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.
Warren;
To the shouts of loud Hoorays from the site, I give up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You may be surprised. I’d welcome you to stay. In fact, I did so several times up thread. I invited you to participate in some of the threads devoted to in depth analysis of climate science papers. Seems like you’ve declined. I invited you to discuss the science on several matters. You declined. You made assertions that myself and others responded to with explanations and links to data and various papers, and invited you to discuss them. You declined. You provided no evidence, discussed no science, engaged in nothing but argument from authority. When it was pointed out to you that the very scientists you purport to agree with are themselves admitting that the models are invalid and searching for reasons why, you changed the subject. As you did every single time someone made a valid point that you had no response to.
If you would bother to accept my invitation, you’d see just how hotly the science is debated on this site. But none or so blind as those who will not see. Your loss.
Mark Bofill & davidmhoffer,
I agree, doubled and squared.
Warren says: “…the overwhelming consensus among the professional scientific organizations of the world…” &etc. …the usual Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Warren has simply lost the debate, that’s all. But rather than being a class act, Warren goes off in a huff. If he had been able to answer any of the questions asked of him, then Warren would have had at least a semi-credible argument. But he had no answers — only his baseless assertions.
Warren is typical of the alarmist cult. He Believes, and he really believes that alone is sufficient.
Maybe it is… for Warren. But for true scientific skeptics, there is the need for verifiable, testable science. Neither Warren, not PJ, nor Margaret has ever posted any such evidence.
Thus, they have all lost the debate. Now, they will retreat to their alarmist blogs, and give their one-sided accounts.
But the reality is that none of them have posted any testable, measurable evidence to support their belief system. They have all failed to post any convincing scientific evidence.
But they can still do so! IF they want to. The ball is still in their court. Because skeptics are always ready to be convinced — with real, verifiable evidence.
@dp 7:54, True but warren was entertaining, most regulars here recognize The good lord’s points, most of us are sceptical of CAGW because we did ask a “Warren” ;”But is it true?”
I was appalled and annoyed by the angry,asinine answers I received.
The everybody knows, nonsense,which I have come to understand means no one has thought about it.
So troll baiting is a fine winter solstice sport, each and every authoritarian statement of knowledge reveals a precious ignorance.
Margret, Climate a** and Warren turned up to reinforce Moncktons description of their behaviour, so hardly hijacking the thread, they are 1/2 the thread.
John Robertson,
As I said in a previous post, it’s ironic that they should choose a thread on scientific integrity, to emerge with arguments of little scientific iintegrity, and no “lust” for the objective truth, in doing so they have proven the good Lord’s point for him. I find it interesting that just when I nailed Warren with his own facts about the 33 deg supposed GHE (actually gas law) warming, that’s the time he chooses to wrap his tail under and run away, of course without answering the question first.
I am a bit suspicious that M might have a fan club, and we’ve just met the groupies.
@davidmhoffer…
Regarding atmospheric blanketing effect, as I understand it, about 23 degrees is due to the lapse rate and about 10 attributed to GHE. My post, attributing it all to CO2 was grossly simplified for Warren’s consumption, since he is convinced that all the 33 degrees was due to GHE, then I used his own logic to expose the fact that the IPCC reckons the 15 % warming left in CO2 is predicted to cause 10 times the warming his own assertion says it caused in the past, this approach simplifies the math and makes the point even if the sensitivity number it delivers is too high. Giving him the true math would have been a leap for him, and discussion would have been stuck on the amount of warming attributable to GHE, despite the fact that even using the grossly overstated GHE of 33 degrees, the IPCC is claiming it’ll happen at ten times that rate in the future without evidence to back that claim.
You are clearly correct though, if we attribute CO2 and feedbacks only 10 degrees of the 33 dehree total warming for 85 percent absorption, then in fact the historical warming rate is only 10/85 per percent energy intercepted – about 0.12 degrees per percent IR interception, and if we attribute only 80% of the GHE component to CO2 and feedbacks, (as you assert) sensitivity falls out at 8/85 or about 0.095 degrees per percent IR intercepted by CO2. On this basis a 100 percent absorbing CO2 atmosphere would deliver 0.095 x 100 or 9.5 degrees total GHE, when added to the 2 degrees contributed by ozone etc, comes out at 11.5 degrees total.
Based on this difference between blackbody and average temperature the maximum warming for a entirely CO2 atmosphere (at 101.3 kPa) is 1.5 degrees which converts to about 1.5/13 or about 0.12 degrees per doubling since there are about 13 doublings to get from 400 PPM to 100% CO2.
Note, I do know that a 100 % CO2 atmosphere isn’t 100 % absorbing, but it’s close enough for our purposes.
Would be happy to explore this further with you if you’re interested.
bobl;
about 0.12 degrees per percent IR interception
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uhm… not certain I am understanding you correctly, but if I am…. no. Absorption of IR is 100%. In fact, it is 100% millions of times. A photon emitted at surface in the IR spectrum has no free path to space. It must be absorbed and re-emitted many many times before it finally works its way up to an altitude where it has a free path to space.
RE: WARREN
For those who are upset and feel that the discussion with Warren hijacked the thread, sorry, that wasn’t my intent, nor I think, was it of any of the others who engaged with Warren. But engaging with people like Warren is important. Without them, this is just an echo chamber. Sometimes a warmist drops in and scores a point or two. That’s a very important part of the debate. People like Warren serve a twofold purpose. One is that we just might be wrong, and we need actual debate to test our beliefs. The second is that it is illuminating to see how people like Warren think. Having the discussion with him prepares us for discussions with people whose positions are not yet entrenched because we know more about the propaganda people like Warren are throwing at them.
‘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.’
I think that religion is only something of longevity if its fundamental tenets are inherently unamenable to scientific busting of the hypotheses. The only person who can truly answer whether Jesus’ mother was a virgin receiving an immaculate conception from God has been dead for 2000 years. If there is any written testimony, it still wouldn’t prove things. It is a central tenet of Christianity. The only people who could have witnessed Christ ‘rising from the dead’ have been dead an equally long time. There was no video technology, DNA fingerprinting and no TV stations to record conversations with a resurrected Christ for posterity.
The crisis religion is going through now is, perversely, due to science catching up with many of its previous mores. IVF technology, Stem Cell technology, for a start. Religions which deny the benefits of such technologies are likely to become niches. Most normal people will want to benefit from them. The internet changes the nature of the clergy, making them no longer a unique fount of wisdom but having to compete with anyone with a broadband connection and a well-rounded mind.
Religion will need to fundamentally reformulate itself around the realities of security technology, internet technology and the power of physics, astronomy etc etc. The world described in the Bible is not like the modern one.
Whether it will do it, or whether new organisations will come in to fill the void, who knows??
I don’t see those born in 1990 or beyond bowing down to the old order, though.
Engaging people like Warren is as important as engaging squirrels who steal your bird seed. Nothing important can come from it. Don’t fool yourself that you are doing the good work of keeping the climate pool clean in this contest. They are many and you are few. They are motivated and funded to divert you to a lost cause and this entire thread is evidence of their success. You’ve been had. Epic fail predictably followed. Smack your forehead and move on. Don’t do it again, stupid really is as stupid does, stop giving Warren Anthony’s audience.
davidmhoffer,
Lord M didn’t seem to worried.
Re, your point, yes a photon is remitted many times but at certain wavelengths there is a dip in the emission spectrum, a portion of the photons emitted by the surface never make it back out to space. at the absorbtion lines for CO2, the atmosphere is about 85% opaque. If the photon is merely reemitted as you say, then the atmosphere would be transluscent, the emission would still be the same, on average, no IR would be converted to heat and there would not be a greenhouse effect. But its not, at these frequencies some of the photons are indeed extracted and converted to another form. As the CO2 concentration increases the atmosphere would become more opaque and the energy extracted in the absorbtion bands increases. But this process has its limit, once all the outgoing IR in the absorbtion band is removed, there can be no more warming, that is simple energy conservation.
The warmists have made up an excuse to get out of this connundrum too, that is to permit the energy absorbed to exceed 100 percent of that in the absorbtion band, but my understanding of the physics says they are wrong, unless one allows the atmosphere to exceed 101.3 kPa, IE CO2 adds to the bulk of the atmosphere, oxidising carbon doesn’t do that, because for each CO2 added there is one O2 removed.
In any case, by any mechanism, there is no justification for expecting that future GHE will occur at a greater rate (with respect to intercepted energy percentage) than past GHE which can be estimated to be some amount less than 33 degrees.
Hmm, interesting thought occured to me writing that last Post, while burning hydrocarbons exchanges a CO2 for an O2, many natural processes like vulcanism don’t, those processes add to the depth of the atmosphere and cause gas law (lapse rate) heating and GHE so volcanic CO2 is doubly bad for the planet…. too bad it’s “Natural” eh!
Wow, Christopher – you sure know how to write up a storm. What a response. You really are the greatest showman in the whole debate. Keep up the good fight and Merry Christmas from a fan.
dp says:
“Engaging people like Warren is as important as engaging squirrels who steal your bird seed. Nothing important can come from it.”
Wrong, dp. The good that comes of it is letting other readers see the opposing arguments. You may understand the debate, but some of those just tuning in might be swayed by Warren’s anti-science nonsense.
That is the real value of WUWT: everyone gets to see all sides of the debate, and they can then make up their minds. That’s also the reason that alarmist blogs censor skeptical opinions. They do not want readers to see any other point of view but their own.
Once again, many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread, even the trolls. They should know that if they are able to come up with genuine arguments they will be heard with respect.
Those who have argued for Protestantism or against Catholicism have missed the point of the head posting, which was that men of religion are united in their belief that it is right to act morally and to seek and state the truth. That is a belief: it cannot be proven scientifically. And yet without that belief there is a danger that science itself will not function properly. The global warming scare, and the behavior of some of the trolls here, shows what can happen when there is no moral belief in the value of truth itself.
Exactly the point I made earlier, undoubtedly the churches set common standards for behaviour and morals, regardless of whether you belive the religious mantra. On this they have done a common good, despite a somewhat bloody history.
Now I am not a religious believer, I would describe myself as agnostic I suppose, but I do see the good the church has done in setting behavioural standards for societies. It underpins the west’s success, and science has flourished due to that basic tenet – seek the truth. Thank you for the article, it was great “food for thought”.
“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
-Romans 5:1-2
The love of God in you says this: It’s not what you do that makes you important, it’s not what you have that makes you important, and it’s not what people say about you that makes you important. It’s just the simple fact that you’re God’s beloved child. He says, “I love you and I’m well pleased in you. I take pleasure in you. All of this is for you, your brothers, and sisters, whom I love and adore.”
It seems too simple. I know God loves me. Well, I suppose he loves me…if I do this, if I accomplish that, or if I have this. He loves me if I’ve completed enough things on his love list.
But, it’s not like that. That’s what grace is – the unmerited love, pleasure, and favor of God on you, regardless of what you do, what people say about you, what you have, what you accomplish or don’t accomplish in your life.
Nothing brings peace like God’s grace-filled love in our lives.
There’s a part in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus talks about loving your enemies who hate you, and turning the other cheek. He finishes by saying, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We could interpret that to mean that there’s a list of rules that we need to follow perfectly, but what Jesus is saying is to “be shalom.” Be at peace. Be perfected in the sense of being made whole, being made new, being a new creation.
Prayer: Dear Lord, pull up the roots of our fears, failures, and hopelessness. Replant me in the good soil of your love, making me whole, complete, at peace, and able to grow and flourish in your kingdom on earth. Thank you for the love you have for me – unearned favor from you that has nothing to do with my accomplishments or my failures. I have peace through your grace-filled love in my life. Amen.
Note that according to my various calculations we have 7 years left before the main droughts in northern America at the higher latitude >40 will begin. I am sure it is enough time for us to sound the alarm bells, as I am sure global cooling will become more and more apparent, as we get nearer to 2021.
I am wishing all WUWT staff and commenters, whether believers, atheists, agnostics, cAGW, AGW or non AGW, or NGC (natural global cooling), a prosperous 2014.
May you find the truth / Truth that you have been looking for.
“Those who have argued for Protestantism or against Catholicism have missed the point of the head posting, which was that men of religion are united in their belief that it is right to act morally and to seek and state the truth.”
But sir, the data is against you – overwhelmingly so. Just to take one data point: Atheists are around 10% (VERY conservative) of the US population, yet less than 0.5% of the US inmates are atheists. I’m sure someone can tie themselves up in knots and come up with some convoluted explanation for this – just like when CAGW believers try to explain away blindingly obvious data that goes “the wrong way”.
In some ways I envy people like Lord Monckton. He knows how it feels to believe things, truly believe, for which there is no supporting data. This must give an unique window into understanding how someone can believe, truly believe, that the models perfectly predict measured temperatures, even when looking at the graphs with their own eyes, and even when the scientists themselves admit that they do not. Us heathens without the believer gene can just grab another beer from the fridge and watch it all unfold without ever having the faintest clue about what on earth is going on inside these peoples’ skulls.
James Abbott says:
December 24, 2013 at 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.
So James who is your god and have you made peace with him?
“Engaging people like Warren is as important as engaging squirrels who steal your bird seed. Nothing important can come from it.”
It did for me.
I’m not a scientist and I am not very smart. But I own, and have owned my own businesses for the last 45 years. What I have learned in the last half century is that I detest government agencies who take, and then waste, the money that I pay them every year…it’s substabtial as you all know. It’s also how I became interested in AGW, (local, vocal activists wanting more of my money). I did the best I could fighting the propaganda and new laws but lost a lot battles from ignorance and a lack of scientific facts. Then I stumbled on WUWT. Game changer. Took a while. But I learned. So, in my circle of family, friends, employees, and business associates I am now capable of defending the position of not wasting money on a wrong belief in cAGW. It has had a noticable, local influence.Not because I am smart, but because I have basic facts, and have learned the play book of the other side. And, that, is the benefit of engaging the “Warrens” on this web site. I have learned more from the comments than the articles. No offense to Mr. Monckton, or to Warren. I also figure there are a lot of others out there like me who visit a lot but don’t say a lot. So, my compliments and thanks to all the regular contributors here at WUWT. As Tarzan would say; “Learning good, propaganda bad”.
Ron Richey
You may understand the debate, but some of those just tuning in might be swayed by Warren’s anti-science nonsense. That is the real value of WUWT: everyone gets to see all sides of the debate, and they can then make up their minds. That’s also the reason that alarmist blogs censor skeptical opinions. They do not want readers to see any other point of view but their own.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well said!
bobl;
If the photon is merely reemitted as you say, then the atmosphere would be transluscent, the emission would still be the same, on average, no IR would be converted to heat and there would not be a greenhouse effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
But at the IR frequencies, the atmosphere is opaque. Further, the GHE is not dependent on conversion of IR to heat. At equilibrium, the effective black body temperature of earth is precisely the same after CO2 doubles as it is before. The difference is that the atmospheric air column becomes colder at the top and warmer at the bottom. The GHE is entirely dependent on a redistribution of the energy fluxes in the system.
Consider a glass bowl half full of water. Put a mark on the bowl at the water level. Now take a spoon and stir the water until it is spinning around in the bowl very quickly. Pull the spoon out, and note the level of the water in the bowl. It will be higher. Now, is there more water in the bowl? Obviously not, in fact we could argue that there is less water in the bowl as some of it stuck to the spoon. While the level of the water at the edge is higher, the level at the centre is lower but the average is the same. This is a rather imperfect analogy on a lot of levels. I recommend the series by Ira Glickstein on this site for a more detailed examination of the processes.
Well written, thought provoking and too close to the truth to be aired in a mainstream media who have taken journalism into the gutter. There was little point in previous generations sacrificing themselves for free speech and democracy when we have to suffer the biggest scam of modern times.
A few responses.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 27, 2013 at 4:50 am
“Margaret Hardman says she believes in “multiple lines of evidence” for catastrophism, but fails to mange to mention even one. She then wilfully misstates my argument in the head posting. I had not said catastrophism was a religion but a quasi-religious superstition.”
Interesting that you say I mistate your argument since you have mistated mine. I did not use the word catastrophism, nor did I say I believe in multiple lines of evidence. Here are my words: “Perhaps you can explain why you believe I and millions of others around the world are mistaken in looking at multiple lines of evidence from multiple sets of data and concluding that humans are causing a measurable proportion of global warming?” I use the word “concluding”.
As for mistating the religious aspect. Here is what I think any sensible person would take as a key statement in your piece: 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.” It is difficult to interpret in any way other than to conclude you wish to argue that acceptance of anthropogenic global warming or even catastrophic warming is faith based. Nowhere in your piece can I find the term quasi-religious superstition although you use it in two comments. If it is what you meant then you should have said so at the time.
You go on to add: “I had not said that because it was a superstition scientists should be more moral: I said that science in the absence of a commonly-accepted moral yardstick that religion can provide is prone to the corruption that has been evident in the global warming scare.” It does not follow that absence of religion necessarily leads to absence of morals. It does not follow that adherence to religion leads to acceptance of morals. I am sure you disown the crimes committed and covered up within the Catholic church in historic times. I do not accept that the “absence of a commonly-accepted moral yardstick that religion can provide is prone to the corruption that has been evident in the global warming scare.” There are many religions to which one can subscribe and many have different morals to yours. Does that mean scientists who are, for example, Moonies, Mormons, Scientologists, Jews or Muslims are necessarily corrupt? I don’t believe you mean this and I don’t believe you meant to write what you did. If you did then it is disquieting.
Finally, I notice you decide to use the word “troll” as in “The trolls have had a more than usually decisive spanking in this thread.” My understanding of the word “troll” is someone who disagrees with me. In that case, I am happy to be a troll.
Warren says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:39 am
“Margaret Hardman: you will have zero impact on dbstealey by referring him to the IPCC reports.”
Agreed.
HenryP says:
December 27, 2013 at 8:03 am
“So, Warren and Margaret, I hope you will finally see how silly you are, quoting the majority who think they know and not listening to those who really know.
Global cooling is coming.
Live with it.”
Henry, I’ve listened but remain unconvinced by the arguments of those you tell me “really know”. I am, first of all, confused as to which piece of the ‘science’ presented on this site I am supposed to accept. There are a good many hypotheses presented but none of them appear to be part of the complete weft of science and its laws and principles as they are commonly understood. This isn’t quoting the majority – it is looking at science as a whole.
davidmhoffer says:
December 27, 2013 at 9:42 am
“Warren;
I’m 71 years old, have a masters degree in engineering from Cornell university,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I call bullsh*t. No one with that level of technical training would get so completely over his head on simple matters like comparing model predictions to observational data. Not to mention repeating claims that have already been thoroughly debunked upthread as if they were the start of a brand new conversation and what had already been discussed never existed.”
David, you have summed up my bemusement with the regular posters at this site. When presented with an argument supported with evidence, usually from peer reviewed science, the consensus on this site is to find reasons to disbelieve it no matter how watertight that evidence is. Perhaps you and others here can read the literature properly.
HarveyS says:
December 27, 2013 at 10:02 am
“@warren,@PJ Clark,@Margaret. Sorry as others have pointed out the models are not doing just fine, they are in fact garbage. But then data and facts are not your strong points, there is plenty of data on this site alone that shows why they are not.”
I suppose it depends on what your criteria are but I suspect that unless they are a perfect fit, you will not be convinced. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence to suggest that most of the models are doing just fine. Agree to disagree.
“In fact you like appeals to authority so much go look Dr Judith Curry’s site she tells the same story. I am damn sure she knows more about climate than you 3 put together.”
She probably does, but I can’t remember appealing to authority.
dbstealey says:
December 27, 2013 at 10:47 am
“A couple observations, dp: first, it is Warren who got ‘owned’ here. Or didn’t you notice? We’re still waiting for some real world corroboration of his beliefs. And second: some of us like putting people like Warren, Margaret, and PJ in their place. ☺
…oh, and I almost forgot about Margaret Hardman. …heh.”
No more than I’d expect from dbstealey. Nice to see you are more concerned about the truth than bloodsports.
bobl says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“Consider a lemon
CO2, Combines with water and light, and heat energy to create a lemon through photosynthesis, I then take that lemon and insert a copper and aluminium electrode and Whala, I can extract electricity from the lemon, the world is truly amazing”
Truly amazing. I would, however, recommend you learn a little more biology before you tell me again that CO2 combines with water and light and heat energy to create a lemon through photosynthesis. As you must know, a lemon is a long way away from being created by photosynthesis. For a brilliant popular book on the subject, read ‘Eating The Sun’ by Oliver Morton. I predict you will learn how truly amazing the world is.
Warren says:
December 27, 2013 at 7:16 pm
“PJClarke and Margaret Hardiman:: Thanks for your commentaries. I am also saying goodby because there’s no point in devoting further time to this small but true believing cadre of skeptics.”
Warren, there is always point. Firstly, there are more people who lurk here or who visit here out of genuine interest in what the truth is who will see, one, that there are alternative explanations for what is presented here if there are those, like yourself, you choose to post them, and, two, who will be dismayed and possibly influenced by the manner in which some commenters here choose to deal with the arguments proposed by people like PJ or yourself. Not everyone is totally committed to being a contrarian as far a climate science is concerned. I came here first as an agnostic on this matter. I checked with other sources, printed, web based and so on, to see whether what is presented here is correct. Upon that basis, I made up my mind. I am sure I am not unique. I can understand from the treatment you have had that you aren’t willing to continue and I respect that.
john robertson says:
December 27, 2013 at 8:59 pm
“So troll baiting is a fine winter solstice sport, each and every authoritarian statement of knowledge reveals a precious ignorance.
Margret, Climate a** and Warren turned up to reinforce Moncktons description of their behaviour, so hardly hijacking the thread, they are 1/2 the thread.”
Written without an iota of irony. I turned up to challenge Monckton’s description of the behaviour of climate scientists – indeed the characterisation of scientists in general, by extension of his argument that only religion, and presumably only his religion can provide the necessary moral framework. It is an assertion that I do not accept. I am lead to understand that Lord Monckton welcomes the challenge. He has not answered it adequately in my opinion, since, as I say at the top of this lengthy comment, he has misstated my argument.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:05 am
“Those who have argued for Protestantism or against Catholicism have missed the point of the head posting, which was that men of religion are united in their belief that it is right to act morally and to seek and state the truth. That is a belief: it cannot be proven scientifically. And yet without that belief there is a danger that science itself will not function properly. The global warming scare, and the behavior of some of the trolls here, shows what can happen when there is no moral belief in the value of truth itself.”
Upon what do you feel you are able to judge one’s moral beliefs? Or, put another way, which Gospel tells the truth about Jesus’s life? I don’t want to hijack the thread to get that answered, more to pose a philosophical question about religious truth. The Gospels have differing details.
Finally, to James Abbott.
This is a long shot but does Rivenhall mean anything to you?
I shall end here. The asserted equivalence between religion and science (name your branch, I’ve seen it used in relation to evolution, consciousness, climate and much else besides) is a rhetorical device used to make it easier to dismiss the science. After all, if it is shown (erroneously) that the science is faith based, well, you don’t have to worry about the actual science itself, its laws, principles, data, equations and the rest. You can wave it away as just another belief. As someone versed in the classics, Monckton knows this.
Is warren this chap:
MBA from Cornell…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Staley
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=567427&privcapId=5479356&previousCapId=5479356&previousTitle=Cargill%20SA/NV
Steve Richards says:
“””””””””””””””””””””””‘
Cattywampus, shoo fly….
bobl says:
December 25, 2013 at 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.”
No not a feed back-back at all – but a natural law. S-B, as you know.
FYI: A feedback is something that amplifies or attenuates an effect. What you describe are just transformations of energy from one form to another and they do not feed-back to have an effect on energy that follows afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“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.”
No, not a feed-back – but a natural law – LH.
A feedback is something that amplifies or attenuates an effect. What you describe are just transformations of energy from one form to another and they do not feed-back to have an effect on energy that follows afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“3. the heat of the surface rises, Ice at the poles melts, 333Kj of energy is absorbed per Kg of ice melting – negative feedback.”
No not a negative feed-back – a natural Law.
A feedback is something that amplifies or attenuates an effect. What you describe are just transformations of energy from one form to another and they do not feed-back to have an effect on energy that follows afterwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I could go on, but I wont.
No please, don’t, as you’ve got it wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
A Feed-back is a feed-back. It causes an amplification/attenuation in the original driver. Eg Solar reflected increases due build up of snow/ice fields. Eg warming increases due increase of CO2 outgassing from oceans, which in turn causes more outgassing as the earth moves to a more favourable orbit re NH insolation, further fed-back via an increase in (absolute) WV content. Whatever the amplification/attenuation may be eg. x1.5, x2.2 or x0.5 or x0.02.
A true feed-back is a loop of the SAME driver and not a conversion of energy via natural physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being an engineer I know lots about feedback. it gets even more complicated than this, but that’s the basics.
Being a retired Meteorologist – I know lots about the weather/climate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
We are not pulling out of an IA at all as the LIA wasn’t one. IA’s are caused by orbital characteristics (Milankovitch cycles) and the last perturbation actually favoured NH warming (Holocene Climatic Optimum). The LIA was caused by a combination of low solar (enhanced -AO during winter) causing southward spill of Arctic air over Europe + enhanced volcanic activity increasing albedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would say the same to you on Warren’s behalf, if I may be so presumptuous.
Well, let’s look at feedbacks.
Positive Feedback is a response of the system is in the same direction as the initial disturbance, thus exaggerating the disturbance. Examples: Blood Clotting, Childbirth
Negative Feedback is a response of the system is in the opposite direction as the initial disturbance, thus counteracting the disturbance. Examples: Thermoregulation
Popular climate science calls for positive feedbacks. This is junk science with no basis in reality not unlike much psychology and virtually all sociology.