Monckton: Of meteorology and morality

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

Amen.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Merry Christmas everyone.

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

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.

Merry Christmas Christopher!

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.

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

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.

“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.)

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

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 😉

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?

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……

@ 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!

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 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 😉

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.

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?

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.

Brilliant.
Merry Christmas to all.

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?

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

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

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)

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

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

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………..

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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”

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’?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

“…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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

” 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
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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.