By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
At The Conversation, a taxpayer-funded propaganda website based in Australia, Dr Rod Lamberts has suggested that in the climate debate those pushing the Party Line should disregard the mere facts and should advance their invaluable opinions instead.
He writes that Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, Andrew Bolt, Australia’s chief sceptic, and one Monckton, Australia’s honorary visiting sceptic, should not be heeded, for we are mere “deniers” (that hate-speech word again).
I wrote the following article in reply, but The Conversation refused to publish it.
Their ground was that a mere expert reviewer for the IPCC with several reviewed publications to his credit did not have sufficient academic qualifications to be allowed to reply to a personal attack accusing him by name of lying and inviting an odious comparison with Holocaust deniers.
They told me that the site was for academics who could not get the sort of publicity I can get. They pretend to believe it is easier for skeptics than for true-believers to air their point of view.
I have replied that, if The Conversation will not allow me to answer this or any of numerous other unpleasant and often libellous personal attacks, other than in comments under the head postings, the matter will have to be dealt with in different and more impartial forum.
In the meantime, here is the article The Conversation dared not print.
In science, facts are all, opinions nothing
Rod Lamberts argues that in the climate debate opinion should supplant fact: “The time for fact-based arguments is over”.
He echoes the chair of the Climate Change Authority in suggesting that sceptics – whom he implicitly compares with Holocaust deniers by labelling them “deniers” – are circulating “deliberate misinformation”.
He says: “Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them.”
So much easier than answering us fact for fact.
Since Mr Lamberts names me, albeit in honourable company, let me reply with a dozen key facts.
Fact 1. There has been no global warming for up to 17 years 6 months.
True, one might argue that the mean of all five major global-temperature datasets shows no warming for only 13 years; or that no uncertainty interval is shown; or that the warming lurks in the deep ocean; or that natural cooling temporarily overwhelms manmade warming. Yet for well over a decade the atmosphere has not warmed, notwithstanding CO2 increases unprecedented in 800,000 years. No model predicted that as its best estimate.
Even Dr Pachauri, the IPCC’s climate-science chair, admitted the 17-year “pause” in Melbourne last year.
Fact 1 casts doubt on models’ predictive skill, leading to Fact 2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for which I am an expert reviewer, has explicitly substituted its own “expert assessment” for the models on which it formerly relied, cutting its predicted warming over 30 years by almost a third from 0.7 to 0.5 Cº. It has moved significantly towards the sceptics whom Mr Lamberts disfiguringly excoriates as “deniers”.
Fact 3. The uncertainty intervals in all the key climate datasets are uncommonly large. In physics, every measurement is subject to uncertainty. The uncertainty in the RSS satellite temperature dataset is so great that there may have been no warming for 25 years.
Fact 4. Likewise, we cannot measure ocean heat content precisely. Since the atmosphere is not warming, the ocean – 1000 times denser and right next door – is probably not warming much either. On such measurements as we have, it is warming at one-sixth the model-predicted rate.
Fact 5. By the same token, we cannot measure whether the ocean is becoming less alkaline. All we can say is that mean pH is 7.8-8.4, with still wider coastal variations. The acid-base balance cannot change much: the oceans are overwhelmingly buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie.
Given measurement uncertainties, any assertion that “the science is settled” is meaningless.
It is trivially true that returning CO2 to the atmosphere whence it came will – other things being equal – cause warming. But the central question in the climate debate is “How much?” The answer, so far, is “Very little”. The world has warmed by just 0.7 Cº in the 60 years since 1954.
Yet in the previous 60 years, when our influence was negligible, the world had warmed by 0.5 Cº. The supposedly massive influence of Man has pushed up the warming rate by the equivalent of a third of a Celsius degree per century, and that is all.
In central England, a good proxy for global temperature (over the past 120 years the warming rate in the region was within 0.01 Cº of the global rate) the warming rate was equivalent to 4 Cº per century from 1695-1735.
Fact 6, then: the rate of global warming since we might first have influenced it in the 1950s is far from unprecedented.
Fact 7: Two-thirds of the global warming once predicted by the now more cautious IPCC arose not from greenhouse gases directly but from “temperature feedbacks” – forcings that may arise in response to direct warming.
Though the IPCC once tried to claim that the values of these temperature feedbacks were well constrained, they are not. The most important feedback is from water vapour. By the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, the atmosphere is capable of carrying near-exponentially more water vapour as it warms. But just because it can there is no certainty that it will. On some measures, column water vapour is declining. Measurement uncertainty again.
Fact 8 follows. The equation by which models represent mutual amplification of the feedbacks they take as net-positive comes from electronic circuitry, where at a loop gain of unity the voltage transitions instantly from the positive to the negative rail.
However, this singularity has no physical equivalent in the climate. Accordingly, a damping term is required, to allow not only for the fact that positive feedbacks such as the water-vapour feedback cannot, as voltage can, suddenly reverse their effect when the loop gain exceeds 1 but also for Fact 9. Global temperature is remarkably homoeostatic.
For the past 420,000 years, absolute mean global surface temperature has varied by little more than 1% from the long-run average. It is very difficult to warm the world. Our changing 1/2500 of the air from oxygen to plant food on business as usual over the next 100 years may well prove irrelevant. Any realistic damping term in the feedback-amplification equation removes the global warming problem altogether.
So to Fact 10. An increasing body of papers in the reviewed literature is following my own 2008 paper in Physics and Society in finding climate sensitivity very much lower than the models: perhaps below 1 Cº.
Fact 11 follows. Climate scientists know these uncertainties. The widest survey of scientific opinion ever conducted found that only 0.5% of 11,944 climate papers published from 1991-2011 had said most global warming since 1950 was manmade. Given the uncertainties, Mr Abbot’s government should enquire whether it is cost-effective to mitigate today or to adapt the day after tomorrow.
Fact 12. The economic literature overwhelmingly concludes that it is vastly cheaper to adapt the day after tomorrow than to act today. Even if the science were settled, Dr Lamberts is wrong to say the ends justify the means. For the game may well not be worth the carb0n-emitting candle.
I wrote the following article in reply, but The Conversation refused to publish it
Well, what did you expect since they said, “He writes that Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, Andrew Bolt, Australia’s chief sceptic, and one Monckton, Australia’s honorary visiting sceptic, should not be heeded, for we are mere “deniers” (that hate-speech word again).”
Had they “heeded” you, they would have gone against their own recommendation.
At least the hate speech mongers are consistent.
Mod – could you please fix “italics” tags above?
[sure – could you be more careful before hitting the button in the future? thanks -mod]
MOTHER NATURE IS A CLIMATE SKEPTIC!!! 😉
Brilliant as usual.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The actors at The Conversation apparently have their own set of facts, although it’s typically hard to discern exactly what they are. They often operate in a fact-free environment– for example Professor Torcello’s latest bit of stupidity– and avoid arguing specifics, relying instead on presumption and generalized opinion.
The conceit seems to be to pretend that the science is settled and argue from there, which is precisely what a public relations firm told the City of London to do some years back when they were trying to figure out how to communicate with the public on climate change, although they may have still been referring to it as “global warming” back then.
They just need to change their name to “The Sermon”. Religious freedom dictates that they be allowed to control their own doctrine. Of course they may still may find the pews are hard to fill.
BLUE: Lord Monckton – The Solution to the Global Warming Lie
“Our changing 1/2500 of the air from oxygen to plant food on business as usual over the next 100 years may well prove irrelevant.” Says it all
This seems to be the disease pattern for all publicly-funded media towers of babel.
Dear Lord Monckton, I hope you have some satisfaction with these curs. Denying you a right of reply just demonstrates their cowardice.
One interesting facet of Rod Lambert’s article which hasn’t been highlighted, apart from the indefensible slights towards yourself, is his over the top criticism of Tim Flannery.
Lambert’s piece IMO is his pitch for Flannery’s old job – if the Climate Commission is ever reconstituted, assuming the ALP don’t come to their senses on the climate issue, Flannery won’t be the only applicant. Since Lambert doesn’t as far as I can tell have any worthwhile achievements to his name, his main hope is to undermine other candidates for the job – of whom Flannery would be the foremost contender.
If I’m right, The Conversation’s refusal to allow you to respond to Lambert might in my opinion be at least in part motivated by a desire to engineer the best possible opportunity for “their” candidate.
I would love to be a fly on the wall, during some of the backroom academic backstabbing which may even now be occurring, as the jackals fight over an ever diminishing pool of Aussie environmental research tax money.
It is they who are the deniers, those who believe in CAGW. They are projecting their denial on to us, it is they whose heads are in the sand. 17+ years no warming and they are furious that their sky-is-falling prophesies are all bogus.
I’ve been reading comments on this site for close to six years now and I remember back then reading predictions of where this would go as the wheels fell off the global warming fra*d.
Many said that they will just lie harder, and here we have the ultimate confirmation – “We need to lie harder Komrades”.
The biggest problem I see currently is in comment deletion. In just about any comment thread I’ve read where there is no comment deletion, the climate parasites and their useless idiot brethren get annihilated.
Without comment deletion, Dickwad Lamberts would be similarly annihilated in less than 24 hours.
Please replace “carb0n-emitting” with “carbon-emitting”. Thanks.
1957Chev
Does that mean Mother Nature is a Nazi climate change denier that will be sending all of our children to their deaths via one endless coal train?
Burning fossils fuels is the ultimate use of solar energy. We’re just releasing what the sun stored millions of years ago.
What else can you call a one-way conversation but ndoctrination, or propaganda. “The Conversation” is anything but. Their idea of “facts” are the equivalent of 2+2=5, and disagreement is verboten. Forget them. There is no use in even trying to talk rationally to True Believers.
The same propaganda machine that attacks countries with large resources is back at work against Australia and its PM. Suddenly Flannery finds a job in some Climate institute just created etc…
MSM will give these clowns all the space they need to appear bigger than they really are…
Maybe the website should be renamed from “The Conversation” to “The Monologue”?
Direct and to the point. Any reasonable person looking at their refusal to publish this rebuttal would want to know why. Perhaps their blog should be titled “The Solipsist”.
To blame the model is equivalent to blaming the gun. It is the modeler, not the model, just as with the shooter, that is clearly responsible for the result. Name them, name their enablers, name their educators, mock their work, trumpet their gross and compounding errors and groundless theories, stop paying them for shoddy work, vote like your climate dollar depends on it.
@Admad,
“The Monologue”? Don’t beat about the bush. This rag is more worthy of being called “The Diatribe”.
“I have replied that, if The Conversation will not allow me to answer this or any of numerous other unpleasant and often libellous personal attacks, other than in comments under the head postings, the matter will have to be dealt with in different and more impartial forum” (Para 6)
Do I detect preparations for a libel case?
A wounded animal is the most dangerous, and that now applies to the grievously wounded climate movement. The Pause is killing them. It trumps all other discussion points because at a single glance it flies full in the face of alarmist orthodoxy. Masses more CO2 emitted but next to no warming for approaching 2 decades. That is highly embarrassing and leaves them little room to argue the science, hence, they move the focus of their sales pitch.
What we hear now is the sound of climate alarmism banging the table.
A real Communist always follows a party line and does not get misguided by reality.
Bravo for at least making the attempt as advocated previously. Their refusal speaks for itself, and belies their sickening, Progressive stance toward freedom of academic discourse. As has been pointed out by Kate MacMillan and others, the opposite of diversity is, apparently, University.
Correction
‘Fact 1. There has been no global warming for up to 17 years 6 months.”
wrong. This claim is supported by a reference to RSS data set.
RSS doesnt measure global warming. It measures the brightness in the atmosphere,
which is transformed into an estimate of the temperature in one sliver of the atmosphere.
Now, if its your opinion that RSS is the best metric to use, then its a fact, that this metric has a near zero slope if you choose to apply a linear model to it. That is, if its your opinion that RSS is the best metric, and if it your opinion that a linear statistical model is the best one to use, then its a fact that this model has a near zero slope.
That’s not the same thing as saying “There has been no global warming for up to 17 years 6 months.”
One factual way to say it is thus
If it your opinion that RSS is the best estimate of the temperatures in the troposphere, and if its your opinion that an estimate of tropospheric temperatures is a good proxy for global temperatures, and if its your opinion that a linear statistical model is the best model for the underlying data generation process, then its a “fact” that the trend shown by that model is near zero.
That is if one wants to separate facts from opinions
I say again, there is another fact to be asserted.
There needs to be more attention to research conducted by the Connollys and reported in their papers and discussions here: http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
They investigated readings from radiosonde balloons, attempting to measure the impact upon the atmosphere’s temperature profile from increasing amounts of GHGs. The climate models include assumptions about tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that are not supported by the observations. This should be a big deal, and reminds me of John Christy’s APS presentation.
The Conversation by Adolf, or Joe, or Mao….a uni-directional conversation, like a teacher scolding the student who dared to question the quack’s authority….
Their reasons for not allowing you equal time strike me as asinine. It seems to me what they are really suggesting is that if they cannot win the debate they will end the debate. It reminds me of a small child who, upon losing a game, bursts into tears and says, “I’m going to take my ball and go home if you won’t let me win!” (In this case the “ball” is the publication.)
I hope anyone who sees a tweet mentioning this publication tweets back, with a link to your reply.
I liked the way you turned your phrase, when you wrote, “Since Mr Lamberts names me, albeit in honourable company…” That made me smile, despite my outrage.
Ed Moran says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:31 am
“Do I detect preparations for a libel case?”
No, Moncton will not diminish himself.
The conversation does not appear to be concerned with facts or reality. Just the lies they are invested in.
Steven Mosher says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:46 am
“RSS doesnt measure global warming. It measures the brightness in the atmosphere,”
Neither do thermometers. They measure the position of a mercury meniscus in a sealed glass tube.
It is not who votes, or how many vote or where they vote.
It is who counts the votes that counts.
The msm lies the vote count for these liars.
97%
Kim Jong Ill
Putin’s new improved pre-marked ballots.
ACLU, MSM, EARTH FIRST, GREENPEACE, DEMOCRAT PARTY, PHD’S OF GREED, Teacher Unions, GENERAL ELECTRIC WITH ITS HAND IN THE TILL, ect.
Facts have second place so far.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
The new party line of Greens is when reality does not agree with Climate Change theory just disregard reality. Disregarding reality allows Greens to pursue their sinister goal of transforming the world back to the pre-industrial dark ages when life was short and brutal and the 1% Green elite lorded it over all those uppity peasants seeking a better life. http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history
Klaatu: You have faith, Professor Barnhardt?
Barnhardt: It isn’t faith that makes good science, Mr. Klaatu, it’s curiosity. Sit down, please. There are several thousand questions I’d like to ask you.
Why is it called the “Conversation”? As for “Academic rigour, Journalistic flair” surely if all you’re doing is shouting down and insulting others without recourse to factual evidence, this means the complete opposite.
Maybe an experiment in irony?
Very Orwellian. Science enlisted into service of the progressive state. The “conversation” means there isn’t one.
This has always been about control. To control the resources of the world one must control the body politic. Control the message and you control the outcome. Control the Education and Information flow and you control everything that is done. They are few and fear they are being swamped by large outside organization and funding. This must be the case as they are organized and funded and are losing the argument. Winning is the only way for them to SAVE the World from this virulent disease of humankind. Any method is justified to SAVE the World. Any rational discussion of the facts is not permitted as they will lose and they must win to SAVE the World. This is a world wide Religious Cult and their dogma is the only way to SAVE the World.
The only way to SAVE HUMANITY is through the INTERNET.
“The New Age begins with a Net that Covers the World.”
Welcome to the New Age. pg
On the other hand, Hadcrut3 is close behind RSS at 16 years and 6 months with a slope of 0 from August 1997 to January 2014.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.55/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.55/trend
Oops, I see Mr. Monckton coming, strap in hand, ready to take Mosher to the whipping shed. (breaks out popcorn).
Wow great summary of the whole debate. This needs to be spread.
Steven Mosher says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:46 am
And we’re talking 1/100ths or 1/10ths of a degree change over decades. WHO CARES?!! This is such a silly silly argument.
Steven Mosher says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:46 am
Are temperatures supposed to be flat….forever?
What is the desired mean temp of planet earth and why, how will humans maintain or affect it?
Silly human race.
Sorry but the global warming fraud is a brainchild of Rockefeller and Cohorts – not really leftists but mere financial oligarchs and big oil – and yes the queen of england and her husband is knee deep into this green malthusian nonsense.climate change, peak oil and peak populaton is the core of wallstreet and the city of london.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls2j3aI_lRw
pochas says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:56 am
Steven Mosher says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:46 am
“RSS doesnt measure global warming. It measures the brightness in the atmosphere,”
Neither do thermometers. They measure the position of a mercury meniscus in a sealed glass tube.
TOUCHE’!!
Could someone help me with interpreting this? It looks like complete gibberish to me.
“The equation by which models represent mutual amplification of the feedbacks they take as net-positive comes from electronic circuitry, where at a loop gain of unity the voltage transitions instantly from the positive to the negative rail.
However, this singularity has no physical equivalent in the climate. Accordingly, a damping term is required, to allow not only for the fact that positive feedbacks such as the water-vapour feedback cannot, as voltage can, suddenly reverse their effect when the loop gain exceeds 1”
“For the past 420,000 years, absolute mean global surface temperature has varied by little more than 1% from the long-run average. It is very difficult to warm the world.”
What is the difference between a km of ice if the change in temperature is only 1 percent Kelvin?
So many lies , lakes of lies behind the msm built dam.
Not enough fingers to fill the pooly built dams many holes.
Consider the number of busy fingers gone from the support of Michael Mann and Al Gores defence off to deal with the huge over toping of the lie dam caused by the flood of lies of the Afordable Care Act. Rushing fingers every where, legions of msm front line liars lying full bray, yet the truth is now known more and more each day. Not enough new fingers being trained in the lie skill to fill the gap.
Push the truth now, no let up, each hour, every day, every way.
“Ich bin ein Denier!”
I deny that Anthropomorphic Global Warming has any significant impact on climate.
I deny that Global Climate Change has a net negative impact on life on Earth.
I deny that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.
I deny that alternative energy sources have Socialist solutions.
I deny that any Science is Settled.
I deny that those funded by Politicians seek Scientific truth.
In the interest of separating facts from opinions, I suggest that no opinionation will be permitted in climate science in the future.
I expect that suggestion would be poorly received, in some circles.
I get it now. Not a conversation, a conversion. 🙂
O how the true-believers wriggle when confronted with a Pause in global temperatures that has now endured for just about half of the entire satellite era.
Mr Mosher, shutting his eyes tight to the ineluctably growing discrepancy between flatlining global temperatures and the fancifully exaggerated predictions of the failed climate models, attempts – rather feebly, one feels – to take me to task for having cited the RSS satellite monthly temperature dataset and for having said: “There has been no global warming for up to 17 years 6 months”.
He says that my surely blameless statement, visibly and colorfully evidenced by the graph that accompanied it, is “wrong”. Well, he is entitled to his opinion, but here at WUWT we do facts.
For instance, I might have used the HadCRUt4 dataset, which shows no global warming distinguishable from the combination of the published measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties not for a mere 17 years 6 months but for 18 full years.
Or I might have pointed out that, again on the RSS dataset, statistically-significant warming has been absent not just for 210 months but for more than 24 years.
Or I might have shown that on the Central England Temperature Record, an excellent proxy for global temperature change (over the past 120 years, two full cycles of the ocean oscillations, it shows warming within 0.01 Cº of the mean of the three global terrestrial datasets) there has been no global warming for 25 full calendar years.
Or I might have pointed out that the IPCC’s current mid-range estimate is for warming at 0.17 Cº/decade, which is half of the IPCC’s 1990 mid-range estimate, but that since the AR5 reference date of January 2005 the predicted warming has been – er – entirely and embarrassingly absent.
Or I might have said that Mr Mosher’s ideological penpal John Kook of “Skeptical” “Science” says 2 billion Hiroshima bombs’-worth of heat has been accumulating in the climate system since the late 1990s, but not a flicker of global warming has resulted. That’s a whole lotta bombs. Where has all that missing heat gone, then? Why aren’t the oceans boiling and the skies falling? Eh? I only ask because I want to know.
Mr Mosher protests that RSS measures brightness, not temperature. Well, this is not the place for me to lecture him on the relationship what is (surely revealingly) known as “brightness temperature” and “temperature” simpliciter.
Or he may perhaps prefer to consult his ideological bedfellow “Phil” Jones at the “University” of East Anglia, who will explain to him just how closely the two satellite datasets track the HadCRUT datasets, and will even show him a nice picture of the near-coincident trend-lines.
Next, Mr Mosher wails that I have used a least-squares linear-regression trend. He should contact his political soulmate “Phil” Jones on this too. “Phil”, writing to the unspeakable paid propagandist “Bob” Ward on 20 December 2007, says: “This is a linear trend – least squares. This is how statisticians work out trends.”
Now, the least-squares method advocated by our “Phil” is what IPeCaC uses in its Assessment Reports. So if Mr Mosher would prefer everyone to use some other method, then let him write a reviewed paper on the subject. And let him at least tell us right away which method he would prefer, and why. For no method, however much he bends the graph, will show all that much in the way of global warming over the past couple of decades.
Get used to it, Mosh, baby. Those of us who actually dug inside the models and sweated the numbers before being tempted to climb on the hard-Left political bandwagon tricked out as “science” did not get things too far wrong.
There was no reason to expect all that much warming in response to our converting 1/2500 of the air this century from oxygen to plant food. There is no reason. There will be no reason. So, if you want my untutored guess (and if you don’t you’re getting it anyway), the graphs of global temperature change – or of the lack thereof – will continue to demonstrate that fact.
Global warming? What global warming?
The problem is that it has never been about CAGW. It’s about control of the means of production and society. Those who wish to impose their control over society are just using CAGW as a lever to implement that control. If it was shown that CO2 prevented climate change, the present proponents of CAGW would reverse themselves and declare that preventing climate change was immoral and against nature.
Getting attacked for standing up for the truth are badges of honour. They do not want debate and they do not want facts or openness. Like the shinning eyed taliban they want submission.
My, how carefully Chris picked a particular graph to use.
“TLT is constructed by calculating a weighted difference between MSU2 (or AMSU 5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from the same channels taken closer to nadir […]. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the stratospheric influence. Because of the differences involves measurements made at different locations, and because of the large absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results.”
– – – – – – – –
I agree with Monckton’s assessment on the future of climate sensitivity work.
The trend of work on climate sensitivity has fundamentally changed in the past few years, due to an accelerating increase in the highly vigorous and more balanced debate occurring outside of the small cliques of scientists subservient to the IPCC commitment to finding alarming warming from fossil fuels.
Climate work is now focused away from the non-debate by small cliques of scientists claiming a so-called consensus and is now focused toward a more open and critical debate by a much broader community of scientists.
The whole foundation of the conceptual framework surrounding the past ~20+ years of ‘climate sensitivity’ (ECS & TCR) efforts has now shifted toward the possibility of entering the range of <1 C ECS & TCR.
Science is finally self-correcting the false 'a priori' premise that unscientifically predetermined the science finding; the false premise is alarming warming is the only valid finding for IPCC consideration in its assessments.
John
Yeah the question one needs to ask, Conversation with???
Another example of talking to the hand?
Classic academia, of today, shout down all inquiring minds,blank all written response, then insist we are correct because no one questions us.
Like “Real Climate” the conversation gets very small and quiet, when you are talking to like minded individuals.
Lord Monckton and Anthony, you have probably given the visitor rate of this dying website a significant bump.
The cause is going through all the phases of an exposed and discredited cult,soon they will eat their own.
Popcorn futures rising.
Rod Lamberts argues that in the climate debate opinion should supplant fact: “The time for fact-based arguments is over”.
Clearly for their side that time ended in the 1980s.
Bruce Cobb says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:24 am
Oops, I see Mr. Monckton coming, strap in hand, ready to take Mosher to the whipping shed. (breaks out popcorn).
============================
Not heard of that but sometimes I feel like I’ve been tied to The Whipping Post
One day I’ll learn to fix these clips straight in …
Oh, by the way, Mr Mosher. I guess you never learnt the maxim that it’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt. It works in print too.
Excellent, looks like I did …
Seems the good Lord has too much time on his hands.
Why bother to respond to a clear incompetent idiot?
In climate change the academic world is full of them.
Steven Mosher says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:46 am
What do the radiosondes measure?
When AGW fanatics are not being self righteous bullies, they are being self righteous cowards.
I think hate speech just about seems to be all the other side has. It’s sickening that the debate has finally sunk so low.
My family owns a Broholmer puppy that can communicate its message far more effectively than any CAGWarmist, Food, poop, pat me — oh yeah!!!! Whose leg do I have to hump for my favourite treat ???? http://www.glenryck.co.uk/images/products/pilchardcans3.jpg
In accordance with current nutritional guidelines, we are also training him to eat watermelons, one bite at a time. Problem is, one watermelon is not enough!
The Denmark Broholmer is a dog that strongly resembles a mastiff. It is large and powerful, with a loud, impressive bark and dominant walk. A well trained Broholmer should be calm, good tempered, and friendly, yet watchful towards strangers. Will eat watermelons, two at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broholmer
Ye gods & little fishes. They are handsome beauties & require honest owners.
http://www.broholmeren.dk/index.php?id=45&L=1.html
The sneakily pseudonymous “Magma” suggests I cherry-picked my choice of graph to illustrate the long Pause. My answer to Mr Mosher applies to “Magma” too. There are uncertainties in all of the datasets: indeed, in the HadCRUT4 dataset they are published, and amount to 0.15 Celsius degrees either side of the central estimate.
I say to “Magma” what I said to Mr Mosher: the IPCC is indeed remiss in not publishing the very wide error-bars either side of the best estimates of measured temperature change that it publishes: but, rather than sneering at me because the IPCC does not do its job properly, he should write to the IPCC and make it do its science properly.
One of MIT’s most celebrated professors used to begin his lectures by saying, “There are three fundamental physical units: of mass, of distance, and of time. All the others are derivatives of these. Every measurement is subject to a measurement uncertainty. Every measurement in which the uncertainty is not explicitly stated is worthless. Every result in physics depends ultimately on measurement. Every result in physics is, for that reason alone, uncertain. If anyone tells you ‘the science is settled’, he is wrong.”
It is good news that “Magma” has begun to understand the concept of measurement uncertainty. But it has drawn the wrong conclusion. The wider the uncertainty, the less capable we are of determining whether any global warming at all has occurred, and the longer the period over which we are unable to determine that there has been any global warming at all.
As Professor Brown has often said here, the publication of all those temperature graphs without error bars is bad science. From time to time I publish graphs with the error bars shown and, exactly as the Professor has pointed out, when one sees how minuscule the temperature variations are, and how wide the error bars are, it is difficult to imagine that we have any kind of serious problem with rising temperature.
What about an explanation of this gibberish?
“The equation by which models represent mutual amplification of the feedbacks they take as net-positive comes from electronic circuitry, where at a loop gain of unity the voltage transitions instantly from the positive to the negative rail.
However, this singularity has no physical equivalent in the climate. Accordingly, a damping term is required, to allow not only for the fact that positive feedbacks such as the water-vapour feedback cannot, as voltage can, suddenly reverse their effect when the loop gain exceeds 1″
The Conversation has a position on global warming, and a tribe of bulldogs to guard the comments section. Coincidentally, I have focussed my post today on the same lamentable essay by Mr Lamberts, and the other disturbing piece by Mr Torcello, also in The Conversation.
http://donaitkin.com/as-warming-slows-denunciation-grows/
I am glad that someone is calling The Conversation the spade that it is. My science news accumulator accumulates also that muck as science.
Publishing this article on WUWT ensures that it will be read by a far larger audience than if it was on The Conversation, by the way……
Keep speaking.
I don’t have the numbers but I imagine more people (on both sides of the non-debate) heard you here than they would have in “The Conversation”.
this says so much about CAGW:
17 March: Reuters: Chris Helgren: HSBC appoints new climate change chief
HSBC has appointed a new head of climate change research to replace Nick Robins, who stepped down earlier this year to help lead a United Nations-led project into how to decarbonizes the global economy…
Zoe Knight, formerly climate change strategist at the UK-headquartered bank, takes over as head of HSBC’s Climate Change Centre of Excellence, the bank said in an email on Monday.
Robins left the bank to help lead a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) inquiry into developing a more environmentally sustainable global financial system.
(Reporting by Michael Szabo; editing by Keiron Henderson)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-hsbc-climatechange-idUKBREA2G11W20140317
@dp
You know you are really on the right track here:
>Name them, name their enablers, name their educators, mock their work, trumpet their gross and compounding errors and groundless theories, stop paying them for shoddy work, vote like your climate dollar depends on it.
It may not even be necessary to mock them. The point is to get their names attached to their science, their publications, their claims, their projections. If they stand, no problem. If they fail, let their skillset be known for its true value.
The XYZ-5 climate model should be know as the work of Profs Y, B and M with a link embedded to the full list of those who dare to put their names on their creations. No more hiding behind a model name. There is a great deal of merit in this.
I favour naming peer reviewers as AG freaks make a great deal out of a paper being or not being ‘peer reviewed’. Let’s find out who is reviewing and approving so much crap science. Put their names on it as ‘validated’ in their opinion. Perhaps review needs to be divided into two categories: peer review, and external, independent evaluation because sure as heck the peers are not helping much. The reputation of an engineering consulting company rides on everything above their signature and stamp. Why not climate scientists? How about a little accountability?
It should be competitive bidding: you get a 1 in 2 change to be funded (out of 10 chances) as we will fund those who climate models most closely match real temperatures going forward. If you model is the 11th most accurate, you and everyone worse is de-funded. Kick one fund recipient off each year and let the junior leagues send up their best. Football works that way, why not performance-based funding for climate scientists?
The reason for wanting this change is they have been so universally wrong for so long. A generation, for heaven’s sake.
As for “The Conversation” that isn’t, it really would be appropriate to use parallel media to make a reply, but only after forcing the proprietor to publish a response to a personal attack. Can’t one lose a license or two over such a refusal?
Wow…did anyone read Mosher’s ‘denialist outburst’ above!
Whilst reputable organs openly discuss ‘the pause’ he tries to wriggle away from it.
He doesn’t like what the data says so he’s attacking the data.
They are getting desperate. Sweet.
Nicely written Anthony but unfortunately I suspect that even this letter is too technical for most of the academics reading it to understand it. Dr Rod Lamberts for example, has a degree in psychology, which makes him distinctly unqualified to understand the technicalities of the debate.
I’m still pissed that we’ve let them get away with the name change.
Global warming was the name given to their fraud by themselves.
When that was first being exposed for what it was in the climategate emails.
(hide the decline)
The fraudsters ever so subtlety renamed the fraud climate change.
Anybody that lets them get away with that needs their head read.
The millstone they’ve hung around their collective necks has the words clearly chiseled into it GLOBAL WARMING!
My suggestion is make them wear it.
The fraud is global warming.
Not climate change.
They know the temperature numbers dont add up to what their models predicted.
So every time they attempt to change “history” by them refering to their fraud as climate change.
Slap them back into line with a firm,” no where talking about global warming here, not daily weather”.
The snarkily hemionymous “Raymond” sneers that a point I had made in the head posting about temperature feedbacks is “gibberish”. If “Raymond” considers that something is wrong with what I had said, let him say what is wrong and why. If he does not understand what I said, he has no basis for alleging that it was “gibberish”. A more grown-up approach is expected here,
minarchist says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:14 am
Very Orwellian. Science enlisted into service of the progressive state. The “conversation” means there isn’t one.
——————
Exactly. The name came from liberal progressives which, in the real world, means totalitarian regressive wannabes.
Magma says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:42 am
My, how carefully Chris picked a particular graph to use.
——————————–
Go on then, show us the graph you would use and, while you’re at it, show us how it relates to atmospheric CO2 levels. I could use a good laugh.
While admittedly there is no evidence in some 4.5 billion years of net positive feedback gain in the climate system producing anything like runaway global warming, I have it from reliable progressive scientific sources that this could happen any day, and perhaps as soon as next Tuesday. I think Raymond would agree with me.
it seems to me that the alarmists post stupid pro agw messages on the web knowing that wuwt will give them a link. why not post without links? most of us know how to get there. giving them publicity in terms of website views justifies their posts. just my thoughts.
Great ‘open letter’ from Jennifer Marohasy to Greg Hunt, Australian Federal Minister for the Environment : http://jennifermarohasy.com/questions-for-the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology/
re: “The most important feedback is from water vapour. By the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, the atmosphere is capable of carrying near-exponentially more water vapour as it warms. But just because it can there is no certainty that it will.“:-
Actually it looks like it does … but the implications are interesting. Under the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, water vapour increases around 7% per additional deg C. Studies have indicated that precipitation increases at about the same rate (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMsNKG5N9bg at 9:55 “For every degree rise in air temperature the water cycle is intensifying by 7%. That’s double the climate model prediction.“. See also https://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5835/233.abstract). The implication is that the climate models seriously underestimate the water cycle, and therefore they underestimate the amount of energy needed to drive it and erroneously put that energy into global warming instead. Put simply, this leads to a large over-estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). Mid-range IPCC value for ECS is 3. With the water cycle catered for properly, ECSis around 0.7. One quarter.
“And perhaps as soon as next Tuesday”
At Tea Time…
Apologies and thanks to those other great Brits – Monty Python:)
Its pretty obvious why the AGW fraternity shun Monckton rather than debate him; floor wiped, and with great levity. It must be hard to be shown to be so foolish, so frequently by just one man.
Is the ”The Conversation’ piece not the best example of “NEVER LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY”? This is a sure sign that they are losing the ‘non-existent debate’ and getting very, very desperate. It really is funny to watch this thing unfold, I knew it was inevitable.
@jauntycyclist –
“climate Taliban” – sure does fit the AGW crowd, what with their intolerance for the least difference of opinion, to the point of advocating murder of skeptics. With your permission, I shall borrow this term in my general reference to the AGW crowd.
Scientific literacy according to The Conversation:
This ought to alert people in the US because we see the same language and logic used to describe the nationalized education standards in Common Core.
ref: “Australians seem to be getting dumber – but does it matter?” (They most certainly are if they listen to progressive scientists tell them how to be good, sustainable global citizens.)
Mike Jonas says:
March 18, 2014 at 4:19 pm
“With the water cycle catered for properly, ECSis around 0.7. One quarter.”
Did the caterer consider the fact that adding water vapor decreases the lapse rate, thereby bringing the surface temperature closer to the Planck temperature of -18 C? This would seem to be another negative feedback.
Rod Lamberts
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC linkage program
He is deputy director of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science (CPAS) at the ANU, a founding partner of the Ångstrom Group, and a former national president of the Australian Science Communicators. He has been providing science communication consultation and evaluation advice for than 15 years to organisations including UNESCO, the CSIRO, and to ANU science and research bodies. He also has a background in psychology ……
UNESCO is a close relative of Maurice Strong’s UNEP
CSIRO people are linked with Gorbachev’s Green Cross organisation
ANUS&R are oddly retentive ?
—–
At least one commenter gets it though.
green distraction, see who’s involved.
Strong & Gorbachev acolyte he, Lamberts
apparently worships their opinions at the very
least, and is a champion of their malthusian
“sustainability” goals.
BarryW says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:04 am
The problem is that it has never been about CAGW. It’s about control of the means of production and society. Those who wish to impose their control over society are just using CAGW as a lever to implement that control. If it was shown that CO2 prevented climate change, the present proponents of CAGW would reverse themselves and declare that preventing climate change was immoral and against nature.
BarryW wins the coconut, for being the
only one here so far, not to fall for the
psychological tricks of Mr. Lamberts.
Stop, Wait, Before You cross the road,
Think, What’s the Green Cross “Code” ?
Cheshirered says:
March 18, 2014 at 8:32 am
What we hear now is the sound of climate alarmism banging the table.
=========
Nikita Khrushchev and the UN Shoe-Banging Incident
http://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Nikita-Khrushchev-and-the-UN-Shoe-Banging-Incident
The flaw in Christopher Monktons’ logic is that he can’t use the data-point from his cherry-picked start-point but must use the trend up until that year. Otherwise you are doing this. A warming trend is visible using any temperature series and year of your choice but the amount is subject to natural variability. <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/" Don't believe me?
Fact 7 states in part, “On some measures, column water vapour is declining.”
This is true, but column water vapour has little relevance for AGW. A change in water vapor in the upper atmosphere has vastly greater effect than changes in the lower atmosphere. Line-by-line radiative code calculations show that a change of water vapour in the upper atmosphere from 200 to 300 mbar pressure (11 to 9 km altitude) has 81 times greater effect on outgoing longwave radiation than the same change of water vapour in that lower atmosphere from 850 to 1010 mbar (1.4 km to surface). That is why the IPCC states, “the largest contribution to the [water vapour] feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere.” See chart here:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/OLR_PWV_bar.jpg
Increasing CO2 acts to increase temperatures by inhibiting the outgoing longwave radiation to space. But radiosonde measurements show declining upper atmosphere water vapor. Here is water vapor at 400 mbar level.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/SH400mb.jpg
A small reduction of upper atmosphere water vapour can offset the effect of a large increase near the surface. The declining upper atmosphere water vapour is the reason the models overestimate the warming over the tropics. The Canadian climate model, the world worst, overestimates the tropical air warming by 690% compared to satellite measurements.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CanESM/CanESM_TR_400A.jpg
Apologies, correct reference to Tamino’s analysis is here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
@Simon. Having just read through the Tamino analysis I don’t understand your objection.
Start from today and work backwards through any data set until you detect a negative slope (indicating a warming trend) Note the date and that gives you the non-warming period. Simple. Even looking at all of Tamino’s graphs most of them go back to about 1998 before this occurs.
As an aside since we are in record ice extent territory these days his figures on global ice extent appear to be wildly inaccurate.
Even scientific minds are now admitting their inability to win on factual arguments. So now they’re resorting to throwing insults. I wish I could get a grant for that.
Street cred I might add over at JoNova.
She’s been in an on going war with the BOM to come clean on their temperature records for a couple of years.
Her research, undertaken independantly can not only smell a “rat”, they can clearly see the “rat”.
Her and others have been calling for the BOM to be independently audited by the Australian auditor commission.
Surprise surprise the BOM flatly refuses.
I suspect this open letter is probably been penned for the same reasons that have frustrated JoNova.
BOM’s on going refusal to to release data.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
And that ladies and gentlemans is a strafing of the highest order delivered to Mosher.
I notice they are unable to produce any facts to back up this assertion of billions of Hiroshimas bombs, or record heat yada yada.
Its inevitable that climate models are so skewed from reality that its the downfall of this ridiculous scam. Its only going to get worse, to use a term from the BOMs Blair Trewin, we are now committed to 20 years with no warming regardless of what this coming El nino does.
@ Pat, 2.30 am, Robins left the bank to help lead a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) inquiry into developing a more environmentally sustainable global financial system.
Should that not read INEP(t)? as in I(gnorant) NEP(tools)?
@ Lord Monckton.Sir love your replies. I am not an “Aussi” but as an immigrant to another country what I see happening is that for hundreds of years the “POMMIES” (no insult intended) have survived and thrived on that Continent. Now the wimps are riding on those peoples coattails and taking advantage without any input other then lip movement and with funding none of them ever had earned by hard work . Thank you for your explanations and the way you can even me a “bloke” understand what is at stake!
@asybot … one cannot help but be struck with the banking sectors involvement with all things ‘climate’ wherever. These are the mob that is making sure that they are at the forefront of the ‘change’ and that the ‘change’ is a positive contribution to their POWER and MONEY.
Thanks for the nice replay.
I am really not sure were to start when the “fact” doesn’t make any sense.
“where at a loop gain of unity the voltage transitions instantly from the positive to the negative rail”
What does this mean? A loop gain of unity usually results in the boarder between stable and unstable behavior and not a change in sign. It is of course more complicated because the phase is involved (for linear systems)
“Accordingly, a damping term is required, to allow not only for the fact that positive feedbacks such as the water-vapour feedback cannot, as voltage can, suddenly reverse their effect when the loop gain exceeds 1″
You seems to be using damping term in a novel way.
Why is it that various government -funded ‘information ministers’ such as Dr Lamberts are often the ones with the least and most inaccurate information.? Here we have the director of the ‘National Centre for Public Awareness of science’? saying that facts are less important than opinions.
The pigs from animal farm have definitely taken over the farmhouse, but I don’t know what happened to Farmer Jones.
The evasively hemionymous “Simon” refers us to what he optimistically and generously calls an “analysis” by the furtively pseudonymous “Tamino”, intended to demonstrate – quite falsely – that the Pause in global temperatures does not really exist. I propose to answer that hopeless nonsense in a separate head posting.
The persistently hemionymous “Raymond” considers that the voltage in an electronic circuit does not transition from the positive to the negative rail when the closed-loop feedback gain exceeds unity. I refer him to Bode (1945) on feedbacks and feedback amplification (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA, 551 pp.), where he will find a detailed discussion. The feedback amplification equation is very simple: and, contrary to “Raymond’s” imagining, it self-evidently yields negative voltages at loop gains >1. The math is trivial. It is by the method of transiently pushing the loop gain above unity and then allowing it to drop below unity that a circuit may be made to oscillate.
However, in the climate object, in which the upper bound of the loop gain implicit in the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity estimates is as high as 0.8, there is no physical reality to the behavior of global mean surface temperature at the singularity, whereas – whether “Raymond” likes it or not, there is a physical reality represented by the singularity in the electronic circuitry for which the Bode equation for the mutual amplification of feedbacks was originally derived.
There is quite a good account of the derivation of the feedback-amplification equation in terms of the climate object in Hansen (1981). However, Hansen clearly had not modeled the singularity in the equation, or he would at once have seen the problem. I invite “Raymond” to plot the feedback loop gain on the x axis and the temperature change on the y axis, whereupon what I am talking about will become at once transparent.
The temperature response to feedbacks must be subjected to some homeostatic moderation, which one may indeed describe as “damping”, for that is what damping is, to prevent the loop gain from approaching the singularity. Any damping of the temperature response that is strong enough to prevent any approach to the singularity will greatly reduce climate sensitivity compared with IPeCaC’s estimates, removing the supposed climate problem.
I gave a talk on this to a meeting at the University of Tasmania last year, at which several IPCC lead authors were present. One of them, on seeing the graph of the singularity and on hearing of its significance, interrupted to ask, “Have you published this yet? ” No, I said, I was still working on it: I need to determine the value of the damping term and the right amendment of the Bode equation. “But this changes everything!” he exclaimed. Yes, it does.
Admad says:
““The Monologue”? Don’t beat about the bush.”
OK—the Vagina Conversations?
No. Ignore that. Forget it. Sorry. I’m not a good person.
Lord Monckton,
You really must get your electrical engineering right, at the singularity (the pole) the gain is effectively infinite, this does not cause the amplifier to flick from the positive to negative rail. The output voltage excurses depending on the polarity of the input at the time or noise. It saturates when the output approaches the supply rail as the gain is quickly reduced to zero by saturation. Both gain and energy saturation do have analogs in the climate, gain from feedbacks, and saturation from consumption of all available energy in the CO2 stopband ( That and exceeding the dew point and causing a cloud feedback limiting insolation)
What you do need to understand though, is that this is only the DC (scalar) response, when feedback is time lagged you get an AC response, oscillation occurs. After negative feedbacks are applied the IPCC needs a positive feedback that is 3 times the magnitude of the negative feedbacks in order to get a gain of 3, this means a positive feedback, uncorrelated to the negative feedbacks with a loop gain of over 0.95 is needed, which is impossible. Frankly treating feedback as a scalar is totally wrong.
I think you are vulnerable on this argument, because it is wrong, I think you need to get the gain argument right. Happy to help if you’ll let me. ( And yes I’m an EE ).
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/does-the-media-help-or-hinder-science3f/5318416
if you can bear to listen to this drivel..its another excellent example of denial BY the warmist ABC and pet..well I find it hard to call them scientists..
but its a clear and depressing view of their outlook.
conversation…is not, its a support group for and of ,a self selected little cadre of “we’re so specials”
the sort of people that at a party ,sane people avoid:-)
good onya Lord M
as always mailing this to many, reaching more than the abc will:-)
Dear Lord, why don’t you just admit that what you posted were gibberish? I am not sure, it might exist a system with the behavior that you describe but you should in that case actually give the system and show that it is used in climate research. What you write is not any general properties for electrical or dynamical systems.
So please, explain what system you actually talk about and what you wrote might start to make sense.
It would be easier to understand you point if you used standard words for things. Damping is used in system and control theory but not in the way that you use it. You damping seems to rather be a non linear term.
Why bother arguing with Idiots when it comes to the IPCC Dragoons and their hangers on we all know Global Warming is fabricated BS seeing as the Head of Working Group three in Germany actually admitted to Das Spiegel the whole Scam is purely about Wealth Redistribution.
Hello think about it the IPCC invented this BS, They are the United Nations and in the General assembly Democratic principles rule, Therefore what happens when a bunch of Islamist s, Communists and third world Despots and Liars Thieves and Brigands one and all have the power of Numbers in the General assembly over the Western World, They come up with some form of Wealth redistribution in their favor.
Hullo Coal Fired Power Stations in India get Carbon credits, Does that not strike you people as strange when the exact same in Western nations costs you to Buy Carbon Credits yet move such plant to India and it Generates Carbon Credits which we in the West then have to Buy from them.
Science my Arse, Scamming and Lying are among the oldest professions and that is about as Professional as any of these Clowns will ever be.
What is the sound of this climate article in ‘The Conversation’?
It is the sound of one hand clapping.
John
It may now be the time to say’ We surrender’ to the AGW brigade and lets now accept that the ‘science is settled’ and that all their arguments, climate models, are 100% (or 97%!) accurate and we are now all in agreement that the earth and its inhabitants are all doomed!
If we do this, then we will now have an intriguing new scenario in that why do we need to continue with all thes tax payer funded research groups, environmental bodies, and every other planet warmers that have the noses in the vast AGW financial pot? If every fact, argument, evidence, is beyond reproach and all us ‘deniers’ and sceptics, have been shown to be totally dishonest and with out any cedibility or morals at all, then we immediate effect all govermant and private funding should cease and all those thousands of highly paid ‘experts’ who will have to now find a more gainful way of ripping of the tax payers with the various government’s help ,and find wonderful ways of saving mankind from this firey ferment (or is it a mega ice age?)
Maybe we could start to lobby our enlightened politicians to implement this new era of enlightenment and help to find new employment for all these redundent accademics and AGW experts etc.
james says:
March 19, 2014 at 7:39 am
It may now be the time to say’ We surrender’ to the AGW brigade ….and help to find new employment for all these redundent accademics and AGW experts etc
Does that not mean we have to agree that hundreds of billions can be spent on carbon capture, etc to save the world?
Stephen Cox says:
March 19, 2014 at 4:52 am
“….Coal Fired Power Stations in India get Carbon credits, Does that not strike you people as strange when the exact same in Western nations costs you to Buy Carbon Credits yet move such plant to India and it Generates Carbon Credits which we in the West then have to Buy from them…..”
A second coconut must now be awarded to Mr. Cox, after he is the second perspicacious person to divine that the reality of the argument, or the diatribe, of the so called “one sided conversation”, is actually a diversion or even a corruption of the true cause of this enormous waste of time and Human resources.
What BarryW says: @18, 2014 at 11:04 am, above has a similar resonance, and see my previous reply to him @March 18, 2014 at 7:01 pm. Yet Mr. Cox has raised another relevant fact, and that is that we redistribute the “Wealth” abroad. This is hardly surprising as it is part of the ethos of Former Soviet President, Gorbachev and his Green Cross International organisation. Both he and Maurice strong are members of the Club of Rome, and its associates.
This attack upon Lord Monckton is rooted in their prejudice and anger that Lord Monckton sees through their transparent ploy. They are truly afraid of Monckton’s fearless and unswerving loyalty to Humanity itself, for which there is no bribe big big enough to dissuade the Honorable Viscount to disavow his true intent, to be a Christian. Let no mortal man think he is a G_d or even a false G_d, yet Soros, Gore, Gorbachev, Van Rompuy and their ilk would aspire to that divine position.
These old fossils, or dinosaurs if you will, would in their dotage wish to shape a future World, which they will never live to see, and hope in their last desperate throw of the dice to leave some legacy, some heritage of a future utopian idealised planet. The terrible reality is that they would wish to Possess the Future, to Own Humanity, to Destroy Free Will. This is NOT part of G_d’s plan for Humanity though, and the co-conspirators are very, very afraid. They act out of the fear and desperation, their empty souls cry out in the deep dark void that is their meaningless existence.
Their ultimate fear is that they will not be reviled, and will not be hated after their passing, but that they will be forgotten, and this is why they aspire to rival the horrific deeds of Pol Pot, Chauchescu and those other whom we dare not speak their names. Lord grant us wisdom, that we all may see the light, and not to waste our short lives, arguing about trivialities, whilst Humanity is in angst.
The Statesman, Edmund Burke said in a letter in the late 18th century …..
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.”
Which are ye, a harkener after knaves or a seeker after the truth ?
Answer not to me. nor to Humanity, nor even unto the Lord,
but you owe it to Yourselves to be a seeker after the truth !
“where at a loop gain of unity the voltage transitions instantly from the positive to the negative rail.”
I think you mean it will go from the signal level (input) to +rail at output.
My guess is that the lord has looked at the stability for a second order system
H(s)=1/(s^2+a*s+b) with the feedback +k resulting in the loop transfer function
L=-k/1/(s^2+a*s+b)
and the closed loop system
cl=1/(s^2+a*s+b-k)
He then draw the conclusion that this is stable when (b-k)>0
He then only looked at this at frequency 0, i.e. steady state. This implies that
L(0)=-k/b=-1 at the stability boarder and that the closed loop system is
cl(0)=1/(b-k)
He then make the error to believe that the steady state value for an unstable system means anything so he got the conclusion that the steady state value changes sign when k changes from smaller than b to larger than b. When the only thing that happens are that the responses are close to each other for a short time before the unstable one grows to infinity.
Monckton of Brenchley says: The evasively hemionymous “Simon”
I don’t have a degree in Classics so I don’t know what ‘hemionymous’ means. At a guess I would say it implies that I have only half a name. Perhaps Monckton of Brenchley means ‘homonymous’?
Simon,
Per chance he wants you to know in a kind easy way that “Thy Doth Protest To Much”.
BarryW says:
March 18, 2014 at 11:04 am
Excellent comment. Nail on head.
@Simon
“hemionymous” ?
Actually you don’t require a “Classics” degree to fathom the meaning.
“hemionymous” is a compound word, you will likely not find in
any English Dictionary, because it is manufactured by the author,
using the rules of English Grammar. This is basic UK GCSE English.
The rule is that any adjective may be qualified by the addition
of any one of a number of known prefixes or indeed suffixes.
Additionally the root adjective of ““hemionymous” itself,
that is to say “onymous” , means simply “bearing a name”.
So then the clear derivation of the word, “hemionymous”
would be, “bearing half a name”. since hemi (prefix) = half.
—
“homonymous” on the other hand is entirely different.
It is not a compound derived word, and will be found in any English
lexicon of note, and is an adjective meaning simply —-
“Of or related to or being homonyms”.
homonyms are words which are pronounced or spelled the
same way but have different meanings.
I suppose “Simon” as a word, might be a homonym,
but not in the sense which Monckton uses the phrase.
Monckton’s usage is not pejorative, as you may have
imagined, but merely descriptive, and nothing to do with
“being anonymous” or anything of that sort.
Rather ironically, the alternative which you suggest,
(homonym) could be deemed pejorative, since
a “Simon” has several derived meanings, related
to various “Simons” throughout history. Eg. Simon = Wax.
In these circumstances of Monckton’s Essay, it seems clear
that his choice of the derived word, adequately describes your
Username, and is correct English Grammar, even though the
word may not exist in most English Dictionaries.
Reading between the lines, we see that what Monckton
really appears to be complaining about in that opening
statement is that you have used a single Name as your
username, rather than a Firstname/Lastname. His reasons
for doing so are also manifest, since there are a number of
possible “Simon”s. and if you had chosen a double
unit name. Identification would be less ambiguous.
—
Mikhail Gorbachev – Who is He ? – Why is he promoting
all this “green” claptrap and obfuscation of scientific reality ?
click my triple unit name to find out.
Excel suggests that the P- value of the (down) trend has fallen to just 4.4% in the 21st century data. RSS lower troposphere. So what are the implications of statistically significant negative trend? How do people describe this event?
The less we are allowed to discuss, the more we are told we are having a “conversation”.
Dr Lamberts is a psychologist. He knows nothing about atmospheric dynamics and chemistry, nothing about climate, nothing about climate physics, evolution, drivers, nothing about geology and paleoclimatology. His specialty is… brain washing, sic! It is people like him, who have done so much damage to climate science, and in this case also to Australian science. It’s about time that Tony Abbott’s government should have a close look at who is who in this charade.