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.
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.