Pseudoscientists’ eight climate claims debunked

mad_science_guyGuest Essay By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The intellectual dishonesty of the Thermageddonites is well demonstrated in a particularly fatuous piece entitled Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists at the hand-wringing-and-hysteria website billmoyers.com.

The article is full of ad-hom whining – the most childish form of that most infantile of all logical fallacies, the red-herring fallacy, the totalitarians’ customary substitute for serious scientific argument. We shall ignore it. Instead, let us scrutinize the “science” put forward by this self-appointed soviet of “Real Scientists”.

They begin by saying: “Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.” That is mere yah-boo – another instance of the red-herring fallacy.

They go on to say that the climate issue is “settled in the scientific community”. That is the headcount fallacy. More about it anon.

They say They “gathered eight of the most common pseudoscientific arguments” advanced by skeptics and “asked some serious climate scientists [yeah, right] … to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading”. That is the argument from appeal to authority. So far, no science at all from the “Real Scientists”. Just illogic piled upon illogic, fallacy upon fallacy.

The first of the eight “pseudoscientific arguments” of which They accuse us is that the Earth has not been warming recently. They are particularly offended by my reproducing the real-world temperature data, determining the trend on the data, and daring to publish the inconvenient truth every month.

These Pause Deniers are not at all happy that the global temperature record shows no global warming for well over 13 years (mean of all five global-temperature datasets).

Whether They like it or not, there is a large, growing and – for Them – embarrassing discrepancy between the predictions made by “Settled Science” and the inconvenient truth that over no period of ten years or more since the IPCC’s first report in 1990 has global warming ever occurred at anything like the predicted rate.

Since January 2005, the data from which the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report starts its backcast predictions, there has been no global warming at all. Yet compared with little more than nine years ago the IPCC predicts that the weather should now be a sixth of a Celsius degree warmer than it is (Fig. 1).

clip_image002

Figure 1. IPCC (2013) (orange region) predicted that there should have been a sixth of a Celsius degree of global warming since January 2005 (thick red trend-line). However, observed temperature (mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets) (thick blue trend-line) has if anything declined a little since that date.

However, They do not like to look at temperature change over such short periods. So let us oblige Them by going back to the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990. If its predictions had been correct, there should have been two-thirds of a degree of global warming since then, but in the real world where the rest of us live there has only been one-third of a degree of warming (Fig. 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2. Predictions from the IPCC’s First Assessment Report compared with outturn since 1990 (RSS & UAH). The world has been warming at exactly half the predicted rate, and the trend falls wholly outwith the prediction interval (orange region).

That is why the IPCC has been compelled to reduce its central near-term global warming prediction from a rate equivalent to 2.78 Cº/century then to 1.67 Cº/century equivalent now.

They say I should have been monitoring ocean heat content and not atmospheric temperature. Two problems with that. The IPCC’s headline temperature predictions are for global atmospheric temperature; and, though the satellites can monitor temperature with something approaching reliability, there are far too few ocean measurements to allow a proper determination of change in ocean heat content – which in any event is rising at about one-sixth the predicted rate.

They also say I cherry-pick 1998 as the start date for my graphs. No: I ask the question, “What is the earliest month since when the global temperature record shows no increase?” The answer, at present, is August 1996, 17 years 9 months ago, predating the great El Niño temperature spike of 1998 by two and a half years.

The “Real Scientists’” second alleged skeptical error – again attributed to me – is that the difference between modeled and observed temperature change is weather, not climate, the latter being what happens over several decades.

Yet Fig. 2 goes back to 1990. It covers very nearly a quarter of a century. That is quite long enough to allow some sharp conclusions to be drawn about how unsettled the “Settled Science” actually is. The graph starts in 1990 because that is the date of the IPCC’s first report.

The “Real Scientists’” third nit-pick is that, notwithstanding Anthony Watts’ US Surface Stations project, which has amply demonstrated what a joke the terrestrial temperature record is, everything is really hunky-dory. They add, bafflingly, that “scientists are not idiots”. On the evidence, this lot are more idiots than scientists.

They say Anthony’s results were “the issue the skeptics were touting, but if you look at the peer-reviewed literature, this was stuff that was answered years ago.” Indeed it was – by Michaels & McKitrick (2007), who found a highly significant correlation between regional rates of industrial growth and of global warming, leading to the conclusion that warming over land had been overstated by double.

The “Real Scientists’” fourth assertion is that “Yes, There Is a Scientific Consensus”. As is now traditional, They define it with artfully-calculated imprecision as “the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the earth to warm”. Let us be as precise as They are vague. The existence of the greenhouse effect is definitively established both in theory and in experiment and needs no “consensus” to prop it up. CO2 concentration is rising, chiefly owing to our activities (unless Professor Salby is right). Therefore, it is established that our activities may cause warming.

But the true scientific debate is not about the long-established qualitative question whether there is a greenhouse effect. It is about the quantitative question how much warming we may cause. The IPCC, whose duty is to reflect the balance of the scientific literature, mendaciously and without statistical rigor assigns a fictitious “95% confidence” to the notion that we caused most of the 0.75 Cº global warming since 1950. However, Legates et al. (2013) have demonstrated that just 0.5% of 11,944 climate science abstracts published from 1991-2011 state that we are the major cause of recent warming. “Consensus” is lacking. The IPCC is wrong.

Fifthly, the “Real Scientists” say global warming is “Not the Sun’s Fault”. They begin by congratulating themselves and their ilk for not having “persecuted” Professor Svensmark for his cosmic-ray amplification theory, and for not having “run him out of the scientific community on a rail”.

In fact, the Royal Society – the world’s oldest whining taxpayer-funded pressure-group – treated the Professor so badly when he presented his results, howling him down and calling him names, that he suffered a serious heart attack not long thereafter. Professor Bengtsson, recently bullied by his peer climate scientists, is by no means the only distinguished scientist to have been subjected to Their global bullying.

The “Real Scientists” say Professor Svensmark’s results “don’t stand up to scrutiny” and add, falsely, that “there’s no evidence to support Svensmark’s contention”. The true position is that there is a considerable and growing body of evidence and support for it in the reviewed literature that so few of them ever read.

To make matters worse, They falsely say his hypothesis is that “the sun explains everything”. I have heard him lecture many times and have discussed his theory with him. Theirs is a monstrous and malicious misrepresentation of his position.

They maintain that if the Sun were the cause of recent warming all altitudes would warm, but that “the upper atmosphere is actually cooling”. Er, no. The stratosphere cooled in the 1990s but its temperature has shown little trend this millennium.

The “Real Scientists’” sixth assertion, in response to suggestions that the Sun has entered a cooling cycle, is that “there is no credible data nor any credible scientist who would make this claim.” Yet, as Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics has long pointed out, the lengthening of the past solar cycle from the usual 10.6 years to more like 13 years may well indicate that the next few solar cycles will be comparatively inactive.

This view is supported by research at NASA showing that the magnetic convection currents beneath the solar surface have slowed to walking pace for the first time since observations of their velocity began. Many solar physicists are at least open to the possibility that the Sun will be less active than usual in the coming decades.

On grind the “Real Scientists” with their seventh assertion, that I was wrong to point out that the fastest warming ever recorded by thermometers occurred in central England in the 17th century, before the industrial revolution began. They are upset that I have pointed out that this record centennial warming rate occurred between 1663 and 1762. This, They think, is “cherry-picking”.

No: I simply asked the question, “What was the fastest centennial rate of global warming in the instrumental record?” The answer is what it is, like it or not. There was more warming in that century than in any 100-year period since. The warming of 1663-1762 cannot have been caused by us. Therefore the possibility exists that some perhaps substantial fraction of the lesser global warming of the past century may also have been natural.

Inspecting the data seems to me to be the right starting-point for scientific enquiry. But, over and over again, the “Real Scientists” express their dislike of the real world and the inconvenient data that are observable here.

Eighthly and finally, They say Antarctic ice is not increasing, and that to say that it is increasing is “interesting given the two major studies … which found that six large West Antarctic glaciers are in an irreversible state of decline.”

Let us instruct these woeful scientific illiterates in a few facts. First, skeptics say – because that is what the evidence shows – that Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Indeed, it has repeatedly broken the 35-year satellite-era record. Secondly, the “two major studies” were concerned with land-based ice, not sea ice.

And, my oh my, six glaciers declining! Hold the Front PAGE!!! Here is an inconvenient truth that the “Real Scientists” may stumble upon if They ever read anything. There are more than six glaciers on Earth. There are thought to be more than 160,000. Nearly all have never been visited or studied by Man.

A little logic might also help these climate campaigners disguised as “scientists”. Antarctica has not warmed since the satellites have been watching. Therefore, it is difficult to assert with any confidence that the apparent retreat of half a dozen glaciers in a corner of Antarctica known to have an anomalous climate and to be affected by subsea volcanism is attributable to manmade global warming.

The “Real Scientists” say Antarctica’s land-based ice is “melting at an alarming rate”. Since the melting is not caused by warming (for the good and sufficient reason that there has not been any in the region across the entire satellite era), true scientists would first check that the land-based ice is melting “at an alarming rate” (hint: it isn’t), and then try to find out why, rather than adopting a naively but profitably aprioristic stance and blaming Man.

True scientists might also check where the “alarming” ice melt is going. For even the official (and questionable) satellite record of sea-level rise does not show much more than 3 mm of sea-level rise each year. Other records – such as the eight-year Envisat record – show sea level rising at a rate equivalent to just 3 cm/century (Fig. 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3. The Envisat sea-level record during its eight-year life, and before any “global isostatic adjustments” or other tamperings to sex up the apparent rate of sea-level rise.

 

clip_image008

Figure 4. The extent to which the raw sea-level data have been tampered with to force them to show sea level as rising alarmingly is alarming.

And the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites have shown sea level actually falling (Peltier et al., 2009) (Fig. 4). So where has all that melting ice hidden itself? Perhaps it’s skulking at the bottom of the ocean alongside the missing heat.

Sea level rose by about 7-8 inches in the 20th century, according to the tide-gauges. After adjusting for calibration errors and a bewildering variety of tamperings with the satellite sea-level data, that rate has not changed much. And why would it? For there has been very little global warming over the past decade or two.

Real “Real Scientists” would have examined sea-level reconstructions over the past millennium to see how sea level changed in response to the medieval warm period (warmer than the present) and the little ice age (cooler). That is what I have done in Fig. 5. Grinsted et al. (2009) reconstructed 1000 years of sea-level change. Note how well the sea-level curve corresponds with the curve of 1000 years’ reconstructed temperatures over the same period. Note in passing how poorly both curves track the ludicrous “hokey-stick” graph from the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report.

And note in particular how small the change in sea level has been: just 8 inches up or down in 1000 years.

clip_image010

Figure 5. Reconstructed sea-level change (Grinsted et al., 2009) and global temperature change (IPCC, 1990) compared over the past millennium. The evident correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but at least the possibility of causation exists.

Let us suppose, ad argumentum, that the main reason for sea-level change is temperature change, and that Grinsted’s sea-level reconstruction is plausible. In that event, the small sea-level response to the large temperature change between the medieval warm period and the little ice age suggests the possibility that even a global warming far greater than what is now likely might not have much impact on sea level.

Given that the “Real Scientists” are manifestly wrong in substance on every point They made in their article, why did They bother to expose Their ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy by writing it in the first place?

The reason is simple. The evidence-based, science-based arguments of the skeptics are gaining traction, and the true-believers in the Thermageddon cult know it. Their shoddy technique is to parade their negligible scientific credentials, to write utter garbage such as that which I have exposed here, and to publish it on some friendly website or another. This allows other climate campaigners to link to the garbage and assert – quite falsely – that our arguments have been “repeatedly and thoroughly debunked” by “Real Scientists.”

In truth, the “Real Scientists” have debunked themselves by writing such transparent drivel that even a layman can see right through it.

The dishonorable conduct of the “Real Scientists”, to which no real scientist would ever sink, is a measure of their sheer, panic-laden desperation. They cannot even pray for deliverance in the shape of another record-breaking el Niño, for remarkably few Thermageddonites believe in God. They are too busy believing in whatever line the Party has handed down, Comrade.

The malevolent bunch who perpetrated the nonsense I have here debunked sneer at Roy Spencer because he is a believing Christian. They do not realize that They have Themselves gotten religion – but that They have made the mistake of subscribing not to a true religion but to a mere shamanistic superstition – a pseudo-religious belief system dressed up as science that can be, as it has here been, demonstrated to be obviously false in just about every material particular.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Johan

But haven’t you heard the latest news? You don’t need observations anymore to verify model results. The models ARE reality!

cnxtim

Excellent article.
.Having just watched with despair the otherwise excellent “new Sagan-esque” Cosmos series episode that bythely parroted the “science is in” mantra, it was refreshing to get my mind back on track and not be overly dismayed by the plethora of scandalous acceptance of CAGW and its supporting misinformation – thank you..

Thanks, Christopher. As always a treat to read.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Cheers

Latitude

The Envisat sea-level record during its eight-year life, and before any “global isostatic adjustments” or other tamperings to sex up the apparent rate of sea-level rise.
====
Envisat had to be tampered with from day one….it originally showed sea levels falling and/or no sea level rise at all

Kevin Lohse

” The IPCC, whose duty is to reflect the balance of the scientific literature, mendaciously and without statistical rigour….” The post is worth reading just for that line.

Brad

Great analysis!

TRBixler

Obama and his government money are still on point. Facts are not relevant when he is in control of government agencies and the dole to universities. Thank you Anthony and Christopher for all of your efforts.

Ricky Jackson

A very informative read. Well presented, factual and educational. Thank you. It is a pleasure to read informative articles like this. I also appreciate the way you show grace and diplomacy to the people who argue against you and prove them incorrect with unbiased unemotional factual arguments.

Louis

Excellent point! I didn’t know they were adjusting sea level readings to such an extent. That’s good to know.
There’s a mistake in the beginning paragraph for the eight point. It refers to West “Atlantic” glaciers, which is a type-o for West “Antarctic” glaciers. Here is the whole paragraph:
Eighthly and finally, They say Antarctic ice is not increasing, and that to say that it is increasing is “interesting given the two major studies … which found that six large West Atlantic glaciers are in an irreversible state of decline.”
[fixed thanks, -mod]

Simon

Can I have one thing made clear here, are we allowed to use the term “Denier” or not? Seems to me you can’t with any integrity allow one side to go there and not the other.

Not just 6 glaciers out of some 160,000, but 6 in W Antarctic Peninsula, not the main body of Antarctica.

bobl

Skewered the chickens as usual….
Cris, I have recently (well not so recently) decided that because CAGW is a moral issue for the comrades, that their belief system needs to be tackled not on scientific grounds but moral ground. The best demonstration of this is that by targetting a preindustrial CO2 effect the comrades are attempting to shift us back to a climate regime nearly at LIA levels. An event that took the lives of a good proportion of Europe’s population. In doing so they are depriving the population of the very thing needed to survive such colder temperature (cheap energy). Is it their contention then that having winters at the depth of 2012 (Europe) and 2013/14 (America) is good for the planet? What if their cooling influence tips us into the long overdue ice age? Is New york under a km of ice going to be a good thing for humanity?
How many people are they willing to have die to reach their ideal pre-industrial temperature where food production will be up to 15 percent lower. How are they going to make their solar panels work under 5 inches of snow, or their windmills turn with frozen bearing and hundreds of kg of ice on now aerodynamically useless blades. What are they going to do about the inevitable multiyear crop failures that their success is likely to bring about..? especially in a coincident solar minimum.
When I debate warmists these days I like to point out to the Useful Idiots what the consequences of their SUCCESS is for the planet, and how immoral their crusade is.
NB other immoral outcomes are diversion of money away from the great challenges like curing cancer, space travel, and other real science. Burning food for fuel. Killing and displacement of popoulations to make way for carbon farms. Depletion of rare earths. Death of pensioners from fuel poverty. Etc, etc.

hunter

If They had a sense of shame……

bobl

Arrgh, sorry about the misspelling LM, my tablet’s virtual keyboard is virtually unusable

joelobryan

Christopher wrote, “They have made the mistake of subscribing not to a true religion but to a mere shamanistic superstition – a pseudo-religious belief system dressed up as science …”.
In ancient times, the shamen and religious leaders would have the People deliver items of value to “sacrifice” to appease the angry gods. They demanded livestock such as cows, goats, and sheep (likely for the BBQs), nubile virgins (post-BBQ entertainment no doubt), and other valuable offerings be delivered to the temples. Today, the Progressive climate change establishment just demands more money sacrifices from the People. The scientist-believer-enablers keep getting their grants, the media gets their sensationalism-laced stories to sell, the “green-related” industries get their subsidies, and the politicians get their money to buy more votes on the road to power.

thegriss

Christopher, I disapprove of your Fig 2. You should not be creating linear trends across an obvious step event ie the large ElNino event from 1997-2000.
From beginning to end, the 1998 ElNino added about 0.25C to the global surface temperature. You can clearly see where it settled down in about 2001.
If you discount that 0.25C from temperatures after that, you will see that apart from the 1998 ElNino, there has been basically NO WARMING in the whole of the satellite record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/offset:-.25

thegriss

Furthermore, you should not be extrapolation even that linear trend out to “per century”. You should be stating it as a “per decade” number. “Century” is not relevant to the analysis.

norah4you

Only strawmen and badly educated scholars without valid argument triesAd Hominem, Ad Hoc and/or argumentum ab auctoritate. The Alarmists seems to have forgotten or never learnt these essential parts from their lessons in Theories of Science combining one or more with the forth worst fallacies using Appeal to fear for their “case”
When do they ever learn?

Charlie O.

Excellent rebuttal. Unfortunately, the likes of these “folks” have the ear of woefully ignorant politicians, with the Commander in Chief leading the parade. History will not be kind to the “scientists”, politicians and others that would enrich themselves by perpetrating the Obamanation of AGW.

bobl

@Hunter,
Most of the useful idiots do have shame, they are with it for the moral crusade, the morally bereft outcomes of their success really shakes them, that’s why I recommend that after you debunk the science you proceed to demolish the moral arguments holding up their faith. They need to be deprogrammed like any religious fanatic cult. The useful idiots don’t actually care if the science is right or not, their moral crusade is true and just, and they are in line for a green halo. (Some are truly misanthropic though, one couple when I challenged the immorality of diverting funds from cancer treatments said, “The world is overpopulated, we should leave all the people with cancer to just die” thouse people are a minority though and are probably in the Australian Greens senate team.
Most supporters think like this, reducing CO2 pollution couldn’t hurt, all my friends will love me because I’m a friend of the planet, and I’d be able to self-agrandise…so OK I’ll be pro CAGW.
When you show actions reducing CO2 “pollution” is killing people NOW, and they can’t selfagrandise using a religion that kills millions and takes food and medicines out of babies mouths, their moral compasses can be shifted away from “the planet” and back to humanity. Once that happens the reality of the science can have effect.

Jim G

And so, if we evicerate our US economy by attempting to change over to ‘green’ energy, which does not work economically even when it does work, and even when the government dollars are not outright stolen, as in Solyndra, and eliminate coal ( about 50 % of US electrical production ) and oil use, do any of these green idiots any longer even claim it will change the path that climate is on? Or do they claim we will have less droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, ocean rise or what have you? I don’t think that I am seeing any such claims. Even among those with such outlandish claims regarding what man’s CO2 is doing to this planet, I do not see any forecasts of what their solutions will provide in benefits for the price of the destruction of our economies. The economic conflagration is already upon us and will just continue to get worse. A significant portion of US jobs and GDP has already been sacrificed at the altar of the AGW religion while developing countries ignore their contributions to that heinous pollutant, CO2.
This is all about control and the leftist often used game plan to cause turmoil, out of which they then take tighter control. This game has been played over and over and every time Lucy moves the football the Charlie Browns of the world just take another kick at it. Well, I guess it is continuing proof that there is a normal distribution of IQ’s, but I fear that it is skewed way to the left.

Excellent read. I am glad that you brought up the climate change that took place from the Medieval to the Renaissance periods. I don’t think there were lots of factors and cars polluting then.
Someone joked that the Little Ice Age was responsible for the snow and bare trees at the Battle of Bosworth shown in “White Queen.”

chuck

The temperature graph in Figure 5 shows no units for the Y-axis.
Also the flattening from 1950 until 2000 is suspect.

Jim G

Sorry, eviscerate.

climatebeagle

Simple question for the warmers:
If the earth is warming now (as claimed by Dr Mann), and we apply your prescribed mitigations, how we know when we have been successful, or, even worse,if the remedies aggravate the problem (by increasing warming)?
I had thought previously it was the global surface temperature record, but that seems to have been discarded once it stalled. So simple question, what observable, measurable evidence defines if the earth is warming, cooling or stable?

Steve Case

This graphcomment image
says they bumped up the rate of sea level rise 1.9 mm/yr
That’s a full millimeter more than I’ve found. Here’s my graph
http://oi58.tinypic.com/331k5ya.jpg
of the changes made to the first ten years of the satellite record since 2004. Which I found by examining the old data files available on the Internet Archives Way Back Machine.
Where did Cazenave find the extra millimeter?

cynical_scientist

Simon says:
Can I have one thing made clear here, are we allowed to use the term “Denier” or not? Seems to me you can’t with any integrity allow one side to go there and not the other.

The problem with insults arises not the word itself but from the context – the intent behind the choice to use that word, the intended meaning and how that meaning is received. Who is using the word is very relevant in assessing that. Consider for example the word “nigger” which is often affectionately used by black people to refer to other black people (“my nigger”) with no insult intended or received. But if someone who isn’t black uses that word, that is going to be judged on a very different basis.

Louis

The article at billmoyers.com admits that Antarctic sea ice is increasing even though ocean water temperatures are increasing. Supposedly, increased winds caused by decreasing ozone is spreading the ice and somehow causing more surface water to freeze. I’m still confused about how warming ocean water could melt West Antarctica ice sheets while, at the same time, allow sea ice everywhere else to increase to record levels. I guess I would have to be a true believer to understand it.
The article also makes the claim that overall Antarctic land ice is melting at an alarming rate. They link to information that shows ice volume increasing in East Antarctica and decreasing in West Antarctica, but I couldn’t see anything about overall ice volume. Are there no reliable measurements of Antarctic land ice volume? If not, how can anyone claim the overall volume is increasing or decreasing? What basis does Kevin Trenberth have for making the claim in the article that the land ice that covers 98% of Antarctica “is melting at an alarming rate”?

John Boles

Notice how the warmists are still living large? Using electricity, heating their homes, driving cars flying on airplanes. That says a lot to me.

milodonharlani

antiwhitequeen says:
May 17, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Maybe the show runners had Bosworth (August 22, 1485) confused with the Battle of Towton (Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461), which was fought in a snowstorm.

Latitude

chuck says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:04 pm
The temperature graph in Figure 5 shows no units for the Y-axis.
========
That’s the way it was presented…here’s a better look at al
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/ipcc1.jpg?w=300

milodonharlani

John Boles says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm
The levels of hypocrisy achieved by Prince Albert & his Warmunista minions have not been recorded since Cesare Borgia & other Renaissance popes. They’re almost unprecedented.

chuck

Louis says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm
“Are there no reliable measurements of Antarctic land ice volume? ”
..
NASA’s GRACE satellite measures the mass of the ice in Antarctica by noting how the mass affects the gravitational field.
..
http://congrexprojects.com/docs/12c20_docs2/2-grace_esa-clic_forsberg.pdf?sfvrsn=2

tarco

You mentioned that “to the notion that we caused most of the 0.75 Cº global warming since 1950”. The rise in temperature is about a half of that.
[Is not the rise since 1890 about 0.75 deg C? Mod]

chuck

Latitude says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:20 pm
“That’s the way it was presented”

Yeah, using data 25 years out of date with no y-axis increments is not conducive to proving much of anything, especially since there are dozens of reconstructions that have been done since 1990.

My dear Christopher Monckton, I do so enjoy your posts. Especially this one. I would ask a real question of you — are there any real scientists working in the climate science field? If there are, what percentage would you guess they make up of the total of people working in that horrifically unscientific field? (my guess is less than 1%)
Thanks.

Latitude

chuck says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:26 pm
====
that’s the way the IPCC presented it in their 1990 report…the MWP existed in 1990

Txomin

Dear Monckton, while the ridicule of others makes your posts fun to read, it also upsets the communication of the facts. You can accomplish one or the other, but not both.

michael hart

It’s a name I can’t recall having heard before.

george e. conant

Again I have been succinctly educated. Elegant read. Thank you.

gregole

Lord Monckton,
Thank you for again taking time to debunk nonsense. This though, I do find disheartening:
“The evidence-based, science-based arguments of the skeptics are gaining traction, and the true-believers in the Thermageddon cult know it. Their shoddy technique is to parade their negligible scientific credentials, to write utter garbage such as that which I have exposed here, and to publish it on some friendly website or another. This allows other climate campaigners to link to the garbage and assert – quite falsely – that our arguments have been “repeatedly and thoroughly debunked” by “Real Scientists.”…”
One of their tactics seems to me to be to just keep talking – no matter how silly, illogical and even ridiculous their arguments. As long as they can command air-time the scam lives on since few on the receiving end of media have disciplined minds, either through education and self-development, or even a kind of naturally occurring toughness of mind (call it “street smarts”). What are left over, the vast majority, are easily suckered by this and any other nonsense.
Keep calling them out on their nonsense! Bracing, entertaining, and inspiring are your words.

FrankK

Always enjoy reading your articles Chris. Very uplifting .
Best Regards.

FrankK

Txomin says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:35 pm
Dear Monckton, while the ridicule of others makes your posts fun to read, it also upsets the communication of the facts. You can accomplish one or the other, but not both.
————————————————————————————————-
Nonsense, they deserve everything word of it. It didn’t affect the “communication of facts” for me.

Christopher, did you coin “Thermageddonites”?

Mike Maguire

Tmoxin,
Have been, for some time been thinking of the right way to say it. You just did.
Monckton rates a solid 10 for theatrics, entertainment and attention grabbing.
It’s hard to not also rate the authenticity of his science highly. However, the showmanship of the presentation, though convincing, makes me feel like we are outside the realm of science.
I say that Monckton vs Bill Nye the science guy would be like Ali vs Frazier!
My prediction………Monckton in 10 rounds but only because the IPCC officials, alllow Nye to be knocked down 15 times before Monckton takes him out!

John McClure

Sir Monckton of Brenchley,
I came to your aid when you asked it of us.
This is the best response for Dr. Bengtsson’s pain?
Perhaps less sugar and more heat in your tea Sir!

chuck says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Louis says:
May 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm
“Are there no reliable measurements of Antarctic land ice volume? ”
..
NASA’s GRACE satellite measures the mass of the ice in Antarctica by noting how the mass affects the gravitational field.
..
http://congrexprojects.com/docs/12c20_docs2/2-grace_esa-clic_forsberg.pdf?sfvrsn=2

If ice mass in Antarctica is decreasing, could it really be melting? Temperatures there are rarely above freezing, and then only on the coasts, whereas the bulk of the ice would I assume be inland:

Around the coasts of Antarctica, temperatures are generally close to freezing in the summer (December–February) months, or even slightly positive in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula. During winter, monthly mean temperatures at coastal stations are between −10°C and −30°C but temperatures may briefly rise towards freezing when winter storms bring warm air towards the Antarctic coast.
Conditions on the high interior plateau are much colder as a result of its higher elevation, higher latitude and greater distance from the ocean. Here, summer temperatures struggle to get above −20°C and monthly means fall below −60°C in winter. Vostok station holds the record for the lowest ever temperature recorded at the surface of the Earth (−89.2°C).

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geography/weather/temperatures.php
Seems to me then that we should look for another cause of the satellite readings that indicate a loss of mass over the Antarctic continent, not melting. Sublimation? Or something else not related to ice?
/Mr Lynn

Christopher Hanley

‘The IPCC, whose duty is to reflect the balance of the scientific literature, mendaciously and without statistical rigor assigns a fictitious “95% confidence” to the notion that we caused most of the 0.75 Cº global warming since 1950 …’.
==============================================
And that net warming (over 50% purported to be human-caused) occurred over less than 50% of the time: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1950/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend.

Tanya Aardman

Pope Gore and Cardinal Mann will have the inquisition round for you Monckton! Just don’t expect it! 😉

chuck

L. E. Joiner says:
May 17, 2014 at 6:27 pm
” Or something else not related to ice?”
Ocean water temperature. The ice floats on ocean water. Cold water falls to the ocean basin, and incoming water is transporting the heat to the floating ice.