39 pm

It is now 6:30 am on Christmas Day – and instead of ‘prepping’ today’s massive family lunch, yet again, my obsession with non-existent CAGW means I have spent the last hour reading Lord Monkton’s excellent message and all those regular well-wishers (except Warren) who seek the truth. Christmas lunch will just have to wait.
PS. Warren – please consume about 50 x brussel sprouts today.
Merry Christmas all.

December 24, 2013 10:41 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm
“I don’t what you mean by AR….”
Assessment Reports, as issued by the IPCC. The most recent of which, AR5, becoming available in various drafts, has been extensively discussed here in recent months. No offense is meant, but it really would behoove you to keep up.
For instance, one major oversight of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is just how long the present interglacial, the Holocene, is expected to last. By the new year the Holocene will be exactly 11,717 years old, or a couple of centuries or so older than half the current precession cycle. The precession cycle varies from 19,000 to 23,000 years long, and we are at the 23kyr point now, making 11,500 half. Only 1 such warming as the Holocene has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle in the past million years or so, and that was MIS-11, the Holsteinian interglacial.
If you are possessed of better knowledge than this……….
“While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals.”
“The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …
“… the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, “while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.
“In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.” http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf
……….then you should enlighten us. If there is something that can ease or delay the transition into the next glacial, other than CO2 I suspect you would have a very attentive audience here.
If not, then evidence must be presented as to why MIS-1 will be like MIS-11 in the absence of GHG forcing. Because MIS-11 did happen. It lasted something like 1.5 to 2 full precession cycles, not just about half of one cycle, like all the rest, and we are just over half now.
To be involved in this discussion you have to have a pretty good idea of when you live, and what can reasonably be expected to happen at such a time http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”
Warren, if you wish AGW to even be detectable (and sea level leaves little doubt), then CAGW must exceed this (+6 to +45meters amsl):
http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf
and this (+52meters amsl):
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Given the strong environmental oscillations that appear to attend the end interglacials, how do you propose separating our AGW signal from significant climate noise?
The most interesting bit might actually be that in order to prevent attenuation of MIS-1, the Holocene, we may have to leave the CO2 “climate security blanket” up there, just in case……..
It might all depend on just how good a GHG CO2 actually is…..
At the end of this discussion, that is all that matters. At the half-precession old Holocene, we will either “go-long”, like MIS-11 did, or we might not. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the difference was dependent on whether we leave CO2 up there, or not?
That is a depth of the discussion you seek to join.
“Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

ferdberple
December 24, 2013 10:45 pm

davidmhoffer says:
December 24, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Again, the 99% you claim you represent contradicts you. Extreme weather events, hurricanes and tornadoes have been in decline for several decades.
============
Which is predicted by science. Weather is the net work performed by the earth due to warming by the sun. This forms a Carnot cycle heat engine with an efficiency of about 20%.
CO2 is predicted to raise polar temps more than equatorial temps, which will reduce the efficiency of the engine, leading to less extreme weather. Quite simply, since the energy from the sun is assumed to be constant, you cannot do more work if you decrease the efficiency. Even if the poles and equator rise the same amount, this will still reduce efficiency. Thus it is a violation of scientific laws to expect more extreme weather with increasing temperatures
The only scenario under which more extreme weather is predicted is in the case of falling temperatures. As temperatures fall, especially polar temperatures, this increases the relative difference between the poles and the equator, increasing efficiency and leading to more extreme weather.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 24, 2013 10:46 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm (replying to)
Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century, but I should have said they do not predict regional or local conditions, nor specific temperatures in a given year, or even within a decade. … I, and I suspect you, cannot judge whether the IPCCs error range is accurate or not, but to say that the modelling is useless or invalidates AGW is not valid. It doesn’t invalidate that a) earths avg temp has risen about .65c in the 20th century (that’s just measurement), or that b) it’s due to human activity (that’s physics), or that c) the earth will continue to be incrementally warmer as we add co2 to the carbon cycle via fossil fuel burning, et al.

Where to begin?
1. No, the models did NOT “reproduce” the 20th century – They were re-programmed specifically to duplicate the 20th century warming – only 1/2 of which 1950 – 2000 (50 years) could have been influenced by man-released CO2; and only 1/4 of which actually showed an increase in temperature while CO2 increased (1973-1998). But for the first 1/2 of the century, temperatures were either increasing (while CO2 was steady), or were decreasing – also while CO2 was steady!
See Hansen’s original 1988 temperature plots: The rise from 1890 to 1940, the decline from 1940 to 1973 is striking … but not very supportive of the IPCC’s agenda of destruction and taxation.
2. As soon as that “forced” period of compliance stopped, the models – every single one of them, in every run, under every computer, and under every different starting condition ( and that alone invalidates the concept that some kind of average of all these different model conditions and programs could “duplicate” correctly earth’s past, present or future because there is only ONE correct “earth” – averaging 23 different “wrong” earths together cannot make a ensemble average that is more correct than the (perhaps) single model that might be almost right. The rest? By definition, if every one of 23 is different running even slightly different programs or codes or start points or assumptions, 22 of the 23 models are WRONG.
3. The other 75 percent of the century had steady CO2 levels, but increasing, steady, and decreasing temperatures. And, in the 60 years since man DID influence CO2 levels, temperatures have spent MORE time steady or falling than they have rising! Your entire premise is based on the ONLY 23 years (1975 – 1998) in the world’s history over 4.0 billion years that both CO2 and temperature rose at the same time.
4. Thus, even if you correctly state that the earth was warming, it has been warming at the same average rate since 1650 – 350 years with no CO2 influence from man, and 63 (1950 – 2013) with man-released CO2. Thus, no CO2 influence can be proved on earth’s warming. The “physics” you have paid for with your (our!) 10.6 million dollars a day in government money to “prove” a CO2 = warmer temperatures = more taxes on CO2 to the government is simply .. wrong.
5. Ah, the magical “prudence” policy. Also known as the insurance policy, the precautionary principle, the “I am not sure about the future but I have been taught by people who fear the future, and I have faith in those people who have taught me despite the evidence, therefore I must stop the future from occurring by harming as many other people as possible unless I control the future” principle.
So, you have been taught to fear a warmer earth, and that fear is now your religion. (Since there is no evidence of your religion, and no evidence of the future you fear might occur, and since your faith in that feared future is only due to your faith in the teachings of the priests of that religion based on their interpretations of the (deliberately hidden) obscure projections of their oracle (and Basic and C++ and NEVER on the evidence those programs actually run) run by their religious homes.) But I digress while discussing your faith.
We have now had 17 years of static temperatures while CO2 has steadily risen at the HIGHEST rate possible in your models. NO model has duplicated actual conditions, but you base your religion on the assumption that (somehow) the earth’s temperature will rise the next 100 years.
What is the probably of a continuing static or even a declining temperature?
At least 71% historically … We already have (25 + 10 + 17)/63 years of steady or declining temperatures since 1950! And CO2 has steadily increased the whole time. Assume 68% to be conservative.
So let’s try 0-1 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 0 and 1 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 16% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 1-2 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 1 and 2 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 1-2 degree warmth? 8% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 2-3 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 2 and 3 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 4% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 3-4 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 3 and 4 degree? Experts begin to predict “some harm” but never seem to be able to quantify that harm: If crop land is lost someplace, additional land is now available elsewhere previously too dry, too cold, or too wet! If sea levels rise proportional to temperature, the sea might rise another 2-3 mm per year. All other changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 2% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 4-5 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 4 and 5 degree? Experts consistently predict ” harm” but never seem to be able to quantify that harm: As above, If crop land is lost someplace, additional land is now available elsewhere previously too dry, too cold, or too wet! If sea levels rise proportional to temperature, the sea might rise another 3-4 mm per year . Still, almost all other changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 1% ? (You tell me. )
What is the percent of HARM (compared to the known good) coming from that 1% possibly of potential occurrence? Well, perhaps 25% harm, 75 % good coming from a 1% chance of a rise the century to +4 degrees.
So, YOU are demanding the world kill millions every year for 100 years, and condemn billions to day-to-day harm from stress, bad food, bad water, no sewage treatment, no transportation, no storage, no lights, no refrigeration, no productivity but from animals and humans as slaves to your policies. YOU are the one demanding “we” follow your religion of CAGW to avoid your fear of the future and your failures.
But your policy of the “Precautionary Principle” demands the absolute certainly of death to millions and daily harm to billions based on an unproven theory that says there is a 1/10 of 1% “chance” of “possibly” avoiding “some” harm to some people. Somewhere. 100 years from now. Maybe.
So we must destroy today’s economy to prevent that 1/10 of 1% chance of the future from occuring.

December 24, 2013 10:50 pm

Primitive superstitious cult? Virgin birth?
Merry Christmas to ALL. Unless it would incur a fatwa from our Moslem friends. Or the disdain of our Jewish friends. Or the incredulity of our Hindu friends. Or the condescension of our Buddhist friends.

Richard D
December 24, 2013 11:04 pm

But your policy of the “Precautionary Principle” demands the absolute certainly of death to millions and daily harm to billions based on an unproven theory that says there is a 1/10 of 1% “chance” of “possibly” avoiding “some” harm to some people. Somewhere. 100 years from now. Maybe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s both stupid and cruel.

ferdberple
December 24, 2013 11:05 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?
=====================
Insurance pays out in case of a loss. Who is going to pay you or your descendants if you make all your policy payments but temps rise more that 2C anyways? The simple fact is that you will be paying premiums into a policy that will never make payment in case of a loss.
As such, what you are describing is not insurance at all. What you are doing is making payments on a promise to deliver, with no mechanism to enforce the promise. This is a standard confidence trickster rip off. They promise to deliver in return for your money, but after you have paid they could care less. They know full well there is nothing you can do if they fail to deliver. Even if they wanted to, the money is long gone. You have no hope of recovery.

December 24, 2013 11:14 pm

I will not join in either religious o scientific debate this Christmas Eve. I write to extend my very best wishes to one and all. May your holiday to full of family love and laughs. If you are known, please think of your fellow commenters and posters on WUWT as your extended family. Merry Christmas to all.

December 24, 2013 11:20 pm

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
What if the models are right?

We will need to kill of a LOT of humans. Would you prefer industrial methods or just plain old starvation? I guess industrial methods are out. They produce too much CO2.

RoHa
December 24, 2013 11:47 pm

“Then there is also the case of Anthony Flew, a life-long atheist philosopher, who decided in his later years, based solely on reason, that it was likely God does exist.”
Not God as the Christian thinks of it, but something more in the line of the Aristotelian Prime Mover.
http://www.reason.org.nz/journal/2005v78n4sum.pdf
I knew Flew. He was a good friend of J. J. C. Smart, who was my professor when I was an undergraduate at Adelaide, and he was emeritus at Reading when I did my doctorate there. I met him several times, and had dinner with him. I never thought he was a particularly great philosopher, but he was a decent man, and I am disgusted with the way Christian apologists exploited him in his old age and still exploit him after his death.
http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/the-exploitation-of-antony-flew/
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/
(Smart hinted to me that Flew’s mind was failing at the time of his “conversion”, and others have made the same suggestion. A criticism of that suggestion is here.http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/regis-nicoll/antony-flew-true-convert-or-exploited-scholar-11562658.html )

December 24, 2013 11:49 pm

” Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, ”
Would the 36 lies MoB goes on to quote be just so many of those those multiple li(n)es of evidence we hear so much about ?

Warren
December 24, 2013 11:59 pm

Michael: I’m sorry, but I did not see your earlier post. Here is my reply. Your point that you don’t like the policy implications, and thus don’t believe, or are more skeptical, doesn’t seem logical to me. The science rises or falls on its own merit. Or in other words, the atmosphere has no idea about policy or politics. Regarding confidence level, climate science is multidisciplinary. That is different than physics in which I can write f=ma and calculate a value with 100% confidence. 90% confidence in a calculation having to do with a complex system of the earths atmosphere is a VERY high confidence level.

Michael in Sydney
December 25, 2013 12:12 am

Warren
You now totally ignore your previous appeal to relativity, plate tectonics and evolution and instead appeal to policy and politics. What am I to make of your answer? I think you did not think through your previous appeal to skeptics.

Warren
December 25, 2013 12:16 am

Davidmhoffer: you’re reading my post exactly backwards. I said the models do NOT predict regional climate trends. And you have not directed me to any specific finding in the 5th Assessment that says the models have not predicted the 20 century uptick in temperature trend. . I cite Professor Wolfson (Professor of physics at Middlebury College) in his lectures on the “science of Climate change” published by the Teaching Company, in which he shows a graph of multiple projections in the IPCC reports, tracking the shape of the hockey stick of Global average trends.

Warren
December 25, 2013 12:18 am

Michael: ? You made the appeal to politics, citing fear of the consequences of climate change as a reason to doubt the Science. That’s quite a strange view.

Michael in Sydney
December 25, 2013 12:27 am

Ok Warren
I see you are not up to it. Thanks
Best
Michael

Warren
December 25, 2013 12:28 am

Ferdperple: your concept of insurance is sure different than the insurance one buys for the risk of one’s house burning down. It does not promise to repay you, Unless your home burns down. Likewise, the carbon tax is a good idea, only if the earth is going to warm sufficiently to cause economic and environmental damage without it. The odds of having a house fire I’ve read are about 5% in ones life time., yet we all buy fire insurance. So then you have to assess the odds of significant climate change vs the costs of prevention. For most on this forum, it appears to be a purchase they wouldn’t make. I would.

Fran Tick
December 25, 2013 12:29 am

” Would the 36 lies MoB goes on to quote be just so many of those those multiple li(n)es of evidence we hear so much about ? ”
Would you mean ‘ lines of evidence’ in the sense of ‘to spin a line’ then ?
How can you be so dismissive of the alarmist’s cause ?

Warren
December 25, 2013 12:41 am

Mcclenney: yes, the earths climate has a roughly 100,000 temp cycle, punctuated by say 20,000 year warm spells. We’re in a warm spell, and in another 10,000 years or whatever, the earth will begin to cool again. The global AGW driven temp uptrend is superimposed on this 100,000 yr cycle. So the question is are you not expecting the two to be additive, leading to ever warmer global temperatures for the next 10000 years?

December 25, 2013 12:48 am

M Courtney says:
December 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Although Lord Monckton’s implied association of socialism with immorality is questionable to say the least.

Depends on who owns your labor. If you own your labor then the basis of socialism is theft. Funny that socialism bases its whole theory on labor and the self ownership of the same. But then takes that labor for the good of the collective. When dealing with the capitalists you at least have the option of making a better deal with a different capitalist. Assuming that you keep improving your ability to serve.

December 25, 2013 12:51 am

Warren says:
December 25, 2013 at 12:41 am
The historical evidence is of roughly 10,000 year interglacials. We should do what we can to prevent the next ice age which will soon be upon us.

Warren
December 25, 2013 12:54 am

Richard, racook1978, and others: the odds of harmful climate change you cite are much lower than projected by the IPCC. If we were faced with 1 % probability, or 20%, this forum wouldn’t exist, nor would the IPCC. In the assessment of the IPCC, it’s far higher..more than 2 thirds I think..in any case much more than the 5% risk most of us have of a house fire for which we all buy homeowners insurance. The IPCC has estimated the GDP impact at 1% point each year for mitigation. I don’t know what they say the economic costs would be without mitigation. But the discussion I’ve been having is mainly about the validity of the science. Arguments about what to do, or the economic costs, have no bearing on the validity of the science,, one way or the other. Put another way, the atmosphere and it’s physics are not affected by our human worries about standard of living.

mogamboguru
December 25, 2013 1:53 am

Well, I, for one, would prefer NOT to mix science with religion in any way – because, to my mind, religion – that is: ANY religion – is the complete opposite of truth. (Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno would most certainly agree…)
Anyway: FELIZ NAVIDAD!

ralfellis
December 25, 2013 2:00 am

Monkton:
They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.
the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.
___________________________________
Sorry, Monk, I have had enough of your spiritual pontification on a science blog. How on earth can any rational and educated being believe that the Catholic Church cares one jot about the truth? How can anyone compare the lies of the Catholic Church to the truth of the scientific method?
This Catholic ‘truth’ would be the same ‘truth’ that jailed Galileo, burned Bruno to death, slow-roasted Jaques de Molay to death, killed all the Templars, and massacred each and every Cathar in the Albigensian crusade. Sorry, Monk, where is the ‘truth’ in the Catholic Church denying real science and murdering 300,000 deeply spiritual people, who were no threat to anyone. What ‘truth’ demanded that the priests and bishops of Montsegur be burned to death in communal funerary pyres? Where was the ‘truth’ in Bishop Arnaud Amaury declaring of the people of Beziers: “Kill them all, God will know His own”. Which ‘truth’ would that be, Monk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Montségur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers
The real truth of the Catholic Church, is that it always has been a ruthless power-base that took control of Europe as de-facto Emperors of Rome after the Western Roman Empire collapsed, and have ruled with an iron fist ever since.
May I remind you that the Spanish Invasion of England was not King Phillip II of Spain vs Queen Elizabeth I of England – it was a crusade by Pope Sixtus vs a small heretic nation who demanded real truth instead of Catholic propaganda. Do you wish the Spanish Amara succeeded, Monk? Is that your view?
Likewise, the Reformation of the 17th century was a bold stand by Holland and northern Europe against the power, greed, corruption and lies of the Catholic Church. And this was a bitter struggle that saw all the Huguenots massacred and exiled and 1/3 of the population of Germany exterminated, all in the pursuit of real truth rather than the political propaganda that masquerades as ‘truth’ within the Catholic Church. That is why every British monarch has to give an oath that they are not Catholic, to prevent the tyrants in Rome from ever taking power again.
Oh, and a Merry Xmas to you, Monk.
Ralph

John Law
December 25, 2013 2:08 am

Mike Jonas says:
December 24, 2013 at 12:38 pm
“we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” – Stephen Schneider
“The only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.”
– Edmund Burke
“Give me money that’s what I want” – The Beatles (and of course Al Gore)
Wonderful writing from Christopher, though not particularly religious myself, it is clear to me, that without morality, there can be no real civilisation.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 25, 2013 2:24 am

The essence of science is intellectual honesty.
I you don’t have honesty, either because the concept doesn’t exists in your vocabulary or because it has been watered down by reasons of expediency, then you can forget science.

Txomin
December 25, 2013 2:26 am

You are correct, dear Monckton. But climate bigotry is just one form of bigotry (note that I’m using here the dictionary definition of bigotry, that is, intolerance of differing opinions). The behavior is exhibited by sufferers of many other social maladies, from race or gender to obesity or tobacco. It is not that there is a lack of relevance or importance to any of these topics, it is that their ideation is one of utter (colloquial) imbecility. The climate “concern” is a bit more out there (who would have thought this would eventually matter 30 years ago) but no different in its realization than any other of the mainstream concerns. In short, our by-numbers collective intellect amounts to little. Climate talk simply makes our shortcomings more evident. Twenty years from now, the concern might be about quanta and whoever does not believe that “an unprecedented quantum shift is about to happen” will be the new pariah.

ralfellis
December 25, 2013 2:31 am

Oh, and if anyone is wondering why we use the term ‘Xmas’, it is because the term ‘Christ’ in Christ-mas is very non-specific.
Kings Saul, David and Solomon were all called the messiah in the Tanakh, as was Cyrus the Great of Persia. And ‘messiah’ is translated in the Vulgate Bible as ‘christ’, because both ‘messiah’ and ‘christ’ simply means ‘king’ or even ‘priest-king’ (the anointed priest-king of Judaea) in the Aramaic and Greek respectively.
Thus Christmas actually means Kingmas, and does not clearly define which king is intended. Perhaps the Catholic Church is actually honoring Cyrus the Great, who knows. Thus the X in Xmas underlines the fact that we don’t know who on earth this 1st century priest-king really was, because he does not appear in any historical record.
(By the way, the Testimonium Flavium is a fake interpolation inserted by the ever-deceitful Church chronicler Eusebius, who was greatly peeved at not being able to find Jesus anywhere in Josephus Flavius’ long and detailed history of 1st century Judaea. This is just one in a long chronicle of deceits by the Catholic Church, designed to prop up their crumbling empire of deceit.)
Ralph

bobl
December 25, 2013 2:40 am

Firstly, I was very remiss in missing Christmas wishes to the Mods
@ Warren,
You have arrived on a science site, WUWT is not really an opinion site. The people here generally have good scientific reason for believing CO2 warming is overstated. I think maybe a grounding in why people interested in science are sceptical of Climate Change is in order. So here’s why I don’t agree. I can’t speak for anyone else because we are free thinkers here.
Firstly there is scale, the warming is supposed to be caused by a radiative imbalance of 0.6 +/- 17 Watts (Hansen)- let’s ignore for the moment that the error margin is two orders of magnitude greater than the value – Meaning that this value is accurate to zero significant digits. The average incoming radiation at midday each day at the equator is about a killowatt, about 1700 tines the imbalance. On average it’s something like 600 times the imbalance averaged over a 24 hour period. As a reference 0.6W is about the energy emitted by an incandescent christmas light, you know like an icicle light. This 0.6W added warming acts in the lower atmosphere from the surface to the troposphere, a height of lets say 3 Km (base of the lower level cloud) probably more like 10 km on a clear day. So you have a Christmas light in a column of air of say 3000 Cubic Meters (1x1x3000) that has 600 times that energy of that christmas light flowing through it every day, modulated up to 30% or more by cloud, or season or dust. or leaves blowing across it that is free to convect, radiate, conduct and otherwise transform that energy, and you are anticipating that this christmas light will consistently and measurably warm the atmosphere in this column by 4 degrees by the end of the century. It a christmas light per square meter ! It’s very very small compared to the natural sources of energy dissipated every day, some 0.06% of the peak energy flow
2. Science tells us that the all cause warming due to the atmosphere retarding heat transfer, and the gas law PV=nRT, warms the earth through all causes by 33 Degrees. Now Let’s just suppose we say that all 33 degrees warming is caused by CO2, we know it isn’t but let’s suppose. Energy absorbtion in the CO2 band is 85% (The atmosphere is 85% opaque at these frequencies) so let’s compute what would happen if we let this get to 100% opaque (IE Earth had a CO2 Atmosphere like Venus but limited to 1 atm). Weel use a relationship that will overestimate this (let’s be conservative), let’s presume that the increase in temperature is linear (It’s not, both CO2 and most forms of feedback are logarithmic, but assuming linearity will give us a temperature above the limits of what could happen). The increase possible is 15% against 85% or about 17%. 17% of 33 degrees is 5.61 Degrees, so if earth was venus and we had a CO2 atmosphere at 1 atmosphere pressure the rise would be only 5.6 degrees and earth would still be habitable temperature wise though you would find breathing difficult ;-). (Venus is hot because it has an atmosphere of almost 100 earth atmospheres – 100 times as dense as ours). This includes all feedbacks, since the 33 degrees we extrapolated from incorporates feedbacks, and we know that most of the warming across the atmosphere is due to the lapse rate (dependent on gravity). Actual warming for a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere is strictly less than this (a lot less). The IPCC projection for this scenario is anything up to 78 degrees C ( Unrealistic, earth’s history has never seen this sort of scenario for any CO2 density in the past) and it does not tally with the magnitude of the greenhouse effect to date (EG 33 degrees as 85% absorbtion). The IPCC would only be consistent with the all cause atmospheric warming so far for sensitivities below about 0.5 degrees per doubling
3. Lets look at that amplification, the IPCC says the direct warming of CO2 is multiplied by a factor of 3 to reach a final value of about 3.3 degrees per doubling (Central estimate). But lets look what has actually happened, lets use a convenient point for warming from the end of the little ice age Scientists say the CO2 level then was about 270PPM, Now its about 400. The effect of CO2 on temperature follows a log law. You can write this as
Delta T = C x ln( CO2/co2) we know some numbers from our scenario.
Delta T is about 0.7 at this point
CO2 is about 400
co2 is about 270
From this you can find the constant multiplier empircally
0.7 = C x ln(400/270)
or C=delta T /ln(400/270)
= 0.7/0.39 = 1.79
So now we know the constant for this relation. Let’s look at the doubling of warming then from 270 PPM to 560 PPM
delta T (doubling) = C x ln (540/270)
delta T (doubling) = 1.79 x ln (2)
delta T (doubling) = 1.79 x 0.69
= 1.24 degrees for a doubling of CO2
Conclusion, if we attribute all warming since the little ice age to CO2 rise since the LIA we can only demostrate climate sensitivity of 1.3 Degrees per doubling at best, yet the IPCC models claim 3, 4 or more, the previous Australian Government tried to claim 6?
There is more.
For example when you look at the detail of feedback mechanisms, you encounter the fact that negative feedback reduces the impact of CO2 by a factor of 5. To produce the IPCCs nett amplification of 3 there must be positive feedbacks amounting to 15 times, five times to bring it back to equity and three times more. this requires a loop gain in the positive feedbacks of more than 0.95. Furthermore the individual mechanisms, lapse rate, radiation, convection, transformation, conduction etc, to oceans, rocks, evaporation etc are not time correlated, they have different lags, so you have a myriad non time correlated feedbacks with variable lags with a positive feedback component with a loop gain of 0.95. Such a system is highly oscillatory when perturbed, the climate is not. The Nett gain of 3 (all things considered is implausible – actually I’d say impossible).
Finally
What is (40 – 0) / 2 = (20) (Melbourne approx temperature range and average)
What is (32-22)/2 = (27) (Kalimantan approximate temperature range and average)
Which climate is hotter
Which climate is more extreme
Which climate is more habitable, by more creatures, tropical Kalimantan, or mediterranean Melboune. ( That is what 7 degrees of warming does, it lowers the max, and raises the mins)
On Earth as average temperature rises, temperature extremes fall
That’s enough for now, as you see, any which way you look at it, a climate sensitivity of more than about 1.5 is highly implausible along several lines of calculation and the mesurements themselves only support values between about 0.5 and 1.3 degrees per doubling, with a higher liklihood at the lower end, this is just math. This is why I am a sceptic, these things don’t add up, and I will not believe the models until these things can be explained that has never been done.
Other peoples opinion is not enough around here, you have to argue the real science with math and examples. If you stick around you will learn more

Gail Combs
December 25, 2013 2:55 am

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Chad: No, my 99% refers to multiple peer reviewed counts of tens of thousands of peer reviewed journal papers that support AGW, not to a poll of scientists….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well that is very easy to achieve if the only way you can get a peer reviewed paper published is to say in the paper you agree with AGW even when your results have nothing to do with AGW. For several years I have been calling it the get out of jail free card because it is so darn obvious in so many papers. Heck even the news media practices blatant censorship at the urging of the same set of people as Los Angeles Times and Reddit and the BBC (with explanation) show.
{Note: Professor J. Scott Armstrong who wrote the first article on Los Angeles Times censorship, has written papers on peer review and communicating science.}
Here is the response of ‘Climate scientists’ (and I use that term very loosely) to a paper they do not like.
email 2683, from 12 April 2003…

Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to. Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor. So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).
I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.

This is from Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review a long essay detailing the corruption of peer review in response to the claims the e-mails are are being taken out of context.

The post here is a follow-up from my last post on some Climategate 2 emails, which I have tied together into a kind of narrative. Why should you read this? It is very simple. There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal ‘to and fro’ of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.
This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.

What to me is even worse is the corruption, like a cancer has spread throughout the scientific establishment to the point where papers like How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data and stories like US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds are now being published. The first paper reports “… surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices….” I find that truly SAD, and it brings us back to exactly what Lord Monckton is talking about Honesty and Integrity are now missing in science academia.

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2013 3:07 am

Warren says:
December 25, 2013 at 12:16 am
Davidmhoffer: you’re reading my post exactly backwards. I said the models do NOT predict regional climate trends. And you have not directed me to any specific finding in the 5th Assessment that says the models have not predicted the 20 century uptick in temperature trend. . I cite Professor Wolfson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You charged in here shouting about how obvious the science is and how 99% of scientists agree. When challenged to discuss the science, all you could muster is a reference to a video by Wolfson. When pointed out to you what the IPCC AR reports said, you didn’t know what an AR report was. Having explained that to you, and that they don’t say what you claim 99% of the scientists say, you babbled something about you should have made your claim in regard to regional results from models. Challenged on that, you now claim that’s not what you meant. Having been presented with evidence directly from the IPCC showing that even they present evidence that a child could understand that the models predict more warming than it actually happening, you state that you cannot see it and refer again to a video by Wolfson rather than discuss the plain facts before you.
You understand neither the science nor what the scientists have said. You think yourself an expert because you saw one video. When presented with contrary evidence, you splutter about the video. You are just a poser.

eyesonu
December 25, 2013 3:15 am

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, sir, that excellent essay covered a lot of bases. To provoke thought by the readers would be an understatement. Thank you.

Crispin in Waterloo
December 25, 2013 3:30 am

Trustworthiness is the foundation of all virtue. It’s closest relative is truthfulness which is the trustworthy spoken word.
Atheism is not the ‘religion of irreligion’ it once was, having, like true religion, suffered from the dead hand of priestcraft. There is little agreement in what it is in which atheists do not believe. It has become an argument between several shadows about which light they reject.
Coming as this essay does on about the day of the passing from this this ball of dust, this mortal phase, of Mr Kalashnikov, the unrepentant, nay, proud inventor of the most accessible, the most deadly, the cheapest weapon ever created enabling man to kill, main, terrorize and debase all human virtue with the least input of skill or muscle, it is certainly time, is it not, to reconsider what science becomes when decoupled from the very purpose of Creation.
There is only one Creation therefore there is only one Creator. Knowledge of Him permeates the densest of jungles with each of us having access enough to one or another of the principles of at least one stage of Revelation to know the difference between right and wrong, truth and untruth.
Whether or not one accepts the decisions of men at the Council of Nicea or “all things done at Chalcedon” (where the second 4th General Council took place) we should, given our intelligence and independent capacity for thought, have the presence of mind not to blame the Founders for the behaviour of their followers.
Bearing that admonition in mind, consider the moral challenge of the hideous and expensive lie that is the CAGW movement. As recently as last week and not for the first time, I was counselled not to fully reveal my knowledge of a scientific matter lest funding for its alleviation diminish. The challenge, the moral challenge, is deciding how to deal with the world as we find it. Shall we all navigate the shark infested waters of life rudderless and drifting with the tide? Shall our cant and destination be dictated by the whim of the wind? Does it matter not which path we take as long as the journey is an easy descent?
Consider the choices of the inventor of the ‘shaped charge’ (an artillery shell). He was expounding on the efficiency of this weapon to Sir Abbas Effendi, the holy man from Palestine, who asked if it was a worthy endeavour to seek efficiency in the killing of men. The inventor responded with a comment to the effect that “more people died in preventable accidents in the home” than because of warfare. His reply? “War is the most preventable accident.”
The outrages against science and morality that are the fatuous, alarmist and devious claims of the “CO2 is going to kill us all” movement constitute one of the most “preventable accidents” of our generation. Political and economic groupings seek advantage at every turn of the AGW worm hoping its castings will fertilise the murk in their hearts if not wallets. Feel good; pay now.
“In the soil of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love.”
Truth is love manifested. Make this day a celebration of that love.

amoorhouse
December 25, 2013 3:31 am

My Xmas message to the warmists is:
How does it feel to have a massive inanimate rock speeding through space laugh at your intellect?
Wassail!

phlogiston
December 25, 2013 3:31 am

If falsehood had, like truth, but one face only, we should be upon better terms; for we should then take for certain the contrary to what the liar says: but the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand forms, and a field indefinite, without bound or limit. The Pythagoreans make good to be certain and finite, and evil, infinite and uncertain. There are a thousand ways to miss the white, there is only one to hit it.
Michel de Montaigne, “Of Liars”

I thought this quote would chime with Lord Monckton’s classical-rooted thoughts on the unity of truth.
Monkton’s eloquent scourging of the scientific, media and political classes’ mendacity and complicity in dishonesty is of course entertaining and reassuring to us skeptics. And it is fair and justified. Monkton skillfully walks a tight-rope here of sincere engagement of religion without crossing into the dismal territory of patronising proselytism.
But even in regard to Christian (and other) religions, something is not quite right. The quote by Christ in the gospels comes to mind: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. and another, Judge not that you may not be judged.
The point is not the rightness of Monkton’s accusations. Another, non-biblical phrase that is pertinent here is “crapping in your own bath”. There are mature and immature human societies. Mature societies develop effective, if unofficial, methods of obtaining consensus; immature societies by contrast are locked in endless bitter polarised confrontation, each side spewing endless narrative of the rightness of their cause. In the long term there is a tendency for societies to mature as there is for imperially dominaing cultures to become subversively civilized by the cultures that they dominate (e.g. most popular dish in England now being curry).
We are self-righteously accusing practically the whole world of being in an evil conspiracy, OK, and disturbingly there may be substance to this. But think of it this way. Hypothetically, what if we won the climate argument tomorrow. The world’s political leaders and scientific and media opinion-leaders all announced in unison the utter and final falsehood of the CAGW argument. What next? Here are some options as to what might follow:
1. Climate science ends, it’s settled, nothing more to discover, everyone goes home.
2. Like good Christians we hark back to Noah’s ark and aim to wipe out all life connected with CAGW and start a new society with “breeding couples” of sound skeptics;
3. Or, maybe, life goes on. Climate science looks more widely at the mysteries of atmosphere and ocean. Some of us here might be in a position to take part in this, alongside the massed ranks of former AGW believers who just days before we were having such fun abusing and ridiculing.
Lets maybe take a hint from Nelson Mandela. Society might work better if we find ways to work with former enemies, rather than try to replace them.

donald penman
December 25, 2013 3:58 am

Climate science does not seem very keen on answering the question about Agw that they raise,they are content with the idea that it might be happening, all the things that global warming might/might not cause IF global warming is/is not happening is regarded as evidence for global warming.In reality there is no real evidence that the earth is being catapaulted into a hot house earth by co2 ,we still have polar icecaps at both poles and it gets cold in winter and warm in the summer at higher lattitudes, untill we see changes there it is unlikely that the climate is sensitive to co2 warming it might be more sensitive to global cooling as we may find out in the next few years.

cynical_scientist
December 25, 2013 4:00 am

Religion is not the source of morality. We do not exist in a moral vacuum where we might or might not think certain things are bad and are totally dependent on a priest to set us straight on the matter.
Readers of the “Wicked bible” of 1631 which contained the misprint “thou shalt commit adultery” did not shrug their shoulders and say “well if that’s what God wants” and rush out to have sex with the neighbours wife.
Owners of a copy of the “wife beaters bible” of 1531 which contains the erroneous footnote “And if she be not obediente and healpeful unto hym, endevoureth to beate the fere of God into her heade, that thereby she may be compelled to learne her dutye and do it.” did not because of this believe that they had a moral duty to beat their wives. At least I hope they did not.
Readers of the “unrighteous bible” of 1651 which contains the misprint “Know ye that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” didn’t suddenly think it was right to be wrong and wrong to be right. Nor did those with a copy of the “Sin On” bible of 1716 which contains the instruction “Go and sin on more” rush out to do do what they were told.
More seriously I assert that one can be a very moral person and also an atheist. Indeed as an atheist I tend to distrust the morality of the excessively religious. The excessively religious have a tendency to stop considering and thinking about moral questions replacing their inherent moral responsibility with a mindless adherence to instructions from a priest or religious leader. This can and has lead to great evils being done in the name of religion.

negrum
December 25, 2013 4:12 am

I agree with most of Lord Monckton’s conclusions and goals, but not his premises, something which I think is possible, since this is not a strictly scientific or logical discussion.
I feel that the statement: ” .. the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth. ” is misleading and irrelevant. The aims of different philosophies and approaches is not as important as the methods by which those aims are pursued. Otherwise it is too easy to fall into the trap of noble corruption.
Religion seems to involve a certain amount of formalised self deception called faith/belief (I use the words interchangebly) which is subjective, and cannot be equated with a scientific approach where it doesn’t matter what you believe or want: testable facts should always trump beliefs and the absence of testable facts is not the validation of a theory. Obviously not lying is a prerequisite for the scientific approach and wishful thinking is not advised 🙂 At most I would classify the various religions as tentative hypotheses, awaiting further investigation.
Human beings are irrational to a greater or lesser degree, which makes the scientific search for truth particularly difficult, due to the amount of self-discipline required.Various scientific institutions recognise this and follow procedures to ensure that deception (including self-deception) is minimised.The field of climatology as a whole seems to have neglected the basic scientific procedures so badly that it starts to present itself as a religion.
I think one of the reasons that climatology has become so popular is that religions – especially Western ones – seem not be coping that well with the advent of the internet. Easily available opposing views contribute to people abandoning their faith in search of something better – hence most churches’ strong views on heretics. Since those who stray from the true faith usually still retain a desire for a system where doubt or skeptisism is not an integral part of the thought process, they are easy prey for the first pseudo-scientific organisation they encounter.
I disagree most strongly with the concept that religion is a prerequisite for morality (which seems to be an accepted synonym for “good”.) Part of the problem in the discussion is the definition of morality, which seems to arise mostly from subjective judgement and varies widely depending on the organisation and the person.
What I find the most useful is where religious and non-religious can find common ground and can discuss sensitive issues in a reasonable manner. With some exceptions, this blog seems to be one of those few places, with the credit going to the author and the moderators.

December 25, 2013 4:13 am

Many thanks to the numerous commenters who have been kind enough to join in our seasonal philosophical discussion. Some responses, if I may.
I’m delighted that Paul767 has referred to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, a magnificent author who ought to be compulsory reading for every Socialist.
I’m also delighted that RoHa meet Anthony Flew. I, too met him and admired him, for he was a genuine seeker after truth, and an always refreshing philosopher. His movement towards the notion that God exists was an illustration of his intellectual honesty (though scientifically one might disagree with him as to whether the Big Bang had a cause at all: that is something we shall never know).
Roha, supported by Mr. Dewhurst, rightly points out that religion is not essential to morality. Be that as it may, morality is essential to science, for otherwise scientists might all behave like the tiny handful who have fabricated the climate scare.
Roha, supported by Martin A, takes me to task for using the past participle “gotten”. That, like “driven” and “sunken”, is one of our vigorous Germanic strong-verb usages and it is a shame it has become lost in the Old Country.
“Andud” seems wilfully to misunderstand the head posting by suggesting that I had suggested Jesus the Nazarene had created the universe 2000 years ago. No, I did not put a date on that, though He took human form (as a Nazarene) 2000 years ago. The best science at present seems to suggest that the universe winked into being 13.82 billion years ago. This is deduced from the anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation, though I cannot give a clear account of how it was done or whether the answer is right.
Then, sadly, we have the trolls.
The furtively pseudonymous “climateace” lists the nonsense on my Wikipedia bio, complaining that I have said I can cure various diseases. No, I have said I am researching a possible cure for various infectious diseases. I only said that much so that potential patients could come forward. Several of them are now better, so researches continue. Does “climateace” really wish that these cures had not taken place?
“Climateace” also parrots Wikipedia’s assertion that I said I had a Nobel Peace Prize (much as Michael Mann said he had one, until the UN told him not to). No, I have not said that. I have told the story of how Professor David Douglass of Rochester University, New York, presented me some years back with a Nobel Prize pin made from gold recovered from a physics experiment 30 years previously, after I had given a lecture on climate sensitivity to his faculty. He said I ought to be recognized because I had had a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC corrected. This, therefore, was what is known as A Joke – a concept with which most trolls are unfamiliar.
Mosher, in characteristically unconstructive form, incorrectly accuses me of having misquoted Keats, and adds that “the truth of science is contingent”. Contingent upon what, he does not say.
Abbott talks of my “extreme prejudice”: but, by now, it should be clear that I take a scientific and not an aprioristic position. I may be right or wrong, but, unlike the trolls, I do not simply follow the Party Line because I am told there is a “consensus” about it.
Talking of which, “Warren” says 99.8% of scientific papers “support” anthropogenic global warming. Well, I support it myself. If there were more of it, the world would be a more prosperous place. It is cold that is the killer, as we discovered in a recent winter here in the UK, when there were 31,000 excess deaths in a single month because it was so cold. No headlines, of course: deaths from cold don’t fit the Party Line.
“Warren” is exactly the sort of true-believer at whom the head posting was directed. He has not the slightest regard for what is objectively true., Instead, he cites “Naomi Orestes” as having said there was a “consensus”. One supposes he means “Naomi Oreskes”. However, the most comprehensive survey of scientific papers on climate ever conducted was by Cook et al. (2013), who claimed that 97.1% of 11,944 papers published since 1991 supported the “consensus” that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. The paper in fact demonstrated that only 0.3% of those 11,944 papers supported the “consensus” thus defined, as Legates et al. (2013) pointed out.
“Warren” says he will only take me seriously when I publish a peer-reviewed paper (though, curiously, he and others who say that do not seem to wish to hold Al Gore, for instance, to the same standard). However, if he will read Legates et al. he will find that I was one of the co-authors. It will be interesting to know whether he continues to adhere to his belief system when he realizes that he is not in the company of 99.8% of scientists publishing in the field, but only 0.3%.
Likewise “Warren’s” assertion that the IPCC’s “90% confidence” in its findings is impressive displays a fundamental ignorance of statistics on his part. There is no dataset on the basis of which any such confidence interval could have been determined. In short, it is fictitious, as was the previous report’s “65% confidence” and the latest report’s “95% confidence”.
I have had several peer-reviewed papers published. If “Warren” got his science from the reviewed literature rather than from Greenpeace, he might have come across some of them. He might, for instance, like to read my paper Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?, published in August this year in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Erice Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, where I examine whether he would be justified in taking out precautionary insurance against future global warming. The answer, based on the IPCC’s and Stern’s own mainstream analyses, is that it is 1-2 orders of magnitude costlier to act today than to adapt the day after tomorrow. One cannot, as “Warren” and Stern claim, make global warming go away at an annual cost of 1% of GDP. Most mitigation measures cost 20-80% of GDP, while doing nothing, according to Stern, costs about 1% of GDP (or 3% at most, if the warming this century does not exceed 3 K). Since there has been no warming yet this century, and we are one-seventh of the way through it, we could see as little as 1 K warming by 2100, in which event all efforts at mitigation are infinitely more expensive than the do-nothing option.
He may also like to read my earlier paper for the Annual Proceedings, published in 2011, in which I demonstrated that most of the global warming from 1983-2001 was caused by a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover (Pinker et al., 2005). So “Warren’s” statement that most of the warming in the 20th century was manmade may not be true, as several papers in the learned literature (including mine) attest. And there is certainly no scientific basis for his assertion that physics dictates that most of the warming must have been caused by us. That is another instance of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, arguing from ignorance. We don’t know why the warming occurred, but if Pinker is right (and Dr. Joseph Boston kindly reanalysed her data for me to make sure she was) then most of the warming was probably of natural origin.
Next, “Warren” makes the strange assertion that I had said tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers were wrong. I had made no such assertion. Far fewer papers than he may realize suggest that global warming may prove catastrophic. Of the 64 papers marked by Cook et al. as supporting the IPCC’s version of “consensus” to the effect that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade, only one said warming might prove catastrophic.
Finally, “Warren” asserts that I believe in the existence of a global “conspiracy” among scientists. No: I had explicitly stated that there is indeed a small group – we all know who most of them are – who for political and financial motives have been making up bad science and getting it published in acquiescent journals. The real problem is that, once the political class had taken up the issue, the remainder of the scientific community stood by and allowed the lies to continue to be told – again for political and financial reasons. That is not a conspiracy: it is the herd instinct of the hive mind that so much of academe has become – a hive mind of which “Warren” seems to be a part.
Let us hope “Warren” has learned from his experience here that mere assertions of religious belief in the New Superstition are not enough. He must back his claims with proper, peer-reviewed evidence. That excludes tendentious lecture series, and it excludes the documents of the IPCC, which are not peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. The morality taught by my own religion requires that science be a genuine search for truth, which is why those who have tried to assert that science is “amoral” are not quite right. The search for scientific truth is a moral process, in that it requires scrupulous intellectual honesty of the scientist. Scientists like the small and malevolent band who have made up scientific results and claimed certainty where none can exist are not intellectually honest; their work is immoral; and their conclusions, because their work is immoral, are valueless.

Daniel H
December 25, 2013 4:16 am

I normally enjoy Lord Monckton’s commentaries but this one was sad and disappointing. Was it really necessary to conflate religious “truth” with scientific inquiry? I mean, yeah I realize it’s Christmas and Christmas is obviously a religious holiday, but we get enough of the faith-based science from the AGW crowd. Faith is not the same thing as truth. It’s belief in something without evidence and that’s actually what the problem is, right? And just how big of a problem is it? Here is an excerpt from a 2011 working group study by the Pontifical Academy of Science — the official “science” wing of the faith-based Vatican:

We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life. We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/glaciers.pdf
So much for the church and “truth”…
Does this mean that Lord Monckton only derives truth from the Catholic Church when it’s convenient? Someone please clarify because I must be confused.
Oh, and Happy Winter Solstice 🙂

Gail Combs
December 25, 2013 4:33 am

Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 6:31 pm
James Abbott: a little snarky at the end, but generally well put. Unfortunately the scientific near consensus is not matched by a consensus among voters, who seem unlikely to accept policy measures until we (or more accurately, our grandchildren) reach the point ( or temperature) of deep regret.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean the coming Ice Age?
From the Peer Reviewed Papers you believe in:

A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records
We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,… Despite a conservative tuning strategy, the LR04 benthic stack exhibits significant coherency with insolation in the obliquity band throughout the entire 5.3 Myr and in the precession band for more than half of the record. The LR04 stack contains significantly more variance in benthic d18O than previously published stacks of the late Pleistocene as the result of higher- resolution records, a better alignment technique, and a greater percentage of records from the Atlantic. Finally, the relative phases of the stack’s 41- and 23-kyr components suggest that the precession component of d18O from 2.7–1.6 Ma is primarily a deep-water temperature signal and that the phase of d18O precession response changed suddenly at 1.6 Ma.
page 9
Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250– 650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N 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 .

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments
….As summer insolation declined through the late Holocene, summer temperatures cooled and the local ice sheet margin expanded. Gradual, insolation-driven millennial-scale temperature trends in the study area were punctuated by several abrupt climate changes, including a major transient event recorded in all five lakes between 4.3 and 3.2 ka, which overlaps in timing with abrupt climate changes previously documented around the North Atlantic region and farther afield at ∼4.2 ka…..

(These are the Bond events also seen during glaciation as Dansgaard-Oeschger events every 1200 to 1500 years)

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
…. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.

A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier
…. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

The authors of BOTH papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.
MORE:
Abstract
…..We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer……
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Abstract
…..Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean……
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
And finally. As reported in Nature Geosciences, “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum,” Celia Martin-Puertas et al. took a meticulous look at annual sediment deposits in a German lake from 3,300 to 2,000 years ago. They analyzed the sediment layers—called varve—carefully measuring proxies for solar irradiance. This is what they found and their major conclusion:

Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum
Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago, coincident with a grand solar minimum.

Even NASA agrees the sun has gone quiet: “It’s the smallest maximum we’ve seen in the Space Age,” David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., told reporters in a teleconference. and NASA: Deep Solar Minimum and NASA: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
And so does SpaceDaily: (SPX) Aug 09, 2013: Looming weak solar max may herald frosty times
It is amusing to see the story includes the usual AGW non sequitur (get out of jail free card) I laugh about:

While there is no certainty that the Little Ice Age was caused primarily by the decreased solar activity, a link does exist. If the next solar cycles are even quieter that the current one, and a cooling takes place, it may counteract the global warming trend over the next few decades.

When you look at CAGW in relation to the entire Holocene the politicized panic is really laughable. Carbon Dioxide is a plant food and if we are really really lucky it might keep us out of the next major ice age but I doubt it. The real take away from a study of ‘Climate Change’ and such is burning coal will stave off the extinction of C3 plants (our main food source) for a bit longer. SEE: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

December 25, 2013 5:01 am

I enjoyed the essay, especially since I have come to the conclusion that truth is the most important thing. Human existence requires cooperation and we must have trust to cooperate fully. This requires truth.
I see our atheist friends are whining about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. They mention evils committed when the Church was, in effect, the government in Europe. Yet for some odd reason they fail to mention the horrors committed by governments all around the world throughout history. (is this the Jim Hansen school of argumentation?) They fail to mention that the root evil has always been the state itself.
The question of “God” does not get answered by how believers have acted when they were organized and had power over others. Gandhi is reputed to have observed he liked Christianity but did not care so much for the Christians.
The eternal question man asks is “how did all this get here”?!? How did matter come to be in the first place? The atheist says it all happened by “accident”. Jesus, Joseph, and Mary what a weak argument. The agnostic says, “don’t know”. That is much better.
Me? A Taoist. Do Taoists believe in God? I read someplace “Taoism offers the option to skip the comparison. This question is irrelevant. God could or could not exist, and either state doesn’t change the way we lead our lives. Our lives are expressions of action between ourselves and the universe. To respect our surrounding environment is a furthering of respect to ourselves. This manner of living doesn’t change regardless of the nature of God or the Tao.” … A Taoist doesn’t think the Tao is before, after or is even equal to God. The Tao is a concept to describe something that goes beyond our capability to define. Taoism leaves the Tao undefined and a Taoist happily explores the wonder that opens up as a result.
I find most atheists to be intolerant in exactly the same way that many “believers” are intolerant. Shame on both sides when they do that sort of thing. I think that studying philosophical Taoism would help many of our atheist friends get a grip on life to where they also could say …
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night
🙂

Jimmy Haigh.
December 25, 2013 5:08 am

I don’t do religion myself. But a merry Christmas to you all anyway.

Jimmy Haigh.
December 25, 2013 5:15 am

The Mandlebrot fractal blows my mind.

December 25, 2013 5:20 am

Daniel H has wilfully misunderstood the head posting. The only sense in which I have “conflated” religion and science is in pointing out that belief in catastrophic global warming, for which there is precious little scientific evidence, has the character of a quasi-religious superstition and not of science. My main point was that true religion, however inadequately and imperfectly, insists upon morality and, therefore, intellectual honesty.
As for the Pontifical Academy of Sciencies, I had lunch at the Academy with its Prefect a couple of years ago, and tried to suggest to him that it was not the place of the Church to fall into the trap of making mere fashion statements about global warming (in which he is a true-believer of the worst kind). However, neither I nor the eminent scientists present were able to make a dent in his belief system. He was unable to adduce anything resembling a scientific argument.
The Church, therefore, has gotten its science wrong yet again. Fortunately, few will recall the Pontifical Academy’s pointless and asinine pontification on this subject, for it will be submerged in the thousands of other flatulent, half-baked, me-too statements churned out by the world’s governing class. I shall add it to my collection of official idiocies on the subject. Sub specie aeternitatis, the Prefect of the Pontifical Academy will be proven wrong. Fortunately, his expatiations on this or any other subject are not de fide. We are free to ignore them, as almost everyone is ignoring his pietistic but scientifically meaningless statement on global warming.
I do not assert that everything the Church says on science (or, as here, on politics masquerading as science) is true: nor am I obliged to believe any such thing. But science without morality is mere politics. Whether morality springs from religion or simply from an appreciation of the natural law on the part of a good soul, it is essential to the proper functioning of genuine, independent, disinterested scientific enquiry. The pedlars of the global warming scare have acted immorally in dressing up politics as though it were science. The world is already beginning to laugh at them. If the scare has any useful purpose, it is in reminding the people that when the classe politique expresses the greatest certainty that a thing is so there is the greatest probability that it is not so.

Mindert Eiting
December 25, 2013 5:23 am

‘Davidmhoffer wrote (yesterday, 8:34 pm): ‘ Every last model prediction, all 22 models, and all the predictions from all the models, have failed’.
.
In the long run perhaps all our models fail but some fail more miserably than others. If you take an exam of two-choice items, you may have about one half wrong if you don’t know anything. A miserable failure is to have all items wrong. That may sometimes happen by chance or because you misunderstood the instruction, but it almost always means that you have pertinent false knowledge in stead of just ignorance.

ferdberple
December 25, 2013 5:37 am

Warren says:
December 25, 2013 at 12:28 am
Ferdperple: your concept of insurance is sure different than the insurance one buys for the risk of one’s house burning down. It does not promise to repay you, Unless your home burns down.
=============
Who is going to repay you or your descendants if you pay your carbon tax, but temperatures rise anyways?
You mistake is to assume that by taking out insurance, this will prevent your house from burning down. But this is a false assumption, which we can see through common sense. Insurance does not prevent your house from burning down.
You make the same assumption about carbon taxes. That by paying the tax you can prevent warming. However, there is no guarantee this will happen. No one will refund your taxes if the warming takes place anyways.
In this fashion carbon taxes are not at all like insurance. Instead they are payment for a promise, with no hope of recovery if the promise is not delivered. This is the standard operating procedure for the most common form of confidence swindle. Trading money for a promise never delivered.

pax
December 25, 2013 5:48 am

To paraphrase my teacher’s comment on my less than enthusiastic school performance: The good mixed with the deeply disturbing.

Solomon Green
December 25, 2013 6:16 am

I feel sorry for Warren. I am sure that if he had posted on another site he would have had much support. He is wrong but I admire his courage. I am surprised though that he has been allowed to get away with this statement “Five independent studies concluded that the Climategate Controversy was without foundation…and that there was no substance to the claims against the Scientists.”
Lord Oxburgh, who chaired the main investigation was never independent. At the time he was chairman of the UK branch of Falck Renewables, a wind energy firm. He is currently a non-executive Director, Green Energy Options Ltd (GEO) (energy monitors to manage domestic energy consumption), President of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association and gives occasional professional advice to Climate Change Capital. His conflict of interest was such that he should never have accepted the appointment to chair the investigation. His careful selection of the evidence supporting his pre-determined conclusion has been widely criticised on other blogs.
The following recent finding by a committee of the House of Lords might also have escaped Warren’s notice:
“THE CONDUCT OF LORD OXBURGH
1. The Committee has considered reports by the Sub-Committee on Lords’
Conduct and the Commissioner for Standards on the conduct of Lord
Oxburgh (annexed to this report). The reports arise out of a complaint,
received on 1 July 2013, alleging that Lord Oxburgh breached the Code of
Conduct by not registering in the Register of Lords’ Interests his position on
the advisory board of the Real Asset Energy Fund, a fund which invests in
renewable energy power plants.
2. The Commissioner concluded that Lord Oxburgh had breached the Code of
Conduct, but that the breach was minor and could be dealt with by way of
remedial action, which Lord Oxburgh has now taken.
3. The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, to which, in accordance with the
Guide to the Code of Conduct, the Commissioner presents his reports, has
accepted the Commissioner’s conclusion and the remedial action by Lord
Oxburgh.”
Happy Christmas to Warren and congratulations to the noble lord in having sparked off so many comments in so short a time with a single blog.

Samuel C Cogar
December 25, 2013 6:29 am

(Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD) said:
Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.

Warren
December 25, 2013 6:31 am

Davidmhoffer: you continue to make false claims about what I said, which seems to be the basis for all your rants. First, you continue To say I said the models were accurate at the regional level. I never said that anywhere, and several times have said that they are indeed not accurate regionally, yet you continue to repeat that falsehood. 2nd you said I did not know what the assessment reports were. I certainly do and did, and have read them…I simply didn’t recall what The term AR meant. You (not so nicely) reminded me when I asked. And third, you continue to claim that the IPCC doesn’t show models confirming the uptick in 20th cent temps. Show me exactly where that occurs in the IPCC reports please…I gave you my science reference that repeats the IPCC graphs that show this.

Warren
December 25, 2013 6:46 am

Bobl: you state that the site is science, not opinion, yet there is much of that is everywhere. Returning to the science, you state that co2 in the atmosphere has negative feedback. That is incorrect. The physics are this: co2 increases as temp increases in the Atmosphere, due to increased releases from the oceans. Increased CO2 increases the global warming effect in turn. So increased CO2 is both a cause and effect of increased atmospheric temperature, a classic positive feedback. This can be found in any science book dealing with The physics of Climate Change. This positive feedback, and the positive feedback of the albedo effect, and the positive feedback effect of water vapor, more than offset the negative feedback effects and provide a net positive climate sensitivity to Co2 increases.

Jim Cripwell
December 25, 2013 6:51 am

If I may be permitted to comment on the discussion between Warren and others. CAGW is a very viable hypothesis. There are all sorts of reasons to believe it could be true. There is no science to prove that it is wrong. People like Warren are very capable of writing about all the signs that CAGW is real. And he is correct.
HOWEVER, and there is always a however, however, there is no empirical data that allows us to actually measure the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, as it relates to the CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels. Once one realises that this empirical data does not exist, it follows, with all the inevitability of the inevitable, the CAGW will remain merely a hypothesis into the indefinite future. This conclusion is, of course, an anathema for people like Warren and Steven Mosher.
So the warmists will NEVER agree that the climate sensitivity of CO2 has not been measured; and probably cannot be measured. And, to me, that is the key issue in this discussion . It goes to the heart of the claims by the warmists like Warren and Steven Mosher, that CAGW is an indisputable fact. It is not.

Gail Combs
December 25, 2013 6:56 am

davidmhoffer says: @ December 24, 2013 at 7:39 pm
….. Does my citing Lovelock negate your cite of Mu[e]ller?
Ahah, yes Muller, an excellent example of the problem Lord Monckton is writing about.
“I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011
“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2006
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003″
From his consulting firm, Muller & Assoc.:
“…Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.
We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable…
and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well.
GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start. “
Perhaps having a Shell Oil President, Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil” as a Muller and Assoc as a member og the ‘Team’ might have something to do with all of Muller’s publicity shenanigans. – A puppet attached to Shell Oil with money strings comes to mind. Privately held consulting firms are so very very nice for hiding money trails aren’t they?
Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis
To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:
“…The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:
1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…”
No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. Tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.
Another player is David Hone who is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser, he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he’s succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith, SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.
Then there is John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”. John H. Loudon, a Dutchman, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001 club.
As another comment said FOLLOW THE MONEY if you can’t understand the science.

December 25, 2013 7:05 am

steven mosher (December 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm) “It an essay about truth the monktopus not only misquotes Keats, but he gets the meaning exactly backwards. I find that ironic. Further the point of science is not “truth” in its religious or philosophical sense. It’s far more pragmatic than that. The truth of science is contingent. The truth of religion, absolute.”
Mosher is correct. Science can only offer coherence of observations and theory, never truth. If a scientist wishes to pursue truth, they will only succeed in abstract math which has meager funding. The theory that the rise in CO2 is manmade is coherent with most observations and theory and warming from increased CO2 is likely although dependent on cooperation from the sun.
Committed CAGW zealots like Mike MacCracken http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change_1.pdf use phrases like “virtually certain” not to describe CO2 rises being manmade or CO2 increases causing warming in theory, but ““significant disruptions … are virtually certain to occur.” I note that phraseologists like MacCracken are always careful not to speak of “truth” despite the title of his article. Happer, who MacCracken was critiquing also carefully does lay claim to “truth”.
MacCracken’s claim of virtual certainty is propaganda intended for a public that does not understand the uncertainties in climate science much less the absolute uncertainty inherent in all of science.

Gail Combs
December 25, 2013 7:10 am

Max Hugoson says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Warren = Troll…that simple. Isn’t there a bridge to return to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
But trolls are so much fun to play with especially trolls who do not even know what AR3, AT4, and AR5 are yet tries to come of as knowledgeable..
I know, I know it isn’t nice to take candy from babies especially on Christmas day.

Warren
December 25, 2013 7:10 am

Bobl: a correction to my last sentence: “..a climate sensitivity greater than 1.0” rather than “positive climate sensitivity”

A C Osborn
December 25, 2013 7:14 am

Warren comes across just like a 20 something Greenie likeTythers on Energy Matters, Adam Berlingo on TallBloke’s Talkshop and my niece’s son. They all appear to have been brainwashed from their schooldays and through College/Uni, they all absolutely believe in Cagw and quote from the IPCC and their favourite warmist scientists.
They totally ignore any dissenting Data, finding excuses for not looking at it or for ignoring it.
They continually repeat their rehearsed “lines” rather than actually answering, just questions like politicians.
Well I have a very serious question for you Warren, you see I have these deeds to a Bridge in London, can I interest you in buying it for a measly £10,000?
I am sure once you own it you can put up toll booths and charge the motorists to cross it and very quickly recoup your £10,000 and from then on it is profit all the way.

Gail Combs
December 25, 2013 7:19 am

R Taylor says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Yes, democracy (Greek for rule by the herd) is the worst form of government, except for all the others….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I prefer a republic.

December 25, 2013 7:21 am

Science and religion are both the way to the truth……
in fact your beliefs will likely lead you on a way of independent research, and to not rest until the truth is asserted. That is hard work. Don’t expect to see many miracles without it:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/12/10/my-own-true-christmas-story/

Harry Passfield (AKA Snotrocket)
December 25, 2013 7:36 am

A very Merry Christmas to all!!
And doesn’t Warren give us cause to celebrate!?
I mean, Warren is a construct. He is probably a mix of SkS kids hoping that they can disrupt MoB’s Christmas essay. Well, I have news for Warren: I really like him/her/them/it being here. There constant poking at the science means that there is so much more for us to learn. The responses are GOLD! I learn more from them about the science, yet so much more about the warmist clan. Absolutely priceless!!
On another note. My NY resoluiton is to post under my family name. No more Snotrocket (a poor joke that got legs); I shall post as Harry Passfield in future. All the best!.

glenncz
December 25, 2013 7:43 am

re: Insurance
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Policy. Eg, carbon tax. Or similar.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
oh yes, that tax. the one that will decrease the temp by .006 in 90 years
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-estimates-its-greenhouse-gas-restrictions-would-reduce-global-temperature-no-more
These numbers came from our own EPA who is working so feverishly so we can save ourselves.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f
Top Middle Column
Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 (previously 0.007 to 0.016 °C) and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100
(previously 0.06–0.15cm).
Yes Warren, Let’s Do It. All it will take is Political Will and selfishness to shave .006C off the temp. (at least it’s Celcius and not F). And not let’s forget fixing .1cm of sea level rise.

December 25, 2013 7:48 am

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
– Friedrich Nietzsche

December 25, 2013 7:52 am

Christopher Monckton,
As to your sentiments expressed here on WUWT, which I assume are a sincere gesture of good will during this family and friend oriented holiday period, I return your sentiments. Happy holidays.
As to your discussion of mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) jusxtaposed with all aspects of philosophy ( metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, science, etc), it is merely irrelevant to climate science.
What is relevant to climate science versus either your Christian mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) or the mysticism of radical environmentalists is the general philosophical subject of demarcation of science from that which isn’t science. The demarcation is carried out by applied reasoning strictly without the aid of mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism).
As to your discussion of your moral mysticism (superstition / supernaturalism) and of the moral mysticism of radical environmentalists, both moral mystical approaches are equivalent in view of irrelevancy to applied reasoning that is science.
Happy Holidays to all WUWT folks: commenters; owner; moderators, contributors!!!
John

Bill Illis
December 25, 2013 7:55 am

Will increased CO2 increase the temperature of Earth and by how much?
It is the question.
How do you answer it?
A whole scientific discipline cobbled together a number of different physics/meteorological principles and came up with an estimate.
Then they decided to defend that estimate and the process used to arrive at it to significant extremes and never bothered to ask if it was right or not. In fact, if one bothered to ask if it was right or not, they got kicked out of the club.
It is not peer review, it is peer pressure.
This is not the way to answer an important question.

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2013 7:57 am

Warren;
And third, you continue to claim that the IPCC doesn’t show models confirming the uptick in 20th cent temps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said no such thing. I said that the models produced the past, but all their attempts at predicting the future have failed. I provided you links to the IPCC site and also to articles on the matter. A child can discern the difference in the predictions versus the observational results In fact, Cowtan and Way, two stalwarts of the supposed 99% you claim to be representative of, published an entire paper trying to explain away the models’ failure. They theorize that the models are wrong due to temperature changes in areas like the arctic regions where we have limited temperature data and can’t measure it. Kevin Trenberth, pretty much the top of the supposed 99% heap, head of WEGEX by acclamation, has theorized that heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans where we can’t measure it.
Your own side of the argument is scurrying around with increasingly bizarre explanations for the failure of the models.
Who should I believe Warren? You? Or the climate scientists?
I believe neither. I looked at the predictions made by the models at various points in time, and what the observational data after those points in time revealed.
[Snipped – strayed into the personal – mod]

Warren
December 25, 2013 7:58 am

Osborn: demonization is not argument and snark is not science. Until you figure this out, you’re unlikely to win in the Court of Reason.

Gail Combs
December 25, 2013 8:00 am

Warren says: @ December 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm
It seems this is a forum dominated by those who don’t accept peer reviewed scientific journals, the IPCC Assessments….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Warren we are in the main scientists and engineers. I am a chemist for example and if I took the trouble I could list more than 50 other contributors with scientific creds. . That means We Question This is because …Most Published Research Findings Are False [Another Peer reviewed paper :>) ]
Just because a paper made it into a peer reviewed journal does not mean IT IS THE TRUTH All it means is it doesn’t have any really obvious flaws the reviewers could easily pick out. And the reviewers who are looking at that paper are looking from the basis of their own hard held beliefs.
As the famous scientist Max Planck said “Truth never triumphs—its opponents just die out, science advances one funeral at a time.”
In 1980 J. Scott Armstrong, a marketing professor at the Wharton School, ran experiments and wrote up the results in Bafflegab Pays He also wrote The seer-sucker theory: the value of experts in forecasting as well as more formal peer-reviewed paper Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors
Dick Pothier whom my husband (physicist) took courses from wrote an article about this in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 1982.
Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals by Dick Pothier

..If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School: Choose an unimportant topic. Agree with existing beliefs. Use convoluted methods. Withhold some of your data. And write the whole thing in stilted, obtuse prose.
Armstrong, who is the editor of a new research publication called the Journal of Forecasting, offered the advice in a serious, scholarly article last month in the journal’s first issue. He said yesterday that he had studied the publication process in research journals for years.
“Although these rules clearly run counter to the goal of contributing to scientific knowledge — the professed goal of academic journals — they do increase a paper’s chance of being published,” Armstrong said.
“Some readers may feel that the suggestions here … are extreme,” he wrote in his article. “However, they provide a description of many papers published in the social sciences…. It is not by accident that intelligent and successful scientists produce such work.” Armstrong surveyed dozens of recent studies on how articles in such journals get published, and the result, he said, “was rather depressing, if our job is to get that research information out and have the readers benefit from it.”…

In short you better agree with the big shots in academia if you want a paper published. Ground breaking work is not wanted. The saga of the discovery by Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshal, that a bacteria caused peptic ulcers is a classic example of acadamia to new ideas.

A C Osborn
December 25, 2013 8:08 am

Warren says: December 25, 2013 at 7:58 am
Osborn: demonization is not argument and snark is not science. Until you figure this out, you’re unlikely to win in the Court of Reason.
Warren, to Demonize – “portray as wicked and threatening”, whereas I portray you as naive and gullible, that says it all about you.
You have no court of reason, so there is no point in mentioning it, you only have the “Religion” of CAGW.

Warren
December 25, 2013 8:13 am

Davidmhoffer; re: are continued exchange on the models on the models. I read back through our postings. In many of our exchanges, it’s clear that you were were arguing about the confidence in the models future projections, whereas I was referring to the Wolfson lectures( which, if you will check, are not marketing but Physics) on the accuracy of the models with respect to duplicating the 20th century hockey stick. You missed my point, and I missed yours. So I need to read your link with that in mind, and you need to listen to the Wolfson lectures with my point in mind. We can compare findings after the Christmas holidays, if you want.

Bruce Cobb
December 25, 2013 8:17 am

@ Warren; The Court of Reason? Your own arguments have included the following logical fallacies: Argument from Authority, Appeal to Consensus, Ad Hominem, and Straw Man, to name a few. You don’t seem to understand what actual science is, or more importantly, what it isn’t, though you pretend to, and that is why you receive snark and flak.

Ted Swart
December 25, 2013 8:17 am

AlLI can say is that I think Monckton spoils his excellent critiques of the CAGW alarmists inscientific nonsense by trying to couple science and religion. His Roman Catholic religion may mean much to him but there are myriads of skeptics for which this is not the case. This in no way dimishes our concern that dishonesty i\on science undemrines the supposed scienec from the inside. Some skeptics are Catholics, some adhere to other branches of the Christian religion, some are theists in other ways, some are deists, some are atheists, some are agnostics, and many have no religios affiliation.
The thing that binds us all together is an unswerving commitment to truth and openenss on the part of scientists.
The hypotheis of CO2 caussed dangerous warming is quite simply a terrible and costly mistke. Al Gore’s inconvenient truth is nothing other than an inconvenient blunder. If the belivers had welcomed skeptics instead of trying to ostracise them we would have arrived at the truth a long time.ago. Nature has been kind enough to highlight the ineptness of the computer models and the sooner this is more widely accepted the better.

Peter Miller
December 25, 2013 8:19 am

Warren is the same guy as ‘Michael the Realist’ who appeared on Jo Nova recently, the same tedious pretentious mutterings, mostly modelled on the Global Warming Cult’s tired old mantras, or arguing black is white.
Ignore him, let him go back to his lonely little fantasy world.

December 25, 2013 8:23 am

Daniel H says December 25, 2013 at 4:16 am
… the official “science” wing of the faith-based Vatican:

Please, Daniel, in the spirit of the season can we address this at a later date?
I would at that time be glad to engage on this and related subjects.
Merry Christmas.
.

davidmhoffer
December 25, 2013 8:26 am

Warren;
You missed my point, and I missed yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didn’t miss your point at all. Nice attempt at a face saving retreat though.

Robert in Calgary
December 25, 2013 8:30 am

A Christmas Present for Warren who really, really needs it.
You’ll have to buy it for yourself to make up for all your silly posts in this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Skeptic-Comprehensive-Earths-Climate/dp/0984782915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387988873&sr=1-1&keywords=the+inconvenient+skeptic

December 25, 2013 8:33 am

cynical_scientist say December 25, 2013 at 4:00 am

More seriously I assert that one can be a very moral person and also an atheist.

Hence, the existence of the animal kingdom; man is in the predicament of bridging a gap between two ‘worlds’, for why do we feel such pain or experience the exuberance of beauty in art and other works on occasion? Pure animals never experience such joy … (re: animals – happy, yes, joy is another thing.)
Merry Christmas.
.

silver ralph
December 25, 2013 8:37 am

Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 5:20 am
My main point was that true religion, however inadequately and imperfectly, insists upon morality and, therefore, intellectual honesty.
_____________________________________________
Christian morality? You do jest, surely. The bible says:
kill anyone not listening to priests. Deut 13:5
kill homosexuals. Levit 20:13
kill anyone who hits their father. Lev 21:15
kill followers of other religions. Ex 22:19
kill everyone in a town, if one person worships another god. Deu 13:13-19
kill brides who are not virgins. Deu 22:20-21
Is that the sort of morality you want in Western society? I would hope that most of us have moved on from that sort of Dark Age morality, because we now have man’s superior secular morality.
ralph

bobl
December 25, 2013 8:40 am

@Warren,
You clearly don’t understand feedback, you just parrot what you think you understand from a book. Let’s look at some negative feedbacks.
1. the suns rays hit the ground, the ground heats up, the ground radiates most of that heat back to space through the IR transparent spectrum region of the atmosphere, the radiation is proportional to the cube of the temperature of the surface, a classic negative feedback.
2. The surface heats up from the sun, depending on the temperature of the surface the rate of evaporation increases, evaporation consumes 2250 Kj of energy per kg of water evaporated – negative feedback.
3. the heat of the surface rises, Ice at the poles melts, 333Kj of energy is absorbed per Kg of ice melting – negative feedback.
I could go on, but I wont.
Negative feedbacks don’t subtract, they divide, so while the direct effect of CO2 is say 1 degree, the negative feedbacks absorb or otherwise remove 80 percent of that, they divide it by 5. leaving 0.2 degrees. The IPCC and your book though say the Net effect feedback rather than dividing by 5 multiplies by 3. To get to the IPCC and your books number after negative feedbacks are applied requires a positive feedback overriding the negative feedbacks in play, and a further multiple of 3. 3×5 is 15, so to meet the IPCC and your books overall gain of 3 there needs to exist exist positive feedbacks of 15, that’s a loop gain of 0.95, which is near as impossible.
Being an engineer I know lots about feedback. it gets even more complicated than this, but that’s the basics.
Your precautionary argument is also poor. We are currently pulling out of a little ice age which occured in the 1800s. That point was about 0.7 degrees, below current. The little ice age, caused hunger, disease and death that killed half the population of Europe. We are a mere 0.7 degrees away from that. More CO2 and warmth increases our food supply, while less CO2 and warmth reduces it, till in conditions like the LIA crops fail, further you would take away the very tool humans use to survive cold, – reliable energy. In which direction lies safety, clearly the precautionary principle tells us that we must err on the warm side, and we must be prepared for similar conditions to that already experienced in the LIA in the future with a reliable, çheap energy supply.
You did not comment on my other points demonstrating the inconsistency of IPCC sensitivity estimates to historical facts.
Warren, you are at a crossroad, you can either blindly follow your faith in others, or you can become a responsible environmentalist by checking the facts for yourself and making up your own mind, issue by issue, greens lie to you just like everyone else in order to get their own way. I don’t ask for your belief, I ask only that you be critical and check the math for yourself. If you can’t or won’t then I am sorry, for you will remain ignorant.

Pat Frank