![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.
bushbunny says:May 7, 2014 at 12:15 am
Thank goodness,David keep going
====================================
I keep trying to get drumphil to stay on topic. I hoped he would respond to my post here… David A says:May 6, 2014 at 11:49 pm, . I regret that with regard to staying on topic, he choose, “silence of the lambs”
yes, earlier in this post I talked about the WAG that makes the volume ajustment. I do not know if they estimate runoff, ocean bio-life snow, or what kind of handle they have on ocean tectonic and volcanism with regard to ocean volume.
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful, petty, wrong, and, above all, entirely off topic. The same for the equally furtive “drumphil”.
But let us again get some facts straight. In saying I was a member of the House but without the right to sit and vote I was stating the exact constitutional position, as the legal advice (a copy of which is available on this site) makes clear. Peerage is membership of the House. The 1999 Act recognized this by denying membership in the narrow sense of the right to sit and vote to hereditary peers, who were, however, permitted to continue to use the facilities of the House, to retain their titles and to enjoy all other rights, obligations and privileges of membership of the House.
The Clerk of the Parliaments is not the designated authority to determine membership of the House outside the narrow definition in s. 1 of the 1999 Act. Nor was he acting with the authority either of the House or of the Privileges Committee when he wrote his remarkably stupid and uninformed letter. The Clerk had no need to “decide” in my case whether I was a “member of the House” in the sense of having the right to sit or vote, since I had made the fact that I had no such right explicit. The Clerk intervened at the initiative of political Leftists in Australia, and in breach of his duty of impartiality.
He is as entitled to his opinion as I am to mine, but it is not appropriate venomously to accuse me of dishonesty or of making a “false statement” when all I had done was to express my honest opinion, particularly since I had made it plain that my membership of the House did not entail the right to sit or vote. The legal Opinion that I obtained explicitly addressed the question whether I had been dishonest. It would be fair to say that the Clerk was dishonest in a number of respects, but not that I was.
The intent of such postings by trolls, which crop up from time to time, is plainly to try to discredit those who, like me, dare to challenge the received unwisdom on the climate question. Ad-hominem but pathetically implausible allegations of dishonesty seem to be intended not so much to silence us as to frighten off others who might otherwise dare to stand up and oppose the exaggerated and extreme claims of the climate extremists. Most of these are on the far Left in political terms, which is perhaps no coincidence, since the Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals, recommends precisely this technique.
“Phil”, a habitual whiner, whinges that I have called it a “troll”. Well, it has persisted in making outrageously false allegations that are entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the head posting. If it walks like a troll and whines off topic like a troll, it is a troll and I shall call it a troll.
Meanwhile, the science continues to collapse. A devastating new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation raises much the same concerns about the reliability of the satellite sea-level record as I have done in the head posting, and raises several more concerns, such as the fact that the rate of change in sea level varies from place to place, and that the global uptrend seems not to have accelerated much in recent decades, notwithstanding what the official record shows.
So the trolls are wasting their time trying to shoot me down. The facts are moving inexorably against them. They are no more expert in climate science than they are in peerage law, and the co-ordinated campaign against me and others by the climate extremist faction is gradually being seen by all for what it is – a hate-filled, politically and financially motivated campaign of lies, of which the lies of “Phil”, “drumphil” and suchlike trolls are an insignificant example.
Perhaps the best way to deal with these trolls would be to get their names and addresses and then sue them. One can’t sue the Clerk of the Parliaments, but one can sue those who make libelous allegations that I have been “dishonest” or have made “false statements” when I have not. Then the court could look at the legal opinion, and the Clerk’s letter, and the law, and could decide whether those who have accused me of “dishonesty” have gone too far.
Well, go on then.
In fact, why haven’t you challenged the House of Lords Act, 1999 or Baron Mereworth v Ministry in the courts?
– – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
Sorry, I am a little late in getting back to your comment.
I was responding in my previous comment to you to your suggestion that I try to step into Monckton’s shoes and look at things from his perspective. Therefore my response to you was I do not know Moncktons life details, so it is not possible for me to. And I won’t try to publically speculate as to his life, because in several ways I do hold some high respect for him.
I am still amazed a 21st century person would call another person a Lord. : )
On another subject not addressed by you in your comment to me . . . . . .
As to the discussion addressed by ‘Phil’ on Monckton’s status wrt the HOL and replies to him, I pay close attention because it lends valuable insight to me as an American into the status culture of nobility/royalty of Britain and more broadly of old pre-modern Europe. Seems to me to be a fascinating real life situation and dialog that reflects a famous long since bygone era. I hope it continues in that regard, it seems a way to help understand old pre-modern Europe and Britain.
John
And, for the record, I did state my name and address here in this thread, but Anthony chose to redact it.
Was is “anthony” that time that sent it to moderation? It’s fun to guess.
[yes it was . . . mod]
John,
(emphasis added)
I would have let this go, except that you continue to reiterate the part I emphasized.
Yes John. I have read and understood your response. You have said twice now that you do not know Lord Monckton’s life details and therefore, in essence it is impossible for you to look at things from his perspective. While it remains somewhat astonishing to me that you would argue this, there is no further need to reiterate this point, since it isn’t responsive to the issue I’m raising.
Forget about Christopher Monckton. You do not need to know anything about him to answer this. Suppose for a moment that due to accident of birth you were born Earl John Whitman of Derby, or Viscount John Whitman of Halifax. Understand that the specific title and honorary fiefdom is irrelevant, the point is merely that we are supposing you were born a lord. This is your title. What would you do about this? You repeatedly express your amazement that a 21st century person would call another person a Lord, so it seems to me that the burden is yours to explain how the situation should properly be handled by those who by virtue of an accident of birth are born with the title. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, perhaps your astonishment is misplaced.
drumphil = relentlessy off topic and irrelvant to the post.
And me too, I must admit. It just seems like bad manners to me not to give people their titles. Rabbi, Reverend, sensei, colonel, judge, representative, Dr., Sister, what have you. I don’t understand why it’s an issue and it bugs me. But I will do my level best to shut up now.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
May 7, 2014 at 5:17 am
“Phil”, whoever it is, continues to be spiteful, petty, wrong, and, above all, entirely off topic. The same for the equally furtive “drumphil”.
No spite or pettiness on my part, if it’s off topic you shouldn’t have raised it, I’ve only responded to your posts on the subject!
But let us again get some facts straight. In saying I was a member of the House but without the right to sit and vote I was stating the exact constitutional position, as the legal advice (a copy of which is available on this site) makes clear. Peerage is membership of the House.
Only according to you, not by the law of the land, in the judgement Mereworth case Mr Justice Lewison stated:
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
That’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion of a Lord Justice of Appeal, and member of the Privy Council.
Perhaps the best way to deal with these trolls would be to get their names and addresses and then sue them. One can’t sue the Clerk of the Parliaments, but one can sue those who make libelous allegations that I have been “dishonest” or have made “false statements” when I have not.
When two Clerks of the Parliaments and a Lord Justice of Appeal disagree with your personal definition of Membership of the HOL and you persist in claiming that you are, I call that a ‘false statement’. As I said before you could settle the whole matter once and for all by appealing to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, but for some reason you prefer to threaten to sue people who quote the present legal definition to you.
a hate-filled, politically and financially motivated campaign of lies, of which the lies of “Phil”, “drumphil” and suchlike trolls are an insignificant example.
I am unaware of such a campaign and I certainly haven’t lied about anything.
Phil, any reference to Monckton’s peerage is trolling, and 100% entirely not relevant to the post.
Anthony would be doing a huge favor to have any future discussion of this off limits, as it is 100% irrelevant to the purpose of this blog.
bushbunny says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:56 pm
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.
No beheading was reserved for the nobility, we’d be hung. Even if you were nobility you could be hung, drawn and quartered if you really p****ed off the monarch, as one of my family was under Elizabeth I.
Mark Bofill says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:12 am
@John Whitman on May 7, 2014 at 6:28 am
– – – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
What premises could I have had when I made the below statement?
That is the question. N’est ce pas?
Mark, we can take this conversation elsewhere, since you seem to think it is not a natural derivative of the thread. Where shall we take it?
John
Thanks John. How about your place?
Mark Bofill says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:52 am
– – – – – – – –
: )
John
David A says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:51 am
Phil, any reference to Monckton’s peerage is trolling, and 100% entirely not relevant to the post.
Anthony would be doing a huge favor to have any future discussion of this off limits, as it is 100% irrelevant to the purpose of this blog.
No problem as long as that includes Monckton since it was his statement that I was responding to.
REPLY: Phil, Monckton at least has the courage to put his name to his opinions. We’ve been over this before, you are an academic at a major University, too timid to do so for fear that it might affect your tenured gravy train.
I suggest kindly, that you STFU on this issue, or put your name to it if you want to continue, because if you want to continue, I’ll do it for you if you don’t. Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
I am most grateful to Anthony for his intervention.
There is a P & A Schaeffer in NSW. His address was noticed by me before it was clipped by mod. Yamba is a lovely spot too, good fishing.
Yep, I’m real alright.
And, Chrisopher Monckton can attempt to sue me any time he likes. He can also appeal to the privileges committee, or challenge the constitutionality of the House of Lords act 1999, or launch a legal challenge against Baron Mereworth v Ministry.
But he wont. He’d much rather stay away from the legal system with this matter.
Hilarious that he will threaten to sue anyone who points out the legal definitions and decisions, but he won’t actually challenge those things directly in court., or with the privileges committee.
Just remember defamation and libel apply to emails too. He could complain to your server. But you could be banned from the site, although Anthony is very good here, few have.
Have a beer and calm down, obviously you don’t work at this time of day 2.20 pm in Australia and NSW. But I doubt Lord Monckton would bother, he has more important issues to deal with. And as they say, we British are not easily insulted, we are so self confident, (comes with our upbringing) as you most probably have gathered. Now where were we?
“Yamba is a lovely spot too, good fishing.”
Yeah, it’s a very nice place. Beautiful river and coastline. Comfortable climate.
I used to work with my father on his prawn trawler off the coast here.
Anyone mod who openly puts his name and address on the web, when accusing someone of dishonesty etc., must be mad. (Sorry mod, he deserves that)
“Just remember defamation and libel apply to emails too. He could complain to your server.”
He can do what he likes. Good luck to him.
“But you could be banned from the site, although Anthony is very good here, few have.”
Oh damn, I’m so sorry. I’ll get right back to “Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side”