![Monster_from_the_Ocean_Floor_FilmPoster[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/monster_from_the_ocean_floor_filmposter1.jpeg?w=300&resize=300%2C234)
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Willie Soon sends me a fascinating paper by Beenstock et al. on sea-level rise. Beenstock, famous for taking a down-to-earth approach to climate issues, asked the question how much warming the tide gauges show if one does not tamper with them.
The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made.
The excuse for this overblown addition, which accounts for a very large fraction of the difference between the satellite and tide-gauge records, is that the land is still rising and the sea sinking because of the transfer of miles-thick ice from the land to the oceans that ended 9000 years ago. Therefore, the story goes, sea level would be falling were it not for global warming.
Hey presto! Sea level rise is instantly made to accelerate.
Niklas Mörner calls these tamperings “personal calibrations” – a polite form for what is in essence fiction. After all, in the century to 1950, we could not have had any significant influence on climate or on sea level. Yet sea level rose.
In the past decade or two sea level has not really been rising much, as the Envisat and then the Grace satellites confirmed, suggesting that all of the major global temperature records are correct in showing that global temperature has not been rising recently.
So there is no particular anthropogenic reason for ocean heat content to rise appreciably. Those who say, with the relentlessly wrong-about-everything Kevin Trenberth, that “the ocean ate my global warming” are simply wrong.
Meanwhile, the Pause continues. The RSS satellite data for April 2014 are now available. The updated graph shows no global warming for 17 years 9 months.
Enjoy The Pause while it lasts. A Kelvin wave is galloping across the Pacific, and the usual suspects would be praying for a super El Niño if they had the sense to credit the Old Religion rather than the New Superstition. Already the well-paid extremists are predicting a new record annual mean surface temperature either in 2014 or in 2015.
Their prediction for 2014 will probably not come true. Four months without any warming make it difficult to imagine that this will be a record year for global temperature, though it is barely possible.
The notion of a new record temperature next year is less implausible, particularly if there is a strong or prolonged el Niño followed by a weak la Niña. As Roy Spencer points out on his hard-headed and ever-sensible blog, all things being equal one would expect temperature records to be broken from time to time, for CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and some warming – eventually – is to be expected.
However, as the also hard-headed Dick Lindzen points out, the new record, when it happens, will be hundredths of a degree above the old, and it will be well within the natural variability of the climate. When warming eventually resumes, probably towards the end of this year, for El Niño is a seasonal event, it will probably not be much to write home about. And the following La Niña may cancel much of it. But that will not prevent the usual suspects from screeching that It’s Worse Than We Ever Thought.
Beenstock knocks that one on the head. Here is his conclusion about the rate of sea level rise: “Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1mm/year. We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates.”
In short, They made stuff up. Again. And neither the politicians nor the journalists asked any of the right questions.
When Niklas Mörner was invited a couple of years ago to give a presentation on sea-level rise at an international climate conference in Cambridge, he arranged for a copy of a paper by him for the layman to be circulated. The organizers agreed, but the moment they saw the title, Sea Level Is Not Rising, they not only refused to allow the paper to be circulated – without actually reading it – but went round collecting the few samizdat copies that had already reached the delegates.
This offensive and now routine intolerance of what is now daily being confirmed as the objective truth should not be tolerated for a moment longer.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:22 am
I do not know whether “Phil” and “drumphil” are both the same person, for they both lurk furtively behind pseudonyms, so that their identities cannot be determined. “Phil” even goes so far as to say “Phil” is his own name, as though that were some how sufficient to identify him.
Clearly you don’t know what a pseudonym is!
If I were posting under two names you can be sure that the Mods would not allow me to post as it is a breach of the blog rules.
Not everyone’s name is sufficient to identify him, the year I applied to college in the UK it was stated on the form that in a previous year over 400 John Smiths applied. My full name is the same as my grandfather’s and my name and title is the same as one of my nephews.
However, as I have explained, I answered “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote” to a question about whether I was a member of the House of Lords and, therefore, did not mislead anyone about whether I was a “member” as narrowly defined by the 1999 Act.
Well that narrow definition is the actual definition used by Parliament, you do not get to make up your own definition!
I am, however, a member of the House to the extent, for instance, of having the right to attend Coronations and having the right to use the title “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley” or “Lord Monckton”.
No you’re a peer of the realm and those are privileges of that status, you are not a member of the House.
And that is an end of the matter.
No the end of the matter is that the designated Parliamentary authority has ruled that you are not and never have been a Member of the HOL (both the current Clerk of the Parliaments and his predecessor). He has told you to desist from making such claims. That should be the end of it unless you appeal to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct for a writ of summons, as indicated by the Mereworth decision separation of powers precludes your taking it to court.
Steven Mosher says:
May 6, 2014 at 10:58 am
– – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
I think that there was a substantive disagreement with Christopher Monckton by rgbatduke at May 4, 2014 at 9:17 am.
Also, Nick Stokes was likewise in disagreement with CM.
So at least one lamb was vocal . . . . baaaa baaaa : )
John
John Whitman says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:05 am
Seriously? You’ve got no comment on anybody born to circumstances that differ from yours? I’m a little amazed too John.
Steven,
Thanks for the flag. No disrespect intended to you Lord Monckton. Clearly something I ought to learn more about.
– – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
Seriously. For me to do what you asked of me it is not possible for I have insufficient knowledge of Monckton’s life. Sorry. And I respect him way too much to speculate.
John
John,
Just being my usual dense self, I guess. I don’t see what Christopher Monckton specifically had to do with my question. Imagine you were born Earl Whitman of wherever you like…
Oh never mind. It just seems to me that you’re beating up on the guy because he happened to be born a lord and hasn’t ?? what? renounced the title or whatever it is you’d do to avoid being medieval-ish. Don’t see why he should, and don’t see why it’s such a travesty that he use the title in the 21rst century, that’s all.
Sorry for the thread interruption, I’ll drop this now.
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful. Britain, unlike whichever Communist country “Phil” inferentially inhabits, allows freedom of speech. If I, as a peer, choose to say I am a member of the House of Lords but without the right to sit or vote, I am entitled to my opinion, and indeed to the learned legal Opinion that confirms in all respects my understanding of the position.
The fool who is Cluck of the Parliaments, the useless Beamish, had been misinformed by fellow leftists, had failed to check the position before he acted, and put up his silly letter on the House of Lords’ website. He is now stuck with his stupidity. And he is not “the designated authority”. The designated authority is the House itself, or in some circumstances the Privileges Committee. As I have previously pointed out in this thread, the House and the Privileges Committee have remained silent on this matter. The “designated authority”, therefore, has not spoken, whether “Phil” – who is clearly no expert – likes it or not.
Meanwhile, global temperatures are not rising as predicted (or, recently, at all); sea level is not rising as predicted; the sea is not warming as predicted; the ice is not melting as predicted; the deserts are not growing as predicted; hurricanes and tornadoes are not increasing as predicted; droughts and floods are not increasing as predicted; and just about every major point on which we were told the science is settled and the debate is over the science is not settled and the debate is raging.
One day, when “Phil” gets out of its diapers, it will no doubt learn that, although it may think it is championing the Communist cause by talking ignorantly and maliciously about my peerage, it is merely serving to confirm the pathetic intellectual bankruptcy of the paid trolls who waste their time here. In one respect, however, the pettiness and viciousness of these twerps is helpful. For any third party looking in – and perhaps 100,000 a day do just that – can see perfectly well that anyone who bangs on and on and on about irrelevancies when confronted with scientific facts is becoming terrified that the facts are gradually proving the climate extremist superstition to be wrong.
If you can’t stick to the point of the head posting, then you advertise not my inadequacy but your own. Go and play in someone else’s sandpit until you are adult enough to participate here.
Oh, and I have discovered that the reason why the moderators allow things like the furtive “Phil” to spit and spew their incoherent venom here is that they enjoy my replies. However, I shall be talking with Anthony about this next month, for I am not sure that – however entertaining to the moderators my replies to such stupidities may be – the diversionary tactics of the now rapidly retreating trolls are more of a help (in advertising the cretinous feeble-mindedness of the Branch Warmingian Cult) than a hindrance (in deflecting or preventing proper scientific discussion).
Now that was genuinely hilarious.
“If you can’t stick to the point of the head posting, then you advertise not my inadequacy but your own. Go and play in someone else’s sandpit until you are adult enough to participate here.”
Pot, meet kettle. You’ve had plenty to say about others.
Mr Monckton, does the House of Lords Act 1999 state:
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”
??
Are you claiming membership by virtue of hereditary peerage?
Are you claiming that the House of Lords Act 1999 is unconstitutional?
Lord Monckton, I agree with you. They are not British, they do not know what polite society involves, where one recognizes titles and birth right. In fact I have known a lot of titled people in Britain, and between friends and associates usually they don’t expect the formality to be maintained, but in public they are addressed formally. All but for the HRH’s and her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, who remains Queen of Australia and many other states. She is not head of State of Australia, and has no influence or even can comment on any political decision. I have a letter to prove it when the last GG reckoned Australia would one day be a Republic. Our head of State is Sir Peter Cosgrove who will not involve himself and can’t into the Republican issue.
No better person could represent the Queen in our Country. And he is Australian a point that republicans miss. No foreigner can hold the GG position. The comments are so Anti-British and spiteful, detracting this thread from the real issues, that one wonders what mentality is involved here? Just to snipe at you personally, with what in mind I can’t say, other than discredit you and use this thread to bring in republican (Australian) nonsense. Do you understand now, Phil or drumphil! Just as well that we are not in the Medieval mode as one commented or you would be beheaded. Read your British history, dorks. And Australian too, from and before 1901. Republicans don’t realise before Federation Aborigines had the vote, but somehow were missed out when the 1901 constitution was compiled.
Have you no respect for British law bushbunny?
Does the House of Lords Act 1999 state “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.” or not?
All the rest of what you say is irrelevant, because you have no idea what I think about any of those things. How do you think I voted in the referendum? Go on, take a guess..
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 6, 2014 at 3:09 pm
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful.
As anyone who reads this will see I continue to be polite whereas you are rude and abusive and revert to your stock in trade, the ad hominem.
Britain, unlike whichever Communist country “Phil” inferentially inhabits, allows freedom of speech.
As a British citizen I’m well aware of that, why is it that everyone who disagrees with you gets labelled a ‘communist, or ‘leftist’ or ‘troll’?
If I, as a peer, choose to say I am a member of the House of Lords but without the right to sit or vote, I am entitled to my opinion, and indeed to the learned legal Opinion that confirms in all respects my understanding of the position.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts!
The fool who is Cluck of the Parliaments, the useless Beamish, had been misinformed by fellow leftists, had failed to check the position before he acted, and put up his silly letter on the House of Lords’ website. He is now stuck with his stupidity.
More ad hominem, he quoted your statements from the Australian radio broadcast, how is that being misinformed? His predecessor had also written to you on the matter of your claims.
And he is not “the designated authority”.
According to the House of Lords Act, 1999, he is indeed, as in section 2(6) which I quoted above:
“Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.”
And he has decided that you are not a member of the House of Lords.
The designated authority is the House itself, or in some circumstances the Privileges Committee. As I have previously pointed out in this thread, the House and the Privileges Committee have remained silent on this matter. The “designated authority”, therefore, has not spoken, whether “Phil” – who is clearly no expert – likes it or not.
Their ‘designated authority’ has decided the matter so there is no need for them to rule, unless you apply to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.
One day, when “Phil” gets out of its diapers, it will no doubt learn that, although it may think it is championing the Communist cause by talking ignorantly and maliciously about my peerage, it is merely serving to confirm the pathetic intellectual bankruptcy of the paid trolls who waste their time here. In one respect, however, the pettiness and viciousness of these twerps is helpful. For any third party looking in – and perhaps 100,000 a day do just that – can see perfectly well that anyone who bangs on and on and on about irrelevancies when confronted with scientific facts is becoming terrified that the facts are gradually proving the climate extremist superstition to be wrong.
You made a false statement concerning your membership of the House of Lords, which I corrected, anyone reading the paragraph above can see who’s being petty and vicious.
If you can’t stick to the point of the head posting, then you advertise not my inadequacy but your own. Go and play in someone else’s sandpit until you are adult enough to participate here.
I didn’t raise the issue of your status, you did
Oh, and I have discovered that the reason why the moderators allow things like the furtive “Phil” to spit and spew their incoherent venom here is that they enjoy my replies.
The venom is all yours, as this post clearly illustrates.
However, I shall be talking with Anthony about this next month, for I am not sure that – however entertaining to the moderators my replies to such stupidities may be – the diversionary tactics of the now rapidly retreating trolls are more of a help (in advertising the cretinous feeble-mindedness of the Branch Warmingian Cult) than a hindrance (in deflecting or preventing proper scientific discussion).
By all means let’s have a proper scientific discussion, that is greatly facilitated by not calling people who disagree with you: ‘trolls’ and not using abusive, ad hominem rhetoric.
You are continually misinterpretating what they mean by ‘member’ of the House of Lords who have voting rights and is elected.
Maybe it would be easier for you to understand, when we refer to members of the senate and House of Representatives in Australia. They are elected to sit in the two chambers.
They changed it (in UK) that hereditary peers that had previously an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords chamber to those to being elected only. But as Lord Monckton has tried to explain and you have conveniently dismissed, he is allowed to retain his title and attend coronations etc., as a peer of the realm. That can not be taken away from him ever. But can no longer vote in the house of Lords. I have great respect for British law but what you mention is political regulations regarding who is entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Not British law at all.
How do you think I voted in the 1999 referendum! I only became an Australian citizen when the consensus and result supported a constitutional monarchy and not a politician’s republic, where politicians would rule us and nominate a president of their choosing, then dismiss them if they didn’t toe the line. I still maintain a British passport too. Although I could get an Australian passport as I was once married to an Australian who hated the British too.
You’ve already admitted you are a Republican mate. But to turn this into a political thread when more important contributions on sea level rises are more appropriate. Let’s get back to WUWT, as it is getting boring, that includes you.
There is no such thing as a non voting member of the house of lords. While Christopher may be entitled to his title for ceremonial occasions, this does not make him a member of the house.
Oh crumbs, drumphil, you go on and on. You’ve backed down now, before you said he was dishonest using the title of Lord. Go away for GS, I must admit mod. I have not seen any contribution from this poster on other threads. Maybe I am wrong.
He was never just claiming the title of lord. He was also claiming membership of the house.
And I go on and on? Look at all the irrelevant drivel you have posted about royalty, and republicanism.
You brought it up drumphil, all I was commenting I have heard similar uneducated comments before all from republicans and trolls. If you persist in arguing about what LM means by member, why don’t you stop fiddling with your own. (Sorry mod he deserved it!) I think I have made my points quite clear, so buzz off.
Still on with the irrelevant republican rubbish I see.. Whatever.
Frankly, I could be the world leader of the movement to have all royals everywhere put up against the wall, and it still wouldn’t make the damnedest difference to the issue.
Steven Mosher asks…plainly speaking what is your opinion of this?
“The official sea level data are fiddled by an artifice known as the “global isostatic adjustment”. The inconvenient truth that sea level is not changing much must be concealed, so an enormous, bogus addition to the actual trend is made”
==================================
Steven, despite the sarcastic nature of your “silence of the lambs” question, I will give you a concise answer, followed by a more detailed one. The concise answer is that Monckton’s statement has a dual answer, that is it appllies to both the science, and the polotics behind the science. The adustment is enormous, relative to the trend. It’s about 0.3 mm/year. Maybe 10-30% of the SL increase, depending on what study you quote. That, in itself, is quite large, but read other resons it is “enormus and bogus” below…
The volume metric is not related to sea level. Ocean volume could increase and Sea level could go up, stay the same, or go down. With regard to the theory of CAGW, only the rate at which the surface rises matters. Falsely conflating volume and level, and then adding in a theoretical increase in volume, to a graph showing sea level, when we know that the sea level DID NOT RISE AN ADDITIONAL .3 mm, but we label the graph “Sea Level” showing a .3 mm rise, is scientifically outrageous, manifestly distorting the actual rise by 10% to 30% depending on how much you think the level is actually rising.
Then using that graphic to project the dangers of AGW, which is what politicians do, is amplification of poor science, just like the article on California drought I linked to is doing. This political factor is the dual aspect of why Mockton’s comment is spot on.
The metric should be how much is sea level rising or lowering verses land that is doing neither, and how much of that rise is due to human activity. I suppose we measure it against the best reference we have, which is likely satellites. Since the volume increase got the level NO CLOSER TO THE SATELITES, or any vertical reference you choose, then volume should not be used in a Sea LEVEL graph. If you want to theorize on ocean volume, do an ocean volume graph.
I am awaiting your non “silence of the Lambs” response to my clear attempt to dialogue.
dunphil says…
Frankly, I could be the world leader of the movement to have all royals everywhere put up against the wall, and it still wouldn’t make the damnedest difference to the issue.
=========================================
Yes indeed, and yet your second comment n this thread, completly not related to the thread was drumphil says:
May 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Gawd, Christopher has actually found a place where people with call him “Lord” with a straight face?
===============================================
This form of delection, which you have continued with troll like persistence above, is indeed unrelated to the post. However my post just above yours, addresses the issue head on. Will you also have a “silence of the Lambs” response? Or perhaps another fit that I have no right to demand anything from you. I only demand my own honest apprasial of the quality of your comments being a reflection of your capacity for genuine dialogue.
I do find it funny given given his record of deception on the issue of being a member of the house of lords. Especially given his vitriol directed against others he accuses of dishonesty.
And I don’t believe for a second that he would get the same “never mind the titles or honesty, what about the science!” treatment if he was arguing for “the other side”.
Thank goodness,David keep going. Cheers folks got to feed the dogs. Look forward to returning to this blog tomorrow and more interesting ‘on topic’ comments. As far as sea levels, there is erosion of course, when people build houses on the top of cliffs, because in UK some of our tidal movements are quite nasty, usually they build breaks and sea walls. Particularly on and near popular sandy beaches down South. (Bournemouth) However, after living in Bermuda and Australia, I don’t bathe in the English seas, too bleedin’ cold. Have a good night.