The Royal Anti-Science Society of Edinburgh?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The campaign by certain rent-seeking scientific societies to push a single, narrow view of the climate question continued in Scotland today with a meeting coyly entitled Climate Change: Science and Society at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland’s once-famous, once-scientific society.

clip_image002

Your correspondent, following a tip-off from “rms”, a WUWT commenter, tootled round from Queen Street and sat through this gag-reflex-tweaking propaganda event.

This was the first meeting at any scientific society at which not only did I hear a member of the audience demand less science but the rest of the audience actually applauded.

We’ll come to that. But I’m not surprised. An eminent Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh suggested to its then president almost ten years ago that I should be asked to address the Society on the climate question so that the Fellows could hear both sides. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that any opinion but that one would be welcome.

Professor David Sugden, FRSE, who chaired today’s event, opened with the usual pietism about climate change being “one of the biggest problems facing humankind”. He was disappointed that climate change had not been mentioned in the recent UK election (actually it had, in UKIP’s manifesto, which promised near-complete desubsidization of the climate nonsense, and UKIP gained more votes than any other party).

Professor Sugden, a smooth, murmuring perpetrator of effortless pietisms akin to the waffling bureaucrat Wither in C.S. Lewis’ That Hideous Strength, also said the forthcoming world-government conference in Paris was the world’s “last-chance saloon”. Pass the sick-bucket, Alice! (as my Australian brother is prone to put it).

clip_image004

Professor Gabriele Hegerl, FRSE, an IPCC activist from the [University of Edinburgh], presented a summary of the two-year-old Fifth ASSessment Report. The report was “science based on publications,” she burbled, as her PowerPoint presentation showed a picture of an IPCC scientist very obviously asleep during one of the “working” sessions.

We were not told, of course, that of 11,944 climate-science “publications” in the 21 years 1991-2011 only 41, or 0.3%, had even gone so far as to say most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. In the IPCC’s ASSessment Report, this 0.3% “science based on publications” became “95% confidence”. Bozhe moi.

Professor Hegerl hoped that this year’s el Nino would be a big one, “beating the world record by how much?” We were not told this would be just in time for Paris, before the countervailing la Nina kicks in.

Next, some cherry-picking. Springtime snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere was declining (we were not told that annual northern-hemisphere snow cover shows no change throughout the satellite era).

clip_image006

Professor Hegerl mentioned Antarctic as well as Arctic sea-ice extent, but said the former had increased only “slightly”. We were not told that the increase in Antarctic sea ice now largely compensates for the loss of Arctic sea ice, and for several months it has been showing its greatest seasonal extent in the satellite era.

We were told that upper ocean temperature had “increased linearly”. We were not told its warming rate is equivalent to 0.23 degrees per [century]. What with the sky not falling and the sea not really rising, whatever shall we do?

clip_image008

We were told that it was “66% likely” that 20th-century warming had made current temperatures the warmest in at least 1400 years. We were not told that that modelling estimate is at variance with just about every peer-reviewed proxy record. Our good friends at CO2science.org have a collection of around 500 papers based on measurements showing that the medieval warm period was real, was global and was at least as warm as the present almost everywhere, and in some places warmer by up to 3 degrees.

We were told the ocean was “acidifying”. We were not told by how much. Not surprising, really, because no global measurement has ever been taken. All we have are a few transects and one or two local records. We were not told that the ocean was actually acid 55 million years ago, and yet the calcite corals that evolved 550 million years ago and the aragonites that first achieved algal symbiosis 175 million years ago somehow survived, and here we all are.

Professor Hegerl said observed temperatures had exceeded predictions in the 1990s. She heard me growling at this and reiterated it. However, the warming from January 1990 to December 1999, even on the average of the three much-adjusted and exaggerated surface temperature datasets, was 0.22 degrees, compared with the IPCC’s prediction of 0.28 degrees per decade over the medium term in its 1990 First ASSessment Report.

clip_image010

However, Professor Hegerl admitted that the Pause had not been predicted.

We were told that more water in the atmosphere because of global warming would lead to more rainfall. We were not told that not all records show this; nor were we told that the linear trend on the Met Office rainfall record, the longest in the world, shows an increase in rainfall of just 2 inches a year compared with almost a quarter of a millennium ago.

Professor Hegerl expressed considerable interest in what she said was a new finding of the IPCC: that there was a linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and global temperature change. We were not told that in the last 18 years 5 months that “linear relationship” had broken down, with CO2 emissions and concentration continuing to rise at rates not seen in more than 800,000 years, and yet global temperatures showing no change at all over the period.

clip_image012

Besides, the CO2 forcing function is not linear but logarithmic. A possible mistake somewhere, one felt.

I asked Professor Hegerl about the now embarrassingly large discrepancy between the IPCC’s medium-term interval of temperature predictions made in 1990 and the observed outturn in the subsequent quarter of a century, which was only half the IPCC’s central estimate. The IPCC had accordingly halved its predicted interval of medium-term warming from [0.2, 0.4] degrees per decade in 1990 to [0.1, 0.2] degrees per decade in 2013. Outturn since 1979, on all measures, had been closer to 0.1 than 0.2 degrees per decade.

clip_image014

The satellite datasets had shown no warming for 18 years 4 months (UAH) or 18 years 5 months (RSS), and the ocean, perhaps the best indicator of the underlying warming rate, had been warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a degree per [century] across the entire 11-year run of bathythermograph data.

The Professor winced. There is no doubt about it: the pause is getting to them. She began her answer by saying that the IPCC had made no medium-term predictions in 1990: only predictions to 2100. I quickly interjected that it had predicted 1 degree of warming to 2025 and 1.8 degrees to 2030, against an outturn to date of not much more than a third of a degree in a quarter of a century.

Professor Sugden interrupted to tell me to let Professor Hegerl answer the question, but by then I’d made my point. Professor Hegerl, flustered at having been caught out on the content of the IPCC reports, speculated on some of the possible causes of what she called the “anomalously low warming” over the past decade or two. We were not told that anomalously high warming predictions might be a large part of the problem.

She mentioned relatively active volcanism. We were not told that since Pinatubo there has been no eruption of global significance. Less implausibly, she referred to the slowdown in solar activity: yet the IPCC has attributed so little forcing to solar changes that that pretext, too, fell short.

Next, she said that Professor Richard Lindzen’s negative feedback had not been observed and that, therefore, the very least we could expect from a doubling of CO2 concentration was 1.5 degrees’ warming. “The present slowdown in warming does not affect the prediction at all.” No, it doesn’t, and that, precisely is the problem: full steam ahead and damn the factedoes. We weren’t told, for instance, that Professor Lindzen’s negative feedback was actually derived from observation.

clip_image016

She concluded that the present el Nino would put warming back on track. We were not told that (alas, after the Paris pifflefest) the subsequent la Nina may well put the pause back on track.

A member of the audience, in that hectoring, bossy whine that is the hallmark of the climate campaigner everywhere, interjected that we shouldn’t be discussing “trivial quibbles about science” at all. All this talk of tenths of a degree was irrelevant.

The audience of “scientists” applauded rapturously. Actually, Miss, those tenths of a degree are relevant, because the warming to date is indeed only in tenths of a degree, and considerably fewer tenths than had been predicted.

While the next speaker was getting his act together, I had a look at the attendance register to find out why the audience had so ecstatically applauded the climate campaigner who had suggested that a scientific society should not concern itself with science.

As I had suspected, about three-quarters of the 70 people present were there either because they were on the taxpayer’s dime as academics, bureaucrats or students or because they were climate campaigners.

Even the members of what was once a distinguished scientific society no longer seemed to care about science. They seemed to care about money. As long as panicky governments were handing the stuff out by the barrow-load, they would pay not the slightest attention to the abyss now set between prediction and outturn.

Next, Professor Stuart Haszeldine, OBE, FRSE, said we were emitting “carbon” into the atmosphere “and there isn’t enough space”. Actually, we’re emitting carbon dioxide and there’s plenty of space, but people who live in towns seldom see the stars, so they don’t know how big space is.

However, he made an excellent and well balanced case for CO2 capture and storage: it was geologically safe, he said, but there was an energy penalty of 25%, though he hoped that might one day fall to 10% or even to 2-3% (dream on). He also hoped that the gas-fired plant at Peterhead on the north-east neuk of Buchan would shortly become the first gas-powered generation set in the world to be converted to CO2 capture and storage. We were not told that fracking is scarcely less safe than CO2 capture and storage.

He said that once the CO2 had been extracted chemically from the flue-gases and then sent through a compressor, it could be pumped out to sea using an existing pipeline and could be sequestered in the now-disused Goldeneye gas field under the North Sea. A similar retrofit at the Grangemouth refinery could send CO2 through another existing pipeline and out to the North Sea.

Next, Professor Mark Rounsevell, a specialist in modeling atmospheric chemistry at Edinburgh University, asked “So what? Should we adapt or mitigate?” He was willing to concede that the case for CO2 harming agricultural yields had not been made. Though crop yields were no longer increasing as much as they had done in previous decades, they had not dropped despite a very large reduction in the use of nitrogen fertilizers.

Dr Andy Kerr, an adviser to the Scottish executive, said that modeling of regional impacts for the UK had produced contradictory results. Earlier results had said it would be a bit wetter, later results had said the opposite. New scenarios were working on the basis of a warming of 4-5 degrees this century. We were not told that this would represent up to 20 times the underlying ocean warming rate of the past 11 years.

His sensible take-home message was that one should not start by worrying about climate change. Instead, one should be resilient to whatever might happen.

clip_image018

That was a cue for my question: the Cockenzie coal-fired plant (above) had been needlessly closed; the same was now to happen at Longannet; Scotland’s two nuclear plants were also due to be taken out of service; no replacement base-load power would be built; d*mnfool windmills were intermittent, costly and environmentally destructive, and were failing far sooner than their design lifetimes; and how was the Scottish executive going to keep the lights on?

That turned out to be the right question. Dr Kerr said the lights could well go out this winter because EU regulation was closing coal-fired plants all over England too, so that the entire UK grid would become acutely vulnerable. He was a fan of windmills but recognized that they were expensive and did not work when the wind was not blowing (we were not told that that is most of the time).

clip_image020

After the mandatory break for bad coffee and good shortbread with the Scottish saltire carefully baked into the crust in a politically correct fashion, Professor Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute (them again) said that CO2 emissions growth was accelerating, and admitted that the 2-degree global-warming limit had nothing to support it either in physics or in economics: it was political.

clip_image022

Professor Edenhofer said energy intensity per unit of GDP was improving, but was more than offset by population and GDP growth. Coal was undergoing a renaissance, notwithstanding attempts in Europe and North America to shut it down, and the renaissance was not attributable solely to China and India. We were not told it’s nearly all attributable to China alone, nor that Mr Obama has unilaterally exempted China from any obligations to the world government he hopes to establish in Paris this December.

clip_image024

The “precautionary principle” required us to decarbonize quickly. We were not told that the “precautionary principle” is neither precautionary nor a principle: it is an expedient deployed to divert attention from the economic reality – which even the IPCC admits in its 2013 report – that mitigation today is costlier than adaptation even to absurdly over-predicted warming the day after tomorrow.

In Professor Edenhofer’s view, the fastest road to decarbonisation was the introduction of a CO2 tax or of emissions trading. We were not told that both are in force in Europe and have been a failure.

He said, “Climate policy has a current cost, but may benefit future generations: the question of intergenerational justice is important.” He estimated that, on business as usual, there would be a warming of 4 degrees this century. I asked him whether it was realistic for him to expect a 17-fold increase in the underlying ocean warming rate compared with what had been measured over the past 11 years.

I added that [in the city that gave the world the first member of his profession – Adam Smith (below), the first economist, a free-marketeer and, along with Benjamin Franklin, a founding member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh] it was depressing to be told that the answer to what increasingly appeared to be a non-problem was a gargantuan regime of totalitarian interference in the working of the free market in energy supply.

clip_image026

Taxing or pricing CO2, I said, was a poll tax on the poor.

Dr Edenhofer angrily replied that he accepted “the science” [but not the science that shows very nearly all the models to have exaggerated the warming trend].

clip_image028

He considered there was nothing totalitarian about government setting market prices (I kid you not). Prices, he said, must reflect society’s most important scarcities. But that is what the free market does, all by itself.

His objective, he said in an unctuous tone, was “caring for the atmosphere and rescuing the free-market economy”.

The audience of totalitarians, their wobbly bottoms planted on the Consolidated Fund just as firmly as steatopygy allowed, loved this confirmation of their opinion that global warming is what Lord Stern described in his now-discredited report on climate economics as “a market failure”. Dr Edenhofer’s comment got the biggest applause of the day.

Finally, Angus Gillespie of Shell said the oil corporation was investing billions in CO2 capture and storage. Shell, he said, accepted that climate change was underway and that fossil fuels were playing a role [can I have another grant now I’ve said that?].

Shell wanted a price on CO2, because it was changing from being an oil and gas corporation to being a gas and oil corporation. Gas had half of coal’s emissions per TWh of energy generated, so a CO2 price would make coal uncompetitive and increase Shell’s market share.

Shell was investing in CO2 capture and storage because it had concluded that 7 billion tons of CO2 would have to be sequestered every year to keep within the 2-degree global-warming limit. The cost of the technology was currently $125 per tonne captured, of which $100 was the cost of the capture itself. Costly though the technology was, Shell reckoned that any other method would be 40% costlier still. They estimated that the deadweight cost or energy penalty in driving the capture, compression, transport, injection and storage was 10-20% (the industry reckons more like 25-40% at present).

I asked Mr Gillespie whether, in view of the now embarrassingly large and ever-growing disconnect between the exaggerated predictions of the “settled-science” models and the inconvenient, real-world measurements, Shell had any strategy for disentangling itself from the CO2-as-demon matrix.

clip_image030

The question caught him by surprise. He said that although Shell maintained its portfolio of energy-producing reserves and other assets as flexibly as possible, the corporation had no strategy for handling the situation if real-world temperatures continued to demonstrate that the models were wrong.

A climate campaigner at the back of the room – another whining, bossy voice, male this time – asked for Mr Gillespie’s reaction to the campaign to persuade people to sell their investments in fossil-fuel corporations.

Mr Gillespie responded, bluntly, that divestment made no difference to the share price. Shareholders took a relatively short-term view of the value of Shell’s assets – typically ten or eleven years – so the divestment campaign would have no impact at all.

Then, in a final dig at the skeptics, he said, “Some of the debate has become a distraction.”

So let me make a prediction (that’s what They do). As global temperatures resume their rise, but do so at a rate very far below prediction, the debate will continue, whether the Royal Society of Edinburgh or Royal Dutch Shell like it or not.

As the hall emptied, Dr Edenhofer passed by. I said I hoped he’d find his way back to the free market in time. He said the Potsdam institute was committed to the free market. “Communists, the lot of you,” I said, with a warm smile to reassure him that I was not intending an insult.

Professor Haszledine came past at that moment and said, “And what’s wrong with Communism?” Sadly, he meant it. The only thing we learn from history …

clip_image032

On the way out, I asked Professor Sugden whether there had ever been a climate-skeptical speaker at a Royal Society event. He said there had been several interjections by skeptics over the years. I pressed him, asking whether the Society had ever invited a skeptic to speak from the podium. “No,” he said.

That says it all. Can’t have scientific quibbles about tenths of a degree, can we? Not when our fat subsidies might be cut off once governments work out they’ve been had.

clip_image034

Though some of the speakers made sensible points, neither speakers nor audience seemed aware of most of the central scientific facts in the climate debate. They knew the Party Line, but that was all. One or two had heard of the pause, but none had realized how wide the discrepancy between models’ predictions and real-world outturn had become.

And where they knew the facts, they presented only one side of the picture. This was a propaganda event, pure and simple. It had nothing to do with science except the name of the once-illustrious society in whose premises the meeting was held.

After the meeting Professor Hegerl told me it was simply not true that the rate of warming since 1990 was half of what the IPCC had then predicted. The current temperature outturn, she said, was consistent with the models’ predictions.

clip_image036

She knew, of course, that there was no penalty in making such an entirely incorrect and insupportable assertion: for the mainstream media can now be relied upon not to ask any of the right questions. The good news, though, is that they did not bother to attend. It is slowly dawning on them that this particular horse is dead.

clip_image038

I came away saddened. It is not just the terrible destruction of the Scottish landscape wrought by the 600-ft windmills that can be seen from two-thirds of it. It is not just the extinction of the ospreys and golden eagles and pipistrelles and countless other species of birds and bats smashed out of the sky by the grim, new triffids of totalitarianism.

As one of Scotland’s most successful civil engineers and I agreed over ersatz coffee and politically-correct biscuits, it is the loss of the use of reason herself by the only known species that possesses it that is the heaviest loss.

clip_image040

How will science recover, if the very bastions of science, however elegant their premises, are infested with intellectual pygmies who no longer care to hunt for the objective truth that is – or, rather, was – the end and object as much of science as it is of religion?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
266 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 27, 2015 11:09 am

Lord M. How do you ever walk with cohonas that big? BRAVO!

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Max Hugoson
May 27, 2015 11:14 am

That Edinburgh puts up with this is telling … It was the foundation of the Scottish Enlightenment that saved and then expanded England’s civilization and knowledge and research between 1500 and the 1910’s

Janice Moore
Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 27, 2015 11:42 am

Indeed. I thought, looking at the photo of the dining hall, “If only those portraits could talk… .”

Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 27, 2015 11:56 am

Most historians would restrict the Scottish Enlightenment to the 18th and 19th centuries, but some have argued that the educational system in the Lowlands established in the 16th and 17th centuries contributed to this later intellectual flowering.
Even a scientist as late as James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79) could be considered a Scottish Enlightenment figure, although most historians would end the period early in the 19th century. “Father of Modern Geology” James Hutton died in 1797, but Darwin’s mentor Robert Edmond Grant survived a mostly penurious and outcast existence of 81 years until 1874.
It is indeed a sign of how mightily Scotland has fallen that such totalitarian trash could be peddled where Adam Smith once preached freedom. The crash in price of Brent crude ironically makes Scotland even more dependent upon England, just as the communist SNP swept into the UK Parliament.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 27, 2015 12:08 pm

And then Americans took over, with NOAA leading the charge currently. They even predicted the pause, but were and are not yet aware of it, and the most likely they wouldn’t want to know.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.htm

Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 27, 2015 12:23 pm

Vuk,
I’d say that the best science in the first half of the 20th century was practiced in England and Germany, despite Polish-French Curie. The US IMO didn’t take over until after WWII.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 27, 2015 3:12 pm

It was. These days Scotland is a banana republic of non-science.

Mike
Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 27, 2015 10:41 pm

vuk’ says: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MTC.htm
Interesting stuff. It appears to me, from the central bump, that your dipole data is over-scaled by about a factor of two and that, to be objective, the CO2 data probably has about the same degree of correlation.
Post 1998 drop in dipole is stronger than what is seen surface temps.
Since most skeptics, including out host, declare that they accept that there is probalby *some* AGW effect, I would suggest that a 50/50 mix of your lagged dipole and CO2 would produce a much better fit to HadCRUT4.
Of course there are many sets of data, from almost any source, that could roughly fit in that way, if we ignore the detail.
Interesting though.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 28, 2015 4:00 am

Hi Mike
Thanks for the comment.
Two points:
– The idea was not to accurately reproduce the CruTem4 temperature curve from any particular driver but to articulate existence of a natural process with a similar variability.
– The geomagnetic force could be either a proxy for another natural force or a partial driver.
a) Stronger secular changes in the geomagnetic field usually are associated with changes at the mantle-liquid core boundary. These processes could be also drivers of tectonic movements, which in turn may have an effect on the ocean currents circulation and global heat distribution (equatorial to pole-ward direction).
See graph “C”
b) Long term data shows that the in the North Hemisphere all the warming is due to milder winters rather than hotter summers. There are some indications that the catalyst for the polar vortex splitting (associated with the SSW in the winter months) is the bifurcation of the Earth’s magnetic field in the N. Hemisphere. For further clarification of this see: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH.htm
In my graph, you commented on the magnetic field is shown with inverse scale, weakening of the field is associated with rise in temperatures and vice versa.
And finally:
Even with curves as they are the CO2 correlation is somewhat higher at R2 = 0.82 than the one with the dipole as quoted at R2 = 0.806 (is it reality or due to the data re-adjustments I have no idea)

JimB
Reply to  Max Hugoson
May 27, 2015 2:09 pm

“Cojones”

Reply to  JimB
May 27, 2015 6:32 pm

Lord Monckton prefers Catalan to Castilian, so how about “collons”?

May 27, 2015 11:20 am

Another great expose by the Great [Monckton]. These alarmists provide purposeful deception, which translates to Lies.

Brute
Reply to  kokoda
May 27, 2015 6:02 pm

They did concede, albeit naively, a great deal of ground. The stress is showing no matter how furiously they clap on certain slogans.
Thank you, Monckton, for participating in the event and reporting. I enjoyed the narrative.

Tom O
May 27, 2015 11:22 am

It never ceases to fascinate me when I read these “green zealot, CAGW” people say “I hope this year’s el nino is the biggest ever,” as they wish to show rising temperatures, and not even have it sink in that they are saying “natural variability is driving the climate.” If it wasn’t, then the el nino wouldn’t matter.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Tom O
May 27, 2015 1:47 pm

Tom O: You’re so right. I was dying for Chris Monckton to ask Professor Hegerl if she was really praying is aid natural variability – if she wanted an El Nino to support her CAGW wet dreams.
(Note: My spell-checker initially suggested El Nono – which is ironic if one considers that a) it’s a natural event, and b) it could turn out to be a complete no-no. El Nono: I like it!)

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 28, 2015 4:14 am

El Nono? The ninth of what? A new symphony?

Brian H
Reply to  Tom O
May 27, 2015 5:09 pm

Obviously CO2 must drive El Ninos too.

Brute
Reply to  Brian H
May 27, 2015 6:06 pm

@Brian H
CO2 must drive which El Niños? The ones that have failed to deliver as the models predicted or the ones that are claimed should/could/might occur in some hypothetical future?

MarkW
Reply to  Brian H
May 28, 2015 11:35 am

I thought CO2 caused people to drive Teslas?

Mike
Reply to  Tom O
May 27, 2015 11:00 pm

This wishing for warming thing just shows how perverse their mentality has become. They claim to be concerned about dangerous effects of global warming and its impact on future generations, yet they are hoping and praying for it to happen.
Their worst nightmare is that there is minimal warming that is not a danger to future generations.

Doug S
May 27, 2015 11:27 am

It is amazing how adverse people are to discussing all the measured data surrounding Earth’s climate. Otherwise intelligent and well educated people have been brainwashed or bullied into a place where they dare not engage in a full and robust discussion on climate. Perhaps these people are terribly afraid of rejection by the climate catastrophe community and suffer from low self esteem. Their fear of rejection by the community is stronger than their love of science and the pursuit of knowledge.

JimB
Reply to  Doug S
May 27, 2015 2:12 pm

“Averse”, not “adverse”

rogerknights
Reply to  JimB
May 27, 2015 3:07 pm

+1

May 27, 2015 11:29 am

Great write up. It started making sense to me a while ago when I attended the annual dinner of the Nuclear Institute in the North West of England – invited with my wife who is in the industry. I had a pleasant conversation with the chap sat next to me whom I had never met before. He clearly understood the great scam going on as well or better than I did and for once I was feeling encouraged to find someone in real life of a similar opinion. I normally find that most people are actively disinterested with only a small minority openly hostile to opening a “settled debate”. Then the president then got up to give his address and made a statement something along the lines of “We look forward to working with the new government to play our part in managing climate change”. Of course, it doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not, what matters is whether saying you believe it will further your own cause. Logic and reason do not play a part any longer and it is depressing to think how long all these idiotic situation will take to unwind, though unwind it inevitably will.

Brian H
Reply to  wolsten
May 27, 2015 5:15 pm

Managing the climate? They might as well practice rain-dancing for all the influence they’ll have.

Jan Smit
Reply to  wolsten
May 28, 2015 8:01 am

Wolsten, as a professional commercial translator, I am faced on an almost daily basis with texts that twitter endlessly about sustainability and corporate social responsibility. It has become such a mind-numbingly tedious and depressing exercise to me that I have resigned and intend to do something completely different. I have always where possible spun, in a subtle way, the baseless prognostications I’ve encountered to ameliorate the hogwash, but you can only get away with so much, err, ‘content adjustment’ as a translator.
One of the key economic pathogens that led to the 2008 financial crisis was the interconnectedness of the financial system, what with repackaged subprime debt finding its way through re-re-re-securitisation into every little nook and cranny of the financial system.
What we face now is a subprime crisis of another kind, and on an even greater scale – subprime science and policy. Worryingly, this time the cancer that is now metastasising rapidly throughout the entire global commercial system is even less quantifiable than the subprime debt was. Every single company I translate for is investing a vast amount of energy and resources into toeing the envirocommunist party line. Even companies that on the face of it have absolutely no relation whatsoever to the subject at hand are kowtowing, and are now bleating the self-same drivel on their websites, in their marketing material and of course in their annual reports. Apparently most shareholders and investors are also blindly trusting in the universal church of save-gaia, curtail-growth – the sectarian earth-good, capital-bad religious cult.
That’s what we’re up against – an almost universal case of the Emporer’s new clothes. If it were just a load of hot air and words, the damage would be limited and the inevitable losses easily written off. The system would clear quickly – unwind, as you put it. But it’s not just words. Through engagement – a word straight out of Orwell’s lexicon – activist shareholders/investors with hundreds of millions of dollars of assets under management are essentially blackmailing companies across the globe into playing this ridiculous and costly game. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars in pension-fund capital, by the way. Your pension. My pension. My parent’s pension. Your children’s future, to use an oft-repeated heart-tug so beloved of the scaremongers…
This insane narrative has embedded itself so deeply into global commercial consciousness, that the wealth of millions of pension-holders and investors worldwide is now at risk as it plays out. And this is in addition to the economic and financial risk of contagion inherent in investing in the bonds of bankrupt governments and banks, considered by so much (pension-fund) capital as a safe haven.
There’s a lot of talk about global government in the run-up to Paris, but my message is this: we already have a de facto global government. It’s there in praxis, infesting every little area of our lives in ways and iterations the man in the street is barely able to percieve. Junkets like Paris are really all about rubber-stamping a structure that already exists. It has been created by stealth and ‘regulatory ratcheting’ but does not yet exist fully in juris. All we need is a black swan event to give the control freaks the crisis du jour they’re looking for, and hey presto, all of a sudden before our very eyes appears, as if from nowhere, the wet dream of busybody bedwetters everywhere – global government! And if one were to look for a black swan, one might like to start looking in the tributaries of the great river of capital that flows through pension funds across this planet.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you…

Reply to  Jan Smit
May 30, 2015 11:27 am

Jan, good luck with the new career and thanks for the warning.

May 27, 2015 11:31 am

A conclave of Piltsown men.

ALeaJactaEst
May 27, 2015 11:35 am

Welcome to the new Socialist Republic of Scotland. They all know, deep down, that all this pseudoscience they tout is pure horsesh*t and, when you look them straight in the eye, they know you know and that really hurts them. They know that in the end, you won’t be the one behind bars. Well, perhaps the ones that sell fine single malt scotch whiskey, but not reinforced steel ones they will reside behind.

sonofametman
Reply to  ALeaJactaEst
May 27, 2015 2:31 pm

Pedant’s point:
There’s no ‘e’ in whisky in Scotland, unless it’s on the label of something imported.
On Topic:
There are still places where a well lubricated and honest discussion can take place, the Bow Bar on Victoria Street, a mere half mile or so from from the RSE, is one. There’s a huge variety of the water of life on sale there, plus some terrific beer to wash it down. I fear that the PC piety of the current members of the RSE would deter them from enjoying such pleasures, at least not if someone with no fear and an argument to make were present.

May 27, 2015 11:36 am

Well done and well said.
Look for fingers in the pie. Money changing hands.
That is where the real story is to be told.

PiperPaul
Reply to  wallensworth
May 27, 2015 12:20 pm

Worst of all is that it’s OPM that’s changing hands.

Latitude
May 27, 2015 11:39 am

She concluded that the present el Nino would put warming back on track. ….
In order to be back on track….temperatures would have to jump up 1 degree over night
….does she listen to what she’s saying?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Latitude
May 27, 2015 11:45 am

Amazing, isn’t it? They don’t even TRY to hide their hustling. Such remarks are proof either of:
1. Insanity
or
2. A conscious attempt to deceive (Planned Hustle: “Whew! It’s WARMER, folks! And CO2 must have done it.”)

Latitude
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 27, 2015 11:53 am

yep…every little bump up is “back on track”
…and every stop is just a “pause”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 27, 2015 12:18 pm

lol, Latitude, that created a funny little picture (not a parallel to what you said, just tangentially related, heh) in my mind of an old jalopy full of Enviroprofiteers, bumping and lurching along in the wilderness:
{BUMP!} “Whoa, boys and girls! Goody! We’re back on track!”… a little later…. {KERBLAM — STOPPED!!}… “Uh…. hm. … just a minute while I get out and take a look at that rear axle… .”
What a bunch of CLOWNS!

Reply to  Janice Moore
May 28, 2015 6:26 am

Janice Moore May 27, 2015 at 11:45 am
Amazing, isn’t it? They don’t even TRY to hide their hustling. Such remarks are proof either of:
1. Insanity
or
2. A conscious attempt to deceive (Planned Hustle: “Whew! It’s WARMER, folks! And CO2 must have done it.”)

3. Ideological blinders: They can’t abide the idea that their cause celebre might be ill-founded. That’s why they are jumping on the totally factitious claim that “2014 was the warmest year ever!” As long as they can say, by hook or by crook, that “climate change is real” (i.e. it’s getting warmer), the Cause is safe, and their lives have meaning. The Cause is not about causation; it has nothing to do with science; it’s about Doing Good.
/Mr Lynn

MarkW
May 27, 2015 11:39 am

I was recently told by a “scientist” who works at a US govt lab that since CO2science is run by a blogger and that since none of the papers listed had been published in one of the “major” journals, that CO2science was not a site worth visiting.
This same guy also proclaimed that since skepticalscience was run by a “real” scientist, that it was the go to spot for info on global warming.

Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2015 11:58 am

SkS, appropriately enough, is run by a cartoonist who enjoys dressing up as a N*zi. You just can’t make this stuff up.

Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2015 11:59 am

CO2science is run by a scientist and son of a scientist, Craig Idso, who is also one of the key authors of the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on CLimate Change. He knows what he is talking about. And the journals he cites in his list include Science, Nature, Climatic Change, Journal of Climate, International Journal of Climatology, Geophysical Research Letters, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, etc., etc.
I dived into the list and made a random selection of journal titles. Most of them are very well known and leading scientific journals with high impact factors. Inevitably a few are highly specialist journals dealing with regional climates – for that is what is being discussed when we look for proxy evidence of temperatures in the medieval warm period. The list of just some of the journals is below.
Physics Today, Climatic Change, Ecologival Modelling, Geophysical Research Letters, Climate Research, Quaternary Science Reviews, Science, Jounral of Geophysical Research, Quaternary Research, Science in China, Geografiska Annaler, Climate of the Past, Nature, Energy & Environment, Journal of Climate, The Holocene, Marine Micropaleontology, Polar Researc, Progress in Oceanography, Arctic, Polar Geography, Annals of Glaciology, EOS (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union), International Journal of Climatology, Polaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology and Palaeoecology, Quaternary International, Journal of Hydrology, Journal of Quaternary Science, Weather, Danish Journal of Geography, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Journal of Paleolimnology, Marine Geology, Boreas, Ecology, Journal of Arid Environments, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Geology, Water Resources Research, Atmospheric Environment, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Arctic and Alpine Research, etc., etc.

ferd berple
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 12:29 pm

interesting articles at CO2science. One deals with the effects of sea life on CO2.
Some Sea Life Does Not Adapt to OA; It Makes OA Adapt to Them
Generally, aquatic animals excrete mostly ammonia. Ammonia neutralizes CO2 in water.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/may/a25.php

ferd berple
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 12:36 pm

apparently science is only now catching up to nature. nature perfected carbon capture a long time ago.
Carbon Dioxide Capture using Aqueous Ammonia
http://www.che.cemr.wvu.edu/publications/projects/large_proj/carbon%20dioxide%20capture.pdf

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 12:41 pm

I am a great fan of yours, my lord, but why do you so try the patience of your supporters with statements like “UKIP gained more votes than any other party”?
You may well have been engaging in semantics and that your meaning was that UKIP had increased the number of votes cast for it more than any other party did but, even if that was your meaning, that is not the way that reasonable people will interpret that statement.
Sticking your neck out is to be applauded but at the same time handing your opponents a sharp instrument with which to attack you is not really clever!

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 12:50 pm

It didn’t occur to me to interpret Lord Monckton’s statement any other way than that UKIP showed the biggest percentage gain, despite winning only one seat and its leader losing his.

auto
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 2:59 pm

newminster – not new minister, I note,
Sturgis old friend,
UKIP received about 4 million votes, but, as noted, only 1 (one) MP.
So the Ukippers had far and away the most votes – per elected MP.
Tories some 11 million, Labour about 9 million.
The Scot-Nats [who, despite the comment above are more Marxist than Communist, through a London Lens, anyway] gained over 50 seats, with about1.6 million votes. One MP per thirty-some thousand votes [albeit concentrated exclusively in Scotland].
The UK rejected (a form of) proportional representation in a referendum during the last parliament, required by the Dem-Libs, as part of the Coalition negotiation.
Having gained – but lost – the referendum, the Lib-Democrats reneged on the deal to push through boundary change (for UK constituencies), so democracy has no representation amongst the Dim Lebs.
‘It’s my ball, and I’m not playing.
Their vote did collapse.
Auto – no admirer of Cameron, described as a ‘Tory’.
But several streets less bad that all or any of the alternatives.
No ringing endorsement, please note . . . .

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 3:38 pm

Apparently, if you run a blog that disagrees with the “consensus”, then you are a blogger, regardless of how many degrees you have earned.
On the other hand, even a cartoonist who runs a blog that supports the consensus is immediately promoted to “scientist”.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 4:59 pm

Auto Amigo,
Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and foretold the coming of Communism, due to the internal contradictions of Capitalism, so IMO Marxist v. Communist is a distinction without a difference. Happily, Communism was undone by its internal contradictions, but now idiotically many deluded fools in the West want to bring it back.

MCourtney
May 27, 2015 11:39 am

Dr Andy Kerr,

His sensible take-home message was that one should not start by worrying about climate change. Instead, one should be resilient to whatever might happen.

That is sensible. I’ve not heard of him before but he sounds like a Warmist who loves the feel of wind on metal tower-blades. But that is sensible.
He shows that not everyone we disagree with is daft. Scotland may not be doomed after all.

May 27, 2015 11:44 am

I loved the “We were not told…” theme. It is to be repeated at every opportunity.
For that illustrates how the Warmists operate. Tell not lies (ok, a few), not even half-truths, but vapid qualitative statements that are not false, while carefully avoiding the quantitative statements that would falsify their views or make irrelevant.
I suppose it is a good sign that only 70 were there.

Uncle Mort
May 27, 2015 11:47 am

Yesterday within our lair,
We spied a trend which wasn’t there.
It wasn’t there again today,
We wish, we wish that trend would stay.
With apologies to William Hughes Mearns

Brian H
Reply to  Uncle Mort
May 27, 2015 5:37 pm

You could’ve left the opening alone:
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a trend that wasn’t there.
It wasn’t there again today,
I wish, I wish that trend would stay.
It’s perversely hypocritical of the warmists to decry all the disasters that warming would cause and yet hope for warming to vindicate them rather than be relieved it’s not happening and doing the predicted damage. It’s deliciously ironic that warming will do more good than harm if it does occur.

May 27, 2015 11:47 am

The corruption of science by Government money and the corruption of “scientists” without any morals, has gone far and wide. It’s a bit like FIFA, or the UN or the EU or…..

auto
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
May 27, 2015 3:17 pm

PB
A l-o-o-o-n-g list you’re building.
Comintern, British Bankers’ Union [And I guess an American (or European) equivalent]; cricket’s recent sell-out to England, Australia and India; Cycling’s ICU perhaps, even Rafael Nadal asking for particular umpires to be scheduled away from his matches . . . . . . .
Never mind local ‘democracy’, in many countries, where pals of the Planning Committee [or Council] Leader get – ahh, I suggest ahhhhh – rather good outcomes. Shall we say . . . !
It’s al around you.
Auto,
Rather hoping that local planning here isn’t too bad.
I want to build a seven mile high tower in my back garden, which will incorporate the new – twelve runway – London super-airport, a major spaceport for London, several abattoirs, about five toxic waste incinerators; eighteen thousand [ish] luxury apartments, from studios (bedsits) to seven-bedroom units; a sky-high sewage farm; and parking for several hundred thousand cars. I suspect that my local socialist council will impose a planning gain penalty of – about – seventeen thousand windmills.
Mods – /SARC. Seriously SARC. So badly SARC . . . .
Guess what? I don’t even love windmills. That’s Not Sarc.

Theo Goodwin
May 27, 2015 11:49 am

Ideologues view inconsistency as a virtue. When your premises are inconsistent, you can argue for any point you want and your argument will be valid. It will not be sound, of course, because the premises are false.
It is truly sad to see scientific discourse fall to the level of political discourse. It is a symptom of the fact that the ideologues have no truths which support their position. For lack of truths, all they can do is attempt to push skeptics out of the discourse.
Thanks, Christopher, for a very entertaining and enlightening report from Edinburgh. Give my regards to the statue of David Hume. It must be very lonely.

James at 48
May 27, 2015 11:50 am
May 27, 2015 11:53 am

My wife and I were on a Lindblad/National Geographic Antarctic expedition last year, in the company of James Balog of “Chasing Ice” fame and a retired NASA scientist with two decades of working on Antarctic glaciers. It was remarkable that neither was open to information about earlier Holocene warming periods, earlier periods of glacier retreat, the pause, and my pet project, the slowdown and even drop in sea level (sea level on the west coast of North America has fallen since 1997). Blog was dismissive that the Jakobshavn glacier of Greenland he videoed for “Chasing Ice” had retreated more before 1900 than after, and only recently had begun retreat again. The NASA scientist dismissed the 60-mile retreat of glaciers in Glacier Bay, Alaska, from 1790 to 1900, compared to the 6-mile retreat since 1900. “It’s different now,” he said, without explaining what was different. I suspect that some of the money that we and fellow passengers paid was used by Lindblad/National Geographic to sponsor Mr. Balog and his assistants as they planted time-lapse cameras at the termini of several West Antarctic peninsula and South Georgia Island glaciers. They were not interested when I pointed out that a British expedition reported that the Pine Island glacier had retreated as much or more 6,000 years ago as now. Selective science is not science.

Latitude
Reply to  majormike1
May 27, 2015 11:56 am

sea level on the west coast of North America has fallen since 1997
===
Mike file this paper away ….
Majority of tide gauges show no sea level rise at all.
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf

JJM Gommers
May 27, 2015 11:57 am

Patience, the coming years will be crucial. What will happen when it really become colder, I look forward to the explanation of the greenies

Retired Engineer
Reply to  JJM Gommers
May 27, 2015 12:49 pm

Not to worry, any “cooling” will be adjusted to show warming. Ice and snow? Nah, just your imagination.

Reply to  Retired Engineer
May 27, 2015 12:51 pm

Any cooling will be because of warming, just as was predicted, but of course also unprecedented.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Retired Engineer
May 27, 2015 1:58 pm

Ice and snow will, of course, be evidence of ‘white heat’…

BFL
Reply to  JJM Gommers
May 27, 2015 1:09 pm

It’ll just be adjusted out:
“Global Warming is real and is definitely caused by human-produced carbon . . . pencil lead, that is.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/15/theory-on-the-pause-climate-science-has-exhausted-adjustment-rationales/

Jerry Howard
Reply to  JJM Gommers
May 28, 2015 6:20 am

Clearly, the response will be to seek more research grants to deal with the man made global warming caused global cooling.

May 27, 2015 12:06 pm

The Enviro-fanaticism is a world-wide plague which needs to be removed with a huge dose of governmental common sense and placing the well being of people in all countries first. GW is a flat-out lie.

bit chilly
May 27, 2015 12:06 pm

damn, i wished i had known that was taking place . it would have been fun to attend ,though i doubt i would have lasted the course. well done for ruffling some feathers,it is good to now they were only preaching to the converted ,no one else listens to their nonsense anymore.

cnxtim
May 27, 2015 12:09 pm

The CAGW god works in mysterious (but well funded) ways…

Keith
May 27, 2015 12:09 pm

The next challenge is to refute the nonsense being promulgated by the IMF and gleefully reported by the Guardian regarding “subsidy” of fossil fuels.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

MCourtney
Reply to  Keith
May 27, 2015 12:46 pm

That is the view of Lord Stern not the IMF.
The Guardian headline is in error. Strangely, they haven’t got around to correcting it yet despite the comments pointing this out.
.
Following the link from the Guardian to the paper gets:

Disclaimer: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate

ren
May 27, 2015 12:11 pm

The increase in the galactic radiation (weak solar cycle), results in increased air ionization and increased precipitation. This, in turn, causes a decrease of water vapor and the temperature in the upper troposphere. The strongest ionization zone of the ozone occurs at about 20 km and causes changes in ozone (in the region of the magnetic poles) and the inhibition of winter polar vortex.
This reduces the wind speed over the oceans (and thus the amount of water vapor).
http://oi57.tinypic.com/so38go.jpg

Bryan A
Reply to  ren
May 27, 2015 12:54 pm

Oh noes…There is an Ozone Hole forming over the Himalayas

Janice Moore
May 27, 2015 12:11 pm

Royal {Big Wind} Society of Edinburgh
“I had a look at the attendance register to find out why the audience had so ecstatically applauded the climate campaigner … .”
{Answer, in short: Big Wind (and its Subsidiaries, such as Tiny Solar)}
Your opening paragraphs reminded me of another bunch worried about protecting their investment in worthless products sold based on precautionary fallacy-type l1es about what their junk could do to avert disaster in the buyers’ lives….
{With helpful edits}
“A silversmith windmill maker named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis windmills, brought in no little business for the craftspeople. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “People, you know we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus … He says that human-made gods are no gods CO2 is no problem at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis AGW will be discredited …
When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians CO2 is a huge problem!’ … for about two hours … .
The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: ‘People of Ephesus … we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today’s events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.'”
Acts 19:24-41.

Keith
May 27, 2015 12:16 pm

Vis-a-vis the comment above, the IMF has calculated the negative value of all the claimed problems (such as warming, alleged increased in extremes, and so on) and characterised the cost as a subsidy for fossil fuel. It seems the IMF has as little idea as the Guardian as to what constitutes a subsidy. A couple of things that come to mind straight away: what would the cost have been for the vast amount of deforestation that would have occurred if people had turned to burning wood, if fossil fuels had not powered the industrial revolution and the 20th and 21st centuries? What would be the cost of increased disease, death, and suffering if modern medicine had not been facilitated by cheap power via coal, oil and gas?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Keith
May 27, 2015 12:38 pm

Vis a vis your comment above, here, I think: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/27/the-royal-anti-science-society-of-edinburgh/#comment-1946610
Good point, Keith!

Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2015 12:16 pm

This meeting of fools and nincompoops reads like a Monty Python skit.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 27, 2015 12:35 pm

lol — yes!
Ya know, Mr. Cobb, I’m beginning to be thankful for these guys — I haven’t laughed this much all week! Thank You, Lord, for fools!
#(:))
Enviroprofiteer: Oooo, don’t you laugh at me, you, you, YOU DEN1ER.
Science Realist: Who can help it?? lololololol
Enviroprofiteer: Oh, you are just despicable. CO2 warming is REALREALREALREALREAL!!!!!!
Science Realist: lolololololololol
EnviroP.: {steam coming from ears, nose, eyes glowing red} Stop laughing at meeeeeeee!!!
Keep on laughing, O Science Realists, for “the devil**, that proude spirit, hateth to be mocked.”
Sir Thomas More
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa!
#(:D)
**Well, he is the Father of L1es

May 27, 2015 12:28 pm

They aren’t used to dealing with someone who knows far more about the subject than they do.
Next time something like this comes up, I hope that Lord Monckton will find a few allies to place in the audience. It makes a big difference if one or two friendly voices speak out. I’m sure there are WUWT readers in just about every location, and some of us would be happy to provide moral support.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 27, 2015 12:35 pm

David Bellamy lives in Durham, not far south of the Border.

MCourtney
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 27, 2015 12:50 pm

They aren’t used to dealing with someone who knows far more about the subject than they do.

I suspect they are. They have plenty of opportunity, after all.
The technique is simple.
Don’t report it.
Don’t formally invite the experts and so don’t provide them with the records.
And edit the records.

Kitefreak
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 27, 2015 1:01 pm

DB got well shafted by the establishment, whereas JS was allowed to get away with whatever:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-2222878-15ACBA1D000005DC-556_634x753.jpg
Royal society?
Go figure.
I don’t normally do links. That’s my ‘threat level’ on big brother’s computer just spiked. ****.

Janice Moore
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 27, 2015 1:14 pm

Oh, Kitefreak, lololol THANK YOU FOR THAT.
The man in the white coat following closely behind is their keeper lolololloool
#(:))

MCourtney
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 27, 2015 3:06 pm

Jimmy Saville’s crimes are of a different order to those weak and venal climateers who accept “consensus” rather than evidence.
Both are wrong but let’s be reasonable.

Theo Goodwin
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 27, 2015 7:50 pm

Kitefreak
May 27, 2015 at 1:01 pm
“DB got well shafted by the establishment, whereas JS was allowed to get away with whatever:”
In the photo, the man on the right is wearing the MacNeil Tartan. Who is he? The man in the middle is “out of uniform” because he is not wearing brogues. Brogues are a traditional shoe preferred by people who wear kilts.

mike hamblet
May 27, 2015 12:52 pm

[SNIP Mike that hate filled rant is the last post you’ll make here, you’ve used up your welcome with over 10 policy violations now. You sir, are permanently banned from WUWT for your childish and hateful behavior – Anthony Watts]

david smith
Reply to  mike hamblet
May 27, 2015 4:25 pm

Anthony,
Please let us see what Mike said. I could do with a good laugh and there’s nothing more that the haters find hard to accept than mockery

May 27, 2015 12:53 pm

They are closing down coal power in the U.S., too:
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Power-Plant-Closures-6.7.12.jpg
The EPA couldn’t use coal emissions to go after power plants, because modern scrubbers do not allow emissions other than CO2 and H2O.
So the EPA preposterously classified CO2 as a “pollutant”. Now they have their rationale for shutting down our best and least expensive power source.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 27, 2015 2:51 pm

dbS, true. But these are all over 42 years old (the average coal fleet age), inefficient, and approaching end of life. The main reason is not (yet) Obama EPA. That battle is in the courts, with even Harvard Law’s famed constitutional expert Tribe saying the proposed regs are unconstitutional on multiple grounds. Its just economics. The abundance of US fracked natural gas to fire much more efficient CCGT just means these plants no longer earn their keep. They are being replaced with CCGT, which is cheaper on a capital and a fuel basis than new efficient USC coal. The last new coal plant to come on line (forget Southern’s Kemper fiasco, now 3 years late) was USC coal Turk in Arkansas in 2012. 41% efficiency from low sulfur low ash Powder River basin coal. Planned in 2006, construction started around end 2007, before fracked gas took off.
Legal nightmare created by those opposed to coal. Four year battle, ending with Swepco agreeing amongst other things to shut 400 MW of old inefficient (<32%) coal in order to be 'carbon neutral'. That battle and its own Kemper coal fiasco drove Southern to start two new gen3 nucs, the first nucs built in the US in 30 years, Voglte 3 and 4.

James Allison
May 27, 2015 12:55 pm

The good news is (thanks to a handful of outspoken Skeptics such as OUR Lord M.) the general public are no longer listening to these so called Climate Scientists. And it is the public who ultimately get to vote politicians into the corridors of power.

Jerry Howard
Reply to  James Allison
May 28, 2015 6:28 am

Any hope for a rescue by the voting public should be considered in light of the reelection of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The last democratic president deposed by the american electorate was Jimmy Carter.
Sadly, we get what we vote for – and deserve what we get.

MarkW
Reply to  Jerry Howard
May 28, 2015 11:44 am

We have reached the point where the number of people who pay for govt is smaller than the number of people who receive direct payments from govt.
The end is near and there is little chance of stopping it now.

DHR
May 27, 2015 12:56 pm

You made a prediction because IPCC does? Tsk, Tsk. I have been told by some authority that IPCC makes projections, not predictions. I cannot recall the difference with regard to future climate, but nonetheless, you have erred my Lord.

BFL
Reply to  DHR
May 27, 2015 1:13 pm

Awww but the MSM, politicians, greenies and most of the rest just doesn’t know or care about the difference.

Robert Austin
Reply to  DHR
May 27, 2015 2:52 pm

One who makes projections is a projector. One meaning of projector, possibly archaic, is:

“a person who forms projects or plans; schemer”

Hence the adoption of the terminology “projection” rather than “prediction”.
By some twist of logic, they see “projection” as a “get out of jail free” card if nature doesn’t cooperate with their fantasies of catastrophic warming.

May 27, 2015 12:57 pm

I regret, for the first time in my decades’ long life, that I am 1) Scottish; and 2) endowed with the surname Gillespie. That cretin is likely a 6th-time removed relative (admitted while slinking away in embarrassment).

CodeTech
May 27, 2015 12:58 pm

I am always amused at the willful blindness of eco-zealots.
I mean, here you have a group of people who profess to hate fossil fuels, call oil companies greedy bastards, think that oil and oil companies should be banned or outlawed….
and yet those people dance when Shell pulls the strings.
The oil companies are not the victims of this garbage, they’re the ones driving it, and the ones benefiting from it.
Hilarious, in its own way.

Admad
May 27, 2015 1:53 pm

Royal Society? I barfed.

Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 1:54 pm

They should have all gone on the denial101X MOOC course. Then they would have been well prepared for the litany of complete untruths, half-truths and cherry-picked statistics which Monckton produced.
Let’s just look at the first example which happens to be an outright misrepresentation.
The figure of 11,944 papers is from “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article . The research study independently rated each abstract at least tiwce and found that 32.6% of abstracts came within one of the following three categories :
1) Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
2) Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
3) Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
which together form the group of papers saying AGW is manmade. 66.4% of abstracts were rated as expressing no explicit position on AGW. 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3 concluded warming was taking place but were uncertain about the cause.
A subset of authors were followed up and asked to self-rate their own papers, at which point the percentage of papers rated as not expressing a view dropped to 35.5% (nearly halved), which shows the original study bent over backwards not to emphasise the degree of explicit support for AGW. And of authors who rated the 64.5% of papers making a statement on AGW, 97.2% rated their papers as saying AGW is manmade.
So where Monckton gets 0.3% expressing support for AGW is beyond me – he is out by a factor of 100 times in the original estimates and getting on for 200 times from the smaller sample where the authors self-rated their papers.
So you now know what level of accuracy to expect from the rest of the article.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 3:38 pm
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 29, 2015 1:53 pm

Extra reading that has been thoroughly exposed and debunked?

Reply to  Climate Pete
May 28, 2015 12:46 am

“Climate Pete” should have read Legates et al. (2015) before presuming to comment on it. We found that Cook et al. had marked only 64 papers (only 41, or 0.3%, correctly) out of 11,944 as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly manmade.
To boost the supposed “consensus” to the value they desired, they arbitrarily excluded two-thirds of the 11,944 papers on the capricious ground that they had not expressed any opinion. They then aggregrated the papers in their first three categories and falsely stated,both in the paper, without saying that was what they had done, and repeated the falsehood on several subsequent occasions, including the Institute of Physics report that reproduced with imprudent negligence a mendacious press release issued by the “University” of Reading, that 97% of those who had expressed an opinion had stated that recent warming was mostly manmade. The “University” may well in due course face trial for fraud.
The greenhouse effect has been posited hypothetically, demonstrated empirically and explained theoretically. Like any demonstrated result (such as the Theorem of Pythagoras) it requires no “consensus” to sanctify it.
However, the question how much of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic is not settled science, as indeed the data file of Cook et al. makes very clear, with only 0.3% of the sample explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly manmade.
Cook et al. were so embarrassed by their own finding that they twice altered the grouping of their categories of “endorsement” of the non-existent “consensus” so as to obtain the result they wanted (Tol, 2014). They also conferred among themselves during the rating process (ibid.).
Above all, they were very careful not to ask the question whether a rate of warming that might be equivalent to little more than a third of a degree per century would be likely to prove dangerous. One cannot legitimately read any catastrophist conclusion into their results, even as they presented them after they had tampered with them.

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 28, 2015 11:48 am

I thought someone came up with a proof for the Pythagorem theory a few years ago?

May 27, 2015 1:56 pm

‘Climate’ Pete says:
1) Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
2) Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
3) Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

Pete, all those are mere assertions. I can ‘explicitly state’ anything. Would you believe it?

Nic Lewis
May 27, 2015 2:11 pm

Thank you for an interesting and illuminating article.
“Professor Gabriele Hegerl, FRSE, an IPCC activist from the University of Dundee”
I don’t think this is quite correct. Gabriele Hegerl is a professor at the University of Edinburgh, not Dundee. And I would describe her as an “IPCC insider” rather than an “IPCC activist”. Prof Hegerl may well be mistaken in her views and be too ready to accept arguments made by other IPCC/consensus scientists. Howevver, I have had quite a few dealings with her over the last few years and I have found her to be an honest and fair scientist. IMO she would never set out to deliberately mislead, although she might on occasion get her facts wrong.

Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 2:14 pm

Monkton said “of 11,944 climate-science “publications” in the 21 years 1991-2011 only 41, or 0.3%, had even gone so far as to say most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade”.
The research paper itself identified 35.5%, and the author rating of papers nearly doubled that.
Monckton is mis-stating the figures by a factor of 100 times (or nearly 200 times for author self-rating of papers).

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 2:24 pm

Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

Climate Pete
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 3:16 pm

Why not look at the original research paper, instead of someone else’s opinion of it?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Articles were excluded from the survey if they were :-
a) not peer reviewed
b) had no abstracts
c) were not climate-science related
As part of the 11,944 papers rated, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors, The results from this were that 97.2% of papers expressing an opinion (according to at least one author) on AGW and its cause said humans were mainly responsible. The same statistics but this time by authors instead of papers was 96.4%. It’s all there.
And the cross check is there too. If Cook’s independent raters incorrectly classified some papers as supporting AGW which should not, then the subsequent rating by authors clearly showed that many of the abstracts classified as “expressing no opinion” should have been rated as “supporting AGW”
Finding of 3 examples wrong catergorised according to the authors as supporting AGW is a cherry pick. The reason? The author ratings showed that a very similar proportion of papers expressing an opinion were categorised as supporting “humans cause CO2”.
So if you don’t believe the indepedent raters, believe the authors themselves.
It’s interesting to speculate on whether Scarfett, Idso and Shaviv just didn’t respond to the survey, or maybe Cook didn’t find their email addresses. Or possibly some other author on those papers did respond.
Either way, the author categorisation of their own papers is to be trusted, whether of not the other classification can be.
Here’s a chart from the Anderegg 2010 paper :
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif
Here you an see that the more papers a climate scientist published, the more likely they were to respond that humans were responsible for climate change. But interestingly there is some-one causing a blip around the 650 papers published mark (you can see a red line there).
So the numbers are pretty convincing, no matter which of the three surveys you read.
Interestingly in another WUWT thread I accused Roger Pielke Sr of being part of the 3% of those denying humans were mainly responsible for AGW, and he denied that. My subsequent check of the rating of 5 papers of which he was an author indeed showed that he was right and I had to apologise to him!!! His position is a little unusual of course, as he believes that humans are mainly responsible for AGW, but that increased CO2 levels is not the major part of this.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 3:41 pm
MarkW
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 3:49 pm

Why look at the refutation of a paper, when you can worship the paper itself?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 4:04 pm

Hi, MarkW,
Heh. For the same reason people proudly pasted onto the rear bumper of their cars:
“I VOTED FOR CLINTON — THE SECOND TIME”
and
“OBAMA IN 2012”
Also, it is cheaper: Exposed idols are ugly and upsetting. No therapy needed to simply turn down the lights, squint hard, and pretend… .
Or maybe…. Climate Pete is just another “investor” schlepping Big Wind.

DirkH
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 4:08 pm

Climate Pete, you’re a fanboy of the SkS treehouse club? But that’s just a bunch of fanatics like you, no Climate Scientist amongst them, so the paper is worthless anyway.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Climate Pete May 27, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Why not look at the original research paper, instead of someone else’s opinion of it?
—————-
LOL. Because the opinions in the link are those of the scientists involved, not Cook and his little buddies. In case you are not familiar Cook and SKS, the have been shown in their own words willing to manufacture crises, and delete and censor comments — including those of scientists.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 29, 2015 1:51 pm

@Climate Pete
Your analysis is likely to receive the same reception here that the findings of peer-reviewed papers receive: “If ‘F = m*a leads to the conclusion that Man’s burning of fossil fuels is causing Earth to warm, I’ll have none of it and so F cannot possibly equal m*a “

May 27, 2015 2:16 pm

A day or two ago ‘Climate Pete’ was disparaging another commenter like he is with Lord Monckton, so I asked Pete if he had a CV.
‘Climate’ Pete said he’s got a CV:
He’s been “interested in AGW for about 5 years”, and he’s attended Jeremy Grantham’s climate classes. Impressive, no?
He added that he’s been “researching for a PhD”. (Hey, me too! ☺)
Pete also said that he “recently attended an atmospheric physics course”!
I think Lord Monckton could out-debate ‘Climate Pete’ with half his brain tied behind his back — just to make it fair.

FrankKarrvv
Reply to  dbstealey
May 27, 2015 5:15 pm

To Climate Pete above.
There was a very high consensus once that the earth was at the center of the solar system. Consensus is not a scientific proof and neither is a ‘peer-reviewed’ paper or are papers the last word on a subject that has many uncertainties. A scientific theory or hypothesis can only be disproved. There is currently a great deal of data available that does not agree that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
Best you discuss that in your Ph.D. Pete.

Reply to  FrankKarrvv
May 27, 2015 5:37 pm

In science, consensus is what exists to be overthrown.
In geology, when I was young, the consensus was that the continents don’t move and that catastrophic floods don’t carve the landscape. Before that the consensus had been that fossils just happen to resemble living things by accident.
In biology, the consensus once was that species don’t go extinct, since God made them perfectly in the Great Chain of Being, and that God created every species independently.
In medicine, the consensus once was that humors and/or miasmas cause disease.
In chemistry, the consensus once was that phlogiston is responsible for rusting and combustion. Before that, the consensus was that everything is composed of the four elements, fire, earth, air and water, plus aether in the heavens.
In physics, the consensus explaining gravity was once that all bodies move toward their natural place, and that the ideal speed of a terrestrial object is directly proportional to its weight, however, since a vacuum does not occur in nature, the matter obstructing an object’s path is a limiting factor inversely proportional to the viscosity of the medium.
In astronomy, as you note, the consensus for almost two millennia was that earth lies at the center of the “universe”, with concentric spheres carrying the sun, moon, planets and fixed stars around it.

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
May 27, 2015 6:27 pm

DB…. so are you saying the more qualified a person is in a field relating to climate, the more we should listen? Mmm…I see a problem for you going down that path.

Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2015 6:45 pm

simon,
I refer you to warrenlb, who would be completely lost without his appeal to authority logical fallacy. You’re making his argument. Of course, only his ‘authorities’ count. Just ask him.
You want to throw in with ‘Climate Pete’? Go ahead. We can use some more amusement.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2015 7:03 pm

Simon

DB…. so are you saying the more qualified a person is in a field relating to climate, the more we should listen?

The more a government-paid Big Government “scientist” is paid, the less likely he or she to be looking for the truth in any matter, and the more likely he or she is looking for “the next funding grant” from her Big Government sponsors that favor their Big Finance sponsors. the “qualifi-herd” are now only qualified to hear their herd.

Reply to  Simon
May 29, 2015 1:40 pm

Stealey of course claims he would send his grandkids to the barber for surgery, or to the local sheriff to have his taxes done. I wonder if he really does that?

Simon
Reply to  dbstealey
May 27, 2015 7:45 pm

DB…”Of course, only his ‘authorities’ count. Just ask him.”
I’d say that is a problem for people on both sides of this debate, wouldn’t you?

Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2015 7:56 pm

Simon,
Since you asked: the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority is much more prevalent on the alarmist side. I refer you to any warrenlb post.
For me, the Authority that trumps every other authority is Planet Earth, and she has been saying very clearly that the “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is a hoax.
Maybe people sincerely believed it back in the 1990’s, when temperatures went up temporarily. But after more than 18 years with no global warming, anyone who hasn’t re-assessed the situation is no skeptic. And a skeptical scientist is the only honest kind of scientist.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
May 27, 2015 8:25 pm

DB… If you think Planet Earth is not telling us something??? well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Maybe if you get a minute have a chat with the people in Mexico, Texas, and India. And that is just in the last week…..

david smith
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2015 3:53 am

Simon,
I presume your referring to the floods in Texas. Hmmm…
It wasn’t so long ago that alarmists were telling us that Texas would be in a permanent drought:
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/60839/nbc-dust-storm-swallowed-american-city
http://www.texscience.org/water/permanent_drought.htm
It’s all complete twaddle, isn’t it Simon?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2015 11:54 am

Anyone can claim to be an authority. True authority comes from actually doing science that can be proven, both by having others review your raw data and methods as well as corresponding to events in the real world.
By these standards, the so called climate experts that Climate Pete refers to have been shown to be frauds.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2015 11:57 am

Simon, in your world, there was no bad weather prior to a few decades ago?
Even the IPCC has been forced to admit that you can’t attribute individual storms to global warming. Beyond that, the incidence of bad weather has been falling for decades.
If that’s really is the best you got, you should just go ahead and slink away in shame now, and save yourself further embarrassment.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
May 28, 2015 3:00 pm

To MarkW and David Smith…. just saying peoples lives are their reality. In Texas at the moment I’m guessing that locals are thinking there might be something in this climate change thing. And….I’m thinking that at some point Markw you must have had a bad experience with a climate scientist to hold them in such low regard. I on the other hand, have only met ones with integrity.

Chris Hanley
May 27, 2015 2:22 pm

‘… she said was a new finding of the IPCC: that there was a linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and global temperature change. We were not told that in the last 18 years 5 months that “linear relationship” had broken down, with CO2 emissions and concentration continuing to rise at rates not seen in more than 800,000 years, and yet global temperatures showing no change at all over the period …’.
=======================
That is also true of the period ~1860 — ~ 1930 while the CO2 concentration increased ~280 — ~ 310 ppm there was no net warming
Similarly the period 1940 — 1985 there was no net warming while the CO2 concentration increased from 315 — 345 ppm.
For the period 1950 — 1985 human CO2 emissions increased fourfold, the with no net temperature effect:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/TrendsGlobalEmissions.png
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1930/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1985/trend
Of course that’s not to say CO2 or human GHG emission have had no effect.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 27, 2015 5:13 pm

In geologic history it’s possible to observe cooling during intervals of higher CO2 and warming during lower, so the only correlation is that a warmer climate eventually leads to more CO2 in the air and a cooler one less. Warmunistas confuse cause and effect.

Kit Carruthers
May 27, 2015 2:24 pm

Professor Gabriele Hegerl, FRSE, an IPCC activist from the University of Dundee…
I’m sure Gabi will be as surprised as I am about this! Nevermind, start as you mean to go on I suppose Mr Monkton!
(I also laughed at Stuart’s communism quip. As my supervisor, he often chucks these kinds of things at you to see how you react 🙂 )

MikeN
May 27, 2015 2:41 pm

Could someone explain the politically correct biscuits?

Reply to  MikeN
May 27, 2015 2:56 pm

Scottish symbol frosting, laddie. A wonderfully wry Monckton aside in a thoroughly enjoyable post. Here in former colonies, we would have called them politically correct cookies.

May 27, 2015 2:44 pm

Now imagine West Greece having voted for independence with no England to provide a currency or aid.

Scottish Sceptic
May 27, 2015 3:01 pm

A fantastic article and very apt description of the non-science we get in Scotland. I particularly liked this sentence:-
The Professor winced. There is no doubt about it: the pause is getting to them.
The sad thing is that Scotland was once a great engineering and scientific nation until these left-wing extremist pause deniers got control. That’s why Scotland’s Right need to unite to fight this dumbing down of Scottish intellect.

Science or Fiction
May 27, 2015 3:06 pm

Clearly Royal Society of Edinburgh must have left the critical approach which is the single most important characteristic of science. Ref. Karl Popper in The logic of scientific discovery:
“According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”
I think it is time to rediscover Karl Popper or we will head right back into the dark ages.
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf

MarkW
May 27, 2015 3:32 pm

“What’s wrong with communism?”
It doesn’t work and it kills people, for a start.

Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2015 4:32 pm

No, that’s it working!

Admad
Reply to  Max Photon
May 28, 2015 12:18 am

May 27, 2015 3:33 pm

Sir C. Monckton, etal herein,
From an old one of the Apache Nation to me in the form of a nudge.
“If the moon phase and the gravity of the moon moves the seas to tide by its influence, tell me why the moons gravity does not move the wind/air/clouds by its influence via the same gravity?”
He is 98 and a bit odd but did talk some with the very old ones of the Apache Nations who have gone on.
Thanks,

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  fobdangerclose
May 28, 2015 6:14 am

With all due respect to the old one, but if you look at the barometric trace for any station you will see the daily ‘tides’ of the air.

rogerknights
May 27, 2015 3:37 pm

Keep growling!
Maybe the RSS could be enticed into hosting a debate?

D.I.
May 27, 2015 3:40 pm

Royal Society of Edinburgh after a 17 year debate,
http://boingboing.net/2015/05/13/mysterious-radio-telescope-sig.html
(sarc).

Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 3:40 pm

philincalifornia said

Pete:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

That thread cites the paper “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” at http://download-v2.springer.com/static/pdf/957/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11191-013-9588-3.pdf?token2=exp=1432766636~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F957%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11191-013-9588-3.pdf*~hmac=9760b4b2e2966cfe286303b7765e4ea530d042c408acb0a040d4c6027ca16b14
This paper is paywalled, which probably means you cannot read it.
But I can, and having scanned it, it makes no reference at all to the Cook study (the word Cook does not appear in it and he is the first named author), though it does reference papers by Oreskes. Further it includes no numbers at all anywhere in the paper, except as year and page numbers of papers. Oh and “one plus one equals three” and “one plus one equals two” as sentences.
A representation of this paper as refuting the detailed analysis of Cook 2013 is totally out of order.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 3:42 pm
May 27, 2015 3:42 pm

Not for Pete’s sake.

Janice Moore
Reply to  fobdangerclose
May 27, 2015 3:44 pm

Oh, for Pete’s sake, that’s very likely true, F.O.B. #(:)),
but, so that C.P. doesn’t fool anyone, I post.

Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 3:51 pm

Oops, sorry, I have the wrong paper! Must be more careful with Google. Will comment on the right paper very soon.

DirkH
Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 4:11 pm

You really take Cook seriously? You must be a sociologist undergraduate. Or worse.

Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 5:32 pm

Well, since I f-ked up badly myself on a link on the gulfstream thread, I can forgive you for that.

Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 4:17 pm

(correct post)
philincalifornia said

Pete:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

The paper by Legates “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change”
http://download-v2.springer.com/static/pdf/359/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11191-013-9647-9.pdf?token2=exp=1432768217~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F359%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11191-013-9647-9.pdf*~hmac=e86526a3a3e849886c4543e1e2f59c954877c86521a415f411c09cbf3f9b0be1
comments only on the analysis of the independent rater view of Cook 2013, and says that most of the “supports AGW” papers came in category (3) which is :
(3)Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’
And claims that this is a subjective category which does not mean that the authors of the paper rated would necessarily hold that viewpoint.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
However, the vital information not covered anywhere in the Legates paper is that Cook 2013 also arranged that “2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors”.
What happened? Almost half the number of papers got self-rated as “expresses no opinion”, and of the ones which the original authors rated as expressing an opinion, 97.2% were self-rated as supporting humans being the primary cause of AGW implicitly or explicitly.
Therefore, whether or not the methodological criticism was relevant to the independent rater procedure, the original authors themselves were quite clear about what they though was indicated by their papers.
So the 97.2% stands. And my criticism of Monkton’s 0.3% figure stands too.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 4:27 pm

How can you get to 97.2% when “Almost half the number of papers got self-rated as “expresses no opinion”. That doesn’t make any sense.
BTW the raters were in no way independent or anonymous. They communicated with each other during the rating process.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
May 27, 2015 7:44 pm

The so-called ‘consensus‘ and the bogus “97%” are closely related: they’re both propaganda. And they’re both Bovine Scatology.

Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 4:32 pm

…. and, therefore, there is direct empirical evidence that CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (a half-doubling of the effect) must have had some effect on some climate parameter, because somewhere between 0.3% and 97.1% of a load of people say so.
Why do they go through these f-kin gyrations? Why don’t they just post what the evidence is ??
(PS I already know the answer)

Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 4:37 pm

CP sez:
So the 97.2% stands. And my criticism of Monkton’s 0.3% figure stands too.
Yep. Stands on its head.
Almost half the number of papers got self-rated as “expresses no opinion”
But somehow 97.2% gets extracted from the result.

david smith
Reply to  Climate Pete
May 27, 2015 4:49 pm

Pete,
You seem really up-tight about Cookie’s little paper. Why? The whole project was just an exercise in willy-waving: “Look how many papers we’ve got, aren’t you jealous?”.
No matter how many papers Cookie and Nuttyjelly claim are supporting the warmunist creed, it doesn’t make the religion of thermageddon any more correct. In the same way, there are a hell of a lot of bibles in this world, but it doesn’t make Christianity any less of a fairy tale. The huge amount of warmunist papers just means that there are a hell of a lot of scientists ready to write junk if it’ll get them a grant.
Besides, would you trust a man who fantasizes about dressing up as a n@zi?

Reply to  david smith
May 27, 2015 5:06 pm

It’s interesting that John Cook has never denied being a neo-Nazi:comment image

Admad
Reply to  david smith
May 28, 2015 12:16 am

rogerknights
Reply to  david smith
May 28, 2015 11:17 pm

I think that photo was a spoof, based on the similarity of initials of his organization. The logo on his cap is that of his organization’s penguins looking over their shoulders, not lightning bolts.

James Schrumpf
May 27, 2015 4:22 pm

And here I thought Scotland was the homeland of Engineers.

Rick K
May 27, 2015 4:24 pm

The world needs a Monckton Science Society. All invited. All welcome. Believers. Skeptics. Press. Public.
Lord Monckton gets to speak!

May 27, 2015 4:24 pm

Pifflefest.
Christopher Monckton, you are one funny fellow.

Walt D.
Reply to  Max Photon
May 28, 2015 4:20 am

Kuhscheissefest ?

Gamecock
May 27, 2015 4:28 pm

“Professor Hegerl mentioned Antarctic as well as Arctic sea-ice extent, but said the former had increased only “slightly”. We were not told that the increase in Antarctic sea ice now largely compensates for the loss of Arctic sea ice, and for several months it has been showing its greatest seasonal extent in the satellite era.”
Compensates?
Sea ice has no value to me. I consider it a bad thing. What value is contributed by Antarctic sea ice to what value is lost in lost Arctic sea ice?
Sir, it appears you are playing along with the nonsense.

Stuart
May 27, 2015 4:30 pm

“perhaps the best indicator of the underlying warming rate, had been warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a degree per decade across the entire 11-year run of bathythermograph data”
Shouldn’t this read “less than a quarter of a degree per century”?

Reply to  Stuart
May 27, 2015 5:33 pm

Well spotted. Per century is correct.
[In this sentence, correct? “We were told that upper ocean temperature had “increased linearly”. We were not told its warming rate is equivalent to 0.23 degrees per [century]. ” .mod]

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 27, 2015 11:40 pm

Thank you, .mod. ARGO shows ocean warming at 0.023 degrees per decade, which is equivalent to 0.23 degrees per century.

May 27, 2015 4:34 pm

C. Pete sez:
“It’s interesting to speculate on whether Scarfett, Idso and Shaviv just didn’t respond to the survey, or maybe Cook didn’t find their email addresses…”
…or whether Cook cherry-picked whatever gave him the results he wanted, a la Michael Mann. That’s a standard tactic of the warmist cult. And of course, nothing they say withstands any scrutiny.
Cook’s “97% of scientists” propaganda is swallowed hook, line and sinker, but only by those who want to believe it. Everyone else knows it’s a completely invented number with no connection to reality. If Cook had said “103% of scientists”, Climate Pete would be trying to defend that number just the same.
If Cook had wanted to appear believable, he would have fabricated something like “61.3% of scientists…” instead of using a preposterous number like “97%”. No one in their right mind would accept a number that ridiculous. You couldn’t get 97% of Italians to agree that the Pope is Catholic. “97%” is just a dog whistle to the gullible green gang, like “robust”. The question itself was so loaded and vague that it can mean entirely different things to different people.
There were only 77 responses cherry-picked out of thousands. Climate Pete is trying to force the numbers to fit his belief system, rather than let the data lead him; a failing of climate alarmists everywhere. Instead of being properly skeptical, they’re completely credulous and gullible. “Dangerous man-made global warming” is truly their new eco-religion.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 27, 2015 5:06 pm

Pete should but won’t read Jo Nova’s analysis of Cook’s mendacious “studies”:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/
I don’t recall the precise numbers, but in his bogus “survey”, he sent out around 12,000 questionnaires and got back over 3000. He didn’t like the results, so decided to limit his poll to just 77 “active climate scientists”, of whom 75 agreed with his two badly worded questions.
From this dreck, the media made things even worse by reporting that 97% of all scientists support the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made “climate change”.

david smith
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 28, 2015 4:03 am

I might be wrong, but I think you’re referring to an earlier (and equally rubbish) study that initially established the farcical 97%. The study used a survey that was chopped down to just 77 responses.
Cookie’s study attempted to use reviews of papers. It was a complete scam because he was trying to confirm the afore-mentioned survey’s 97%.
Guess what? Cookie’s survey also produced a figure of 97%. How convenient!
Pure rubbish, both studies.

Alx
May 27, 2015 4:37 pm

The Royal Society of Edinburgh
Their proud motto, “Ignorance is bliss”

Sun Spot
Reply to  Alx
May 27, 2015 6:37 pm

Ignorantia Sunt Faustitates

BLACK PEARL
May 27, 2015 4:38 pm

They’ll but more meetings of ‘scientists’ and many more reports too come leading up to the Paris coven gathering

Arno Arrak
May 27, 2015 4:39 pm

Mylord: there are three temperature graphs in your article that you took over from their paper which are incorrect and are set up to deceive the public. Since you did not number the figures I counted them and gave them numbers. I call them figures 5, 7, and 18. Lets take them one by one. Figure 5 shows a temperature graph with a blue straight line sloping upward. The line is drawn through the super El Nino of 1998 on the right which is impermissible. The temperatures to the left of it were created by an ENSO wave train but the super El Nino itself is not part of ENSO and must not be included with ENSO. The left side of the graph is part of a hiatus and you should get a horizontal straight line there if you exclude the super El Nino. That hiatus comprises five El Nino peaks with La Nina valleys in between. It runs from 1979 to 1997, or 18 years. . On top of this graph which meant to “hide the hiatus” with false warming there are high spikes, gross indicators of computer processing for unexplained purposes. There are four of them, located at years 1900, 1995, 1998, amd 1999. The owners of the data either do not know or do not care. I have found that these same spikes and more are also present in HadCRUT and NCDC data sets. Only satellite data are free of this trash. Clearly the three temperature data sets involved that are nominally independent were processed by a common computer program, most likely in order to hide the fake warming they are jointly pushing on the public. That warming goes by the name of “late twentieth century warming” and is an example of false science supported by the IPCC to make the alleged global warming seem bigger than it is. The hiatus they hide is separated from the present day hiatus/(pause of warming) by the super El Nino of 1998 and the step warming of 1999. That step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only three years and then stopped. It is not greenhouse warming because its start/stop capability precludes that. It very likely has an oceanic origin. Hansen did notice the temperature differential when it appeared but unthinkingly attributed it to greenhouse warming. Present day warmists likewise try to bring in carbon dioxide in every inappropriate opportunity they can. The temperature history of the satellite era consists of an 18 year hiatus in the eighties and nineties, separated from the current hiatus by the super El Nino of 1998 and the step warming of 1999. This leaves no room at all for any greenhouse warming in between. That step warming actually was the only warming in the entire satellite era. One third of a degree does not sound like much but you should consider that total warming for the entire twentieth century was only 0.8 degrees according to Hansen. I discovered its existence in 2008 while doing research for my book [1] and even put a warning about this into its preface but was completely ignored. The other two figures (7 and 16) are attempts to hide the existence of the hiatus of the eighties and nineties and to create a non-existent warming at the same time. What makes it possible is the existence of the step warming that lifts up the twenty-first century side. By drawing a straight line through two horizontal lines with a step in between them you get one straight line that slants up on the right to creates a faux warming. The model fans they throw out are of course worthless and should not even be allowed in a scientific paper. Absent the step warming and the super El Nino in between the two hiatuses it is quite possible that we might have gotten one single hiatus starting in 1979 and still active today.
[1] Arno Arrak “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010)
P.S.: Figure 15 in the book shows the hiatus of the eighties and nineties.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
May 28, 2015 5:08 am

Mr Arrak should, first of all, realize, that more people would read his comments if he learned that the ENTER key on the computer issues a carriage return and line feed. Two of those and one achieves a paragraph spacing.
Next, he accuses me of trying to deceive the public with three graphs which were in fact generated from publicly available data by an algorithm written by me, not – as he puts it – by taking them from someone else’s paper.
He says it is incorrect to use a least-squares trend on any run of data that passes through the Singer event (the sudden rapid warming of 1997-1999), on the ground that there was no warming in the periods either side of it.
First, the least-squares trends were correctly calculated.
Next, though there has certainly been little or no warming since 1999, there was warming at a rate equivalent to one-eighth of a degree per decade from 1979 to 1997 inclusive.
It is true to say that the pattern of warming over the period since 1979 does not fit the monotonic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration: however, that is a point that I have made in an earlier posting about the Singer event (named after Fred Singer, who on a visit to us in Rannoch first drew it to my attention), and also in several of my monthly temperature updates.
And the warming since 1979 is not a “faux warming”, as Mr Arrak tries to suggest. It is a real warming, and it would be foolish to try to pretend otherwise.

knr
May 27, 2015 4:44 pm

‘that the present el Nino would put warming back on track’
indeed they are , but think what that means, they actual ‘want ‘ such increases with all the problems that may bring just to prove themselves right .
Its is like doctor being disappointed that so someone fails to die of cancer , after the doctor predicted they would, rather they being happy they did not die and accept their prediction was wrong .
That is the type of people you are dealing with.

david smith
Reply to  knr
May 27, 2015 4:52 pm

+100
Exactly what I’ve always said. You’d think they’d be celebrating the pause, not trying to hide it.
They don’t want to save the world, they just want to enjoy the oft-predicted chaos. Alarmo-junkies, the lot of them.

Reply to  david smith
May 27, 2015 5:15 pm

+100 from me too.
….. they love polar sea ice, that’s why they rejoice when it goes down (or used to).
The phony socialists love the poor. It’s fabulous that they can create more of them and, as Hank Spim said, “I love animals, that’s why I like to kill them”:

Crispin in Waterloo
May 27, 2015 4:49 pm

“…warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a degree per decade ”
Surely that is “per century”?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 27, 2015 5:27 pm

Well spotted.

Michael Fisher
May 27, 2015 5:07 pm

Boiled down (or up) logic.
As the climate gets warmer we’ll use less energy for tea-making and central heating. As it gets colder, the cases of impaired hearing will reduce in direct proportion to the reduced use of air conditioners and refrigerators. Truth and untruth are now commodities to be traded so invest in change, boiling refrigerators and freezing kettles. It’s what the pseudo-sub-scientists do.

Gary Pearse
May 27, 2015 5:31 pm

sturgishooper
May 27, 2015 at 12:23 pm
“Vuk,
I’d say that the best science in the first half of the 20th century was practiced in England and Germany, despite Polish-French Curie. The US IMO didn’t take over until after WWII.”
Sure we can overlook Americas 353 Nobel Prizes which number 50% more than England and Germany added together.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 27, 2015 5:47 pm

Please compare the number of scientific Nobels from Britain and Germany up to 1939 with those from America. Of the twelve US recipients, one was foreign born and three shared a single Medicine prize. Germany alone had 34.
I rest my case.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 12:13 pm

Actually 23 Nobel prizes were awarded to Americans in that time period. I believe Foreign born US recipients are to be celebrated for their achievements as much as native born, or perhaps more so, if they fled from oppression.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 2:00 pm

Warrenlb,
You missed my reference specifically to scientific Nobels, not including Peace and Literature. The issue is whether Europe or America dominated science in the early 20th century.
I see your reading comprehension is no better in history than in science.

Tucci78
May 27, 2015 5:50 pm

How will science recover, if the very bastions of science, however elegant their premises, are infested with intellectual pygmies who no longer care to hunt for the objective truth that is – or, rather, was – the end and object as much of science as it is of religion?

Jeez, don’tcha get it yet, Mr. Monckton?
The leftards made it a priority to take over them “very bastions of science” in order to prevent the error-checking function of scientific method from being applied to the preposterous Cargo Cult Science of anthropogenic global warming.
Er, “climate change.”
Oh, waitaminnit. It’s “climate fragility” now, ain’t it?

But overall, we’re dealing with people who love science so much that they picked college majors just to avoid the subject they allegedly love so dearly.

Sean Davis

Reply to  Tucci78
May 29, 2015 12:21 pm

Actually, the bastions of science seem rather secure from the amateurs and self annointed experts without portfolio who specialize in incoherent analysis and a remarkable lack of curiosity about how their notions don’t seem to align with those doing the real research and publishing to the world.
I wonder why they don’t tire of the taste of their own bathwater?

Reply to  warrenlb
May 29, 2015 12:43 pm

warrenlb sez:
the amateurs and self annointed experts without portfolio who specialize in incoherent analysis and a remarkable lack of curiosity about how the real world works…
warrenlb lives in a fantasy world, based on fabricated ‘papers’ that take the place of reality.
The real world flatly contradicts what warrenlb Believes: there has been no global warming for many years. Therefore, warrenlb’s CAGW scare is falsified by the only Authority that matters.

Reply to  warrenlb
May 29, 2015 2:18 pm

Gregg E.,
You cite a blog as your “authority”??
Let’s look at reality, as recorded by satellite data:comment image
And it is clear that currently, global temperatures are below normal:comment image
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Beacause that is REALITY
…not that your addled mind can accept reality…

George Steiner
May 27, 2015 6:30 pm

So there is a pause is there? Did the increasing numbers of CO2 molecules stopped back radiating? Or the back radiation theory is falsified. What do you say to that all you radiation physicist.

Reply to  George Steiner
May 27, 2015 6:33 pm

Not falsified. Just shown insignificant compared to other influences on temperature.

MarkW
Reply to  George Steiner
May 28, 2015 12:09 pm

Stopped no, overwhelmed by other, more significant factors, yes.

May 27, 2015 7:34 pm

Sadly, Australia has been struck by the same blight. In February 2015, the Australian Academy of Science released their publication “The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers” which simply plagiarized the IPCC propaganda. I sent an email to the President, Professor Holmes and members of the Working Group responsible for the publication, pointing out evidence that contradicted the IPCC claims (no, I am not a Fellow). I had a polite reply from the President’s office acknowledging my message, a couple of replies from the Working Group basically telling me that I did not know what I was talking about and the rest failed to respond.

FrankKarrvv
Reply to  Bevan Dockery
May 27, 2015 9:56 pm

Bevan Dockery re the Ozzie Academy of Science.
You may have received the reply with input from the august member of the Academy Tim Flannery ?
The fellow who said our dams on the East coast of Oz were not going to fill because of lack of rainfall.
Of course since about 2007 we have had flooding rains.

Admad
Reply to  FrankKarrvv
May 28, 2015 12:14 am

F. Ross
May 27, 2015 9:55 pm

“…
The audience of totalitarians, their wobbly bottoms planted on the Consolidated Fund just as firmly as steatopygy allowed, loved this confirmation of their opinion
…”

Lord Monckton:
Are you saying the audience was (mostly) a bunch of fat asses?
Based on your colorful descriptions it would be difficult to disagree with that analysis.

FrankKarrvv
May 27, 2015 10:07 pm

Gee I had to look it up. My dict, says
Steatopygia or Steatopyga
Abnormal accumulation of fat on and about the buttocks.

Crispin in Waterloo
May 27, 2015 10:11 pm

This may be obvious but is the Royal Society of Edinburgh the shortened name of something more specifically interested in the sciences?
That the audience cheered a suggestion to have less science in their discussions I find extraordinary. We could call it the Main Finding. We may have to found “Royal Science Society of Edinburgh” so the membership is constantly reminded of the purpose of meeting.
James Clerk Maxwell would, I think, shudder to know that the Royal Society is promoting a book about him on their website. To think that they sing his “achievements and legacy” while grinding a generation of children into the dust of ignorance with morbid tales of climate and carbon.

ren
May 27, 2015 10:12 pm

The temperature in the upper troposphere decreases. Current temperature at an altitude of 3500 m.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/equirectangular=-330.00,0.00,211

oppti
May 27, 2015 11:32 pm

Solar brightening is on it way-10% more sun hours since 1980. Enjoy
Aerosols might be the cause of warming- clean air act has succeeded.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 27, 2015 11:47 pm

In continental Europe, communism and socialism have merged to become one and the same.

MarkW
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 28, 2015 12:11 pm

The only difference between communism and socialism has always been patience.

richard
May 28, 2015 12:09 am

Dear Lord Monckton,
Are you holding writing courses, i need help.

Reply to  richard
May 28, 2015 9:01 am

Lord Monckton holds them frequently. Every time he posts here and on other sites.
I’m certainly not weak on vocabulary and almost never have trouble reading and understanding every word most authors use, (barring in-depth technical articles).
When a Lord Monckton article is encountered, I open both dictionary and translator windows, so that I can use Christopher’s words to expand mine; e.g. steatology above was new to me.
I am appreciative Lord Monckton!

Nylo
May 28, 2015 12:56 am

We were told that it was “66% likely” that 20th-century warming had made current temperatures the warmest in at least 1400 years.

This is a “misunderstanding” that I have seen often, so often that I think it is a voluntary misunderstanding. IPCC’s claim is that it is likely unprecedented SINCE year 1400, and not in 1400 years. There are about 800 years added for free thanks to this voluntary misunderstanding often played by alarmists.

Ex-expat Colin
May 28, 2015 2:12 am

This article probably illustrates why the likes of the BBC will not broadcast much in the way of AGW counter argument. I am being very, very nice there.
Christopher..I now know of 2 ordinary folk (like me) and 2 Tory MPS waiting for the response of the BBC to
Andrew Selous (MP) letter about the BBC on your lawn and their solid and not so well known bias. Perhaps there are more waiting? I am expecting the standard and lengthy Foxtrot Oscar!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/18/the-unspeakable-bbc-parks-its-tanks-on-my-lawn
An excellent article.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia.
Reply to  Ex-expat Colin
May 28, 2015 4:03 am

I like the last sentence:
“Perhaps, once the existing corrupt organization has been purged and the red-blooded Marxists replaced with blue-blooded capitalists, we can have Top Gear back.”

Reply to  Ex-expat Colin
May 28, 2015 6:38 am

Ex-expat Colin is correct that the BBC’s response to just about every complaint is to recommend the complainant should visit a taxidermist or go forth and multiply, but not in so many words. However, the father and mother of all complaints is being assembled by several of us, and the BBC will be given no opportunity to weasel out, because otherwise its prejudice on the climate question will be subjected to judicial review.

ren
May 28, 2015 3:05 am
ren
Reply to  ren
May 28, 2015 6:12 am
Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 3:40 am

Oh dear, here is a 30 second debunking of the nonsense with which Lord Monckton apparently made a nuisance of himself at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I’m ignoring His Lordship’s hearsay description of the meeting, and the scientists’ reaction to his rudeness; on past experience these probably belong in the realm of the fantastical. Here’s the Moncktonian ‘science’.
Monckton: We were not told, of course, that of 11,944 climate-science “publications” in the 21 years 1991-2011 only 41, or 0.3%, had even gone so far as to say most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade.
M is only counting papers which explicitly, in the abstract, endorsed the consensus. Absurd, you could probably get a similar proportion of Biology papers ‘endorsing’ the Theory of Evolution. Cook et al’s survey of papers as rated by the authors themselves found a percentage in the high nineties agreeing with the proposition. The consensus is strong because the science is strong, not vice versa.
Monckton: Next, some cherry-picking. Springtime snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere was declining (we were not told that annual northern-hemisphere snow cover shows no change throughout the satellite era).
Well it’s the Springtime extent that is important, climatically. Nonetheless, M is wrong again. He appears to have got his graphs (which, characteristically, he mislabels. presumably he means NSIDC) from a Earth Observatory page; the accompanying text is
The 28 year trend in snow extent derived from visible and passive microwave satellite data indicates an annual decrease of approximately 1 to 3 percent per decade with greater deceases of approximately 3 to 5 percent during spring and summer.
Monckton Professor Hegerl mentioned Antarctic as well as Arctic sea-ice extent, but said the former had increased only “slightly”. We were not told that the increase in Antarctic sea ice now largely compensates for the loss of Arctic sea ice, […]
We were probably not told this because it would be a lie.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/how-fake-skeptics-fool-themselves-part-infinity-sea-ice-version/
Monckton We were told the ocean was “acidifying”. We were not told by how much. Not surprising, really, because no global measurement has ever been taken. All we have are a few transects and one or two local records. We were not told that the ocean was actually acid 55 million years ago, and yet the calcite corals that evolved 550 million years ago and the aragonites that first achieved algal symbiosis 175 million years ago somehow survived, and here we all are.
The ocean is in fact acidifying faster than at any time in the last 300m years. See ‘Climate change and the oceans – What does the future hold?’, Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume 74, Issue 2, 30 September 2013, Pages 495–505
And the rugose and tabulate corals that were around in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods are long since extinct. Not the best example, then.
Monckton Professor Hegerl said observed temperatures had exceeded predictions in the 1990s. She heard me growling at this and reiterated it. However, the warming from January 1990 to December 1999, even on the average of the three much-adjusted and exaggerated surface temperature datasets, was 0.22 degrees, compared with the IPCC’s prediction of 0.28 degrees per decade over the medium term in its 1990 First ASSessment Report.
This is a misrepresentation that Monckton repeats over and over again. Briefly, the IPCC report projected 4 different forcing scenarios, A-D and calculated the temperature rise it expected for each. In fact forcings proceeded somewhere between scenarios B and C, and the global temperature followed the associated projection remarkably well. Monckton ignores all the scenarios other than ‘A’, the most extreme, which did not come to pass. Scientific fraud, pure and simple.
M We were not told that in the last 18 years 5 months that “linear relationship” had broken down, with CO2 emissions and concentration continuing to rise at rates not seen in more than 800,000 years, and yet global temperatures showing no change at all over the period
Cherry Pick.Tropospheric temperatures as estimated by satellite based microwave sounders may show no trend, however global surface temperature, as measured by ground stations, have just recorded the warmest 12 month period in the record and the warmest start to a year on record.
Clearly, anyone turning to His Lordship for reliable information is making a category error, but then what do you expect from a fantasist who believes he owns the historic and shared Queen Street Gardens?
(Cross-posted at Sou’s place, for the record)

Reply to  Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 5:34 am

Phil Clarke, wise up.

Phil Clarke
Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2015 6:20 am

Doesn’t come close to addressing my point. Try again.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2015 8:04 am

Phil Clarke,
You’re about as deluded as anyone I’ve ever read on this site. Your “point” is that you still believe Cook’s ‘consensus’ propaganda. You are still trying to defend his completely indefensible “97%” nonsense! Here’s your problem:
http://dailysanctuary.com/uploads/__WP_dailysanctuary-com_2015_03_rare026.jpg
Phil, you have ZERO credibility, just like anyone else who still tries to defend Cook’s propaganda. I have no respect for anyone who tries to feed me a bunch of horse manure like you’re dumping here.
This site is for thinking people, so run along back to hotwhopper; they’re about your speed.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2015 8:46 am

Phil Clarke says:
Doesn’t come close to addressing my point. Try again.
You keep trying to make the ‘point’ that Cook’s “97%” propaganda is reality.
It isn’t, and you look increasingly foolish trying to defend it.

MarkW
Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2015 12:15 pm

Phil, you don’t have a point. You just repeated the data from an already discredited paper.

Reply to  Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 6:25 am

Earth to Phil Clarke – it’s May, 2015 not March, 2012. Wanna run Grant “Statistician to the Retards” Foster’s numbers again without the Rip Van Winkle adjustment ?
Or you could just click on the global sea ice link in the sidebar here.

MarkW
Reply to  Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 12:14 pm

It really is sad the way people are willing to repeat lies over and over again.

Kit Carruthers
Reply to  MarkW
May 29, 2015 3:59 am

😀 Ain’t dat da troof!

Mumbles McGuirck
May 28, 2015 5:25 am

“good shortbread with the Scottish saltire carefully baked into the crust in a politically correct fashion”
OK, silly question. How is the Cross of St. Andrew politically correct? I would think such a Christian symbol would be offensive to atheists and other living things. A thistle would be more PC if not more prickly.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
May 28, 2015 6:31 am

In the good old days, the Union Flag would have been baked into the crust. But, under the new regime of the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Scotland, the Union Flag is seldom seen north of Carter Bar these days: National Socialist thugs tend to tear them down and smash the windows of those who fly them,
Likewise, UKIP and Conservative election posters are torn down or defaced, and during the “independence” referendum several houses of those who openly supported the Union were defaced or damaged. The air of menace is palpable. We are making plans – with a heavy heart – to leave Scotland at some time in the next year or two, and we are by no means the first to do so.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 28, 2015 12:12 pm

Sad, but probably a wise plan. The hand-writing is on the wall for the end of freedom and beginning of tyranny in Scotland.
Maybe if Scotland leaves the UK, then the Orkney and Shetland Islands, plus Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale in the Lowlands, will vote to secede from Scotland.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
May 28, 2015 9:17 am

‘X’ marks the spot and is wonderful when constructed with proper shortbread.
Offensive it is not!
Politically correct fools who prefer thistle are welcome to all they can harvest, the prickly parts are included at no charge.

May 28, 2015 6:25 am

In response to Mr Clarke’s characteristically nasty posting, some facts:
First, I was not “rude”. On the contrary, the head of one of the major political caucuses on Edinburgh Council wrote to me afterwards to congratulate me on my “measured and reasonable” questioning of the speakers.
Next, as an affidavit that will shortly be laid before the criminal courts in Reading makes clear, even the “self-rated” papers in Cook et al.’s fr*udulent and comprehensively debunked attempt to prove a 97% “consensus” did not show 97% support, or anything like it, for the “consensus” proposition as defined in Cook’s drivel: that, in the words of Cook’s co-author from Reading “University”, “recent warming is mostly manmade”.
Next, there is no reason to suppose that the springtime extent of Northern-Hemisphere snow cover is any more important, climatically, than any the extent during any other part of the snow-cover season. The graph from NSIDC (apologies for the “S” dropping out from “NSIDC”) that I reproduced in the head posting shows a very small downtrend in annual snow-cover extent: but so very small a downtrend (even Mr Clarke only puts it at 1-5% per decade) is well within natural variability, so we cannot tell that global warming has had any significant effect on it. Mr Clarke should learn a sense of proportion.
Next, Mr Clarke cites not a scientific paper (he does not seem too familiar with the literature) but a tendentious and increasingly desperate blog whose author, notorious for his mistakes, tries to maintain that the global extent of sea ice exhibits a serious decline. One need only look at the record of global sea-ice extent to see how very small – particularly as a fraction of seasonal variability – the decline in global sea ice has been. As with northern-hemisphere snow cover, so with sea-ice extent, one may imagine that global warming has had some small influence, but we have no reason to suppose that the very small movements in either of these datasets exceed natural variability by a statistically-significant margin. Again, more proportion and less pusillanimous partisanship, please.
Next, Mr Clarke wails that the rugose and tabulate corals became extinct at the end of the Permian era, inferentially during the “Great Dying”, a mass extinction some 250 million years ago caused by prolonged warming of the Earth owing to the aggregation of the continents in a single land-mass, a warming exacerbated by a major volcanic eruption in Siberia that emitted basaltic lava that covered an area seven times the size of France. Though Mr Clarke somehow fails to say so, they were replaced by the hardier scleractinian corals that are today’s principal reef-formers. And, whether Mr Clarke likes it or not, my statement that the calcite and aragonite corals (and the scleractinia) survived the acidification of the oceans 55 million years ago is correct. At the time of the Permian mass extinction, CO2 concentration was approximately five times today’s, and the oceans, unlike the oceans 55 million years ago, are today pronouncedly alkaline, and – under anything like modern conditions – must remain so. There is indeed a small group of activists in the literature who try with increasing desperation to maintain that the oceans are “acidifying”: however, like it or not they remain pronouncedly alkaline, at a mean pH that is probably around 8.0 (no one knows for sure, because – as I correctly stated – no global campaign of measurement has ever been undertaken). For reference, acid-base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0, and rainwater is pronouncedly acid at 5.4. Studies off the coast of South America, where – as in many coastal areas, and particularly at or close to estuaries – pH varies considerably depending upon runoff via rivers from the land, show that calcifying organisms, contrary to the assertions of the “acidification” campaigners, are well able to withstand considerable variations in pH.
Next, Mr Clarke moans that one should not hold the IPCC to its business-as-usual predictions from 1990 because business as usual did not come to pass. However, the IPCC specifically graphed four scenarios, A-D, with A being business as usual, for CO2 emissions, expressed in Gigatonnes of carbon. However, as Le Quere et al. (2014) demonstrated, CO2 emissions are currently running somewhat above the IPCC’s Scenario A prediction from 1990. The business-as-usual prediction was, therefore, the appropriate one, but the rate of warming even in the 1990s was well below the IPCC’s 1990 scenario A prediction, and the rate of warming from 1990 to the present is approximately half of the IPCC’s then-predicted rate on its business-as-usual scenario. As the head posting demonstrates, even the IPCC has accepted that its original predictions were running hot, for expert reviewers including me advised it to do so. It has, therefore, substituted its own “expert assessment” for the models’ output in the medium term, and the result, as stated correctly in the head posting, is that the IPCC has all but halved both the upper and the lower bounds of its then-predicted warming rate for the medium term. It has not, however, made any adjustments to its long-term predictions, as it should have done.
Finally, Mr Clarke prefers to use the much-tampered-with terrestrial temperature datasets because (in no small part thanks to the tampering) show some warming over the past 18 years 5 months. However, the rate of warming over that period, taken as the mean of the three longest-established terrestrial datasets, is equivalent to only three-quarters of a degree per century – again, well within natural variability and less than half the warming rate shown on the terrestrial datasets since 1979, notwithstanding ever-increasing rates both of CO2 emission and of CO2 concentration. The terrestrial records therefore confirm the lower-troposphere record, in that there is no satisfactory linear relation between cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming: nor would we expect one, because the CO2 forcing function is not linear but logarithmic.
Accordingly, Mr Clarke – as usual – is flat-out wrong on all points.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 28, 2015 6:35 am

[snip off topic -mod]

May 28, 2015 6:56 am

More great work, and great writing, by the man who single-handedly is giving the standing of the Scottish aristocracy a great boost! The Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London have both failed society by failing to stand up for rigorous science and penetrating analysis against the plague of glib science and political opportunism that we have had to endure for decades under various banners including cagw, climate change, climate disruption, and the even more insidious, banal, and destructive ‘sustainable development’.
It would be a fine thing if new scientific societies were to emerge in those cities, and elsewhere. Societies dedicated to critical review of theories and careful weighing of evidence, and always with disdain for those who sell their souls, and brains, to ‘authority’ rather than dare think for themselves.
The Heartland Institute in the USA, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, are perhaps the most prominent examples of bodies which have arisen to work on climate matters in large part because of the failure of our existing scientific societies to do what ought to have been seen as their duty to the rest of us.

Reply to  John Shade
May 28, 2015 12:06 pm

IMO Lord Monckton’s title is in the English aristocracy.
His distant ancestors lived in Yorkshire, so might have Scottish connections, but his family has been settled in Kent since the 16th century.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 3:38 am

OK, thanks for that. He has lived in Scotland for quite a while himself, but I suppose I should have been more careful in my comment and have written ‘aristocracy in Scotland’.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 12:03 pm

Actually, I believe it is indeed a fact that LMs title is derived from his Aristocratic ancestry, but not from membership in the House of Lords, which is on record stating he isn’t, nor ever was, a member.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 12:15 pm

And what is warrenlb, aside from nothing?

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 2:06 pm

John,
It’s a small point. England and Scotland have separate peerages for inherited titles. I don’t know about “life” titles. Those might possibly be from the UK.
Warrenlb,
Lord Monckton’s title is derived from his being the grandson of the first Viscount, who was not himself an aristocrat, but was elevated to the peerage by Prime Minister Anthony Eden, for services rendered the United Kingdom.
While he is thus indubitably a lord and member of the English peerage, that nowadays doesn’t guarantee a seat in the House of Lords.
Your understanding of every topic upon which you choose to comment appears non-existent.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 2:30 pm

sturgishooper is correct, as usual.
Lord Monckton is a hereditary peer. But warrenlb doesn’t understand how that works. As usual, warrenlb has only his ad hominem attacks, but he never has any credible science. If it were not for his ad hominem and his appeal to authority fallacies, warrenlb’s comments would look like this: [” … “].
As sturgishooper says to warrenlb: “understanding of every topic upon which you choose to comment appears non-existent.”
Anyone can comment here. But they do not have to know what they’re talking about. Thus: warrenlb; site pest.

Gregg E.
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 29, 2015 2:32 pm

[Ah, it’s the sockpuppet “David Socrates” again.
Get lost. ~mod.]

Reply to  John Shade
June 1, 2015 2:11 pm

Actually LM claims he is a member of the H of L. But the H of L denies it, in writing, publically, and asks L of M to cease and desist in such claims. yet he doesn’t.

Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2015 7:19 am

In response to 18-plus year Halt to warming, Clark pulls a classic two-fer; a lie ensconced in a red herring:

global surface temperature, as measured by ground stations, have just recorded the warmest 12 month period in the record and the warmest start to a year on record.

Typical Alarmist tactics.

Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 7:47 am

Science by legal affadavit? Really? Regardless of the outcome of such a novel procedure, the assertion that the consensus rests on the tiny percentage of abstracts in the literature explicitly endorsing it is balderdash. Even Richard Tol, perhaps the most outspoken critic of Cook et al tells us that
There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct
I am grateful to his Lordship for conceding that I was correct in pointing out that his assertion that ‘
annual northern-hemisphere snow cover shows no change throughout the satellite era’ is indeed untrue. As for the literature …
Analysis of Northern Hemisphere spring terrestrial snow cover extent (SCE) from the NOAA snow chart Climate Data Record (CDR) for the April to June period (when snow cover is mainly located over the Arctic) has revealed statistically significant reductions in May and June SCE. Successive records for the lowest June SCE have been set each year for Eurasia since 2008, and in 3 of the past 5 years for North America. The rate of loss of June snow cover extent between 1979 and 2011 (−17.8% decade−1) is greater than the loss of September sea ice extent (−10.6% decade−1) over the same period. Analysis of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) model output shows the marked reductions in June SCE observed since 2005 fall below the zone of model consensus defined by +/−1 standard deviation from the multi-model ensemble mean.
Derksen & Brown 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053387/full
A 17% /decade decline during Spring. A lesser trend during other seasons. It seems to me that anyone not concerned by this is the one lacking a sense of proportion.
Again I am grateful to his Lordship for confirming that his original assertion that ‘calcite corals that evolved 550 million years ago’ survived is untrue. Again, if one is merely setting the bar at more recently evolved corals merely not becoming extinct rather than the massively problematic effects detailed in the paper I cited, then I would opine that it is not I who lacks a sense of proportion. Surely we can aim higher? For a description of the less-than-extinction-but-still-serious effects of acidification on the marine environment, see the paper I cited, or indeed any other authority on the topic.
His Lordship dismisses Tamino’s conclusions on global sea ice extent, even though the statistician’s data is well-sourced. Perhaps he would like to give his own figures for the trends in Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent to back up his assertion that the modest increase in the former compensates for the steep decline in the latter?
His Lordship defends his sole use of IPCC 1990 Scenario A (dismissing all others) on the grounds that the report ‘graphed emissions’ (yes they did, in an Annex, as an ‘example’) and CO2 emissions are now above Scenario A, according to Le Quere . This is unscientific and disingenuous. Firstly emissions in a single year are irrelevant to the warming effect. What matters is cumulative concentrations, and IPCC Scenario A has CO2 concentrations well north of 400ppm by now. Indeed his Lordship’s own recent paper showed actual CO2 forcing trailing the Scenario A forecast by about a decade. Secondly CO2 is the major, but not the only forcing, Figure 7 in the report put CO2 at 55% of the total Greenhouse effect. Other forcings, notably methane, have also not tracked the increases projected under Scenario A, meaning, as I correctly noted, that real-world forcings most closely followed the trajectories of IPCC Scenarios B and C, and hence these are the ones that should be used to assess how the projections performed, rather well is the answer.
His Lordship points out that ‘ the rate of warming over that period (the last 18 years), taken as the mean of the three longest-established terrestrial datasets, is equivalent to only three-quarters of a degree per century – again, well within natural variability.’
I haven’t checked those figures, but while we’re considering relatively short periods, the 18 year period ending in 2006 in both the RSS satellite data and HADCRUT4 series had a linear slope well in excess of two degrees per century. Was this within natural variability? If one 18 year period is significant, why not the other?

Reply to  Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 9:20 am

Phil Clarke, like many on the totalitarian hard Left, lacks a quantitative sense. I agree with Richard Tol that, since we are returning to the atmosphere a minuscule fraction of the CO2 that was formerly present, and since the greenhouse effect is thereby enhanced, all other things being equal some warming will result. However, that is not the consensus as defined in Cook’s silly paper: there, the introduction defines the consensus proposition in the same way as the IPCC does: the notion that most of the global warming since 1950 is manmade. Tol does not say that, and nor do I, and nor do 99.7% of the papers looked at by Cook et al. Yet Cook, and Richardson, and the University of Reading, and the Institute of Physics, all of whom knew perfectly well that their claim that 97% supported the notion that recent warming is mostly manmade was false, made that claim nonetheless, and profited thereby at the expense of taxpayers. That – in the United Kingdom, at any rate – is a serious, imprisonable criminal offense.
In order for the authorities to act, it is of course necessary to provide sworn evidence as to exactly how Cook et al. dishonestly tampered with their results so as to conceal the fact that they had marked only 64 of 11,944 papers as stating that recent warming was mostly manmade. The affidavit does not address a scientific question: it addresses a question of criminal misrepresentation of an allegedly scientific result. Queensland police have also been looking at the shenanigans surrounding the Cook paper, and Cook’s unwise attempt to double down on his falsehood with his current edX course will not help his defense.
It is a shame that, as with Gore, so with Cook, it will be necessary to go to court – and this time the criminal court – to ensure that climate science is kept honest.
Phil Clarke, again demonstrating how quantitatively challenged he is, is whining that June snow cover has declined by a sixth since 1979. He may not understand these things, but the fact remains that there has been no statistically significant change in annual snow cover throughout the satellite era. Naturally, since there has been some warming since 1979, there will be less snow on the ground in the Northern-Hemisphere summer than if there had been no warming, but so what? A few Augusts ago, at an elevation of little more than 2000 feet, snow on our ground in Rannoch was still there from the previous winter when the first snow of the following winter fell. Climate varies naturally as well as anthropogenically, and the statistically-insignificant change in annual snow-cover extent cannot safely be attributed to Man.
Then, Phil Clarke moans that methane concentration has not risen as fast as predicted. Exactly. That is one of the many exaggerated predictions that went towards the IPCC’s prediction that there would be twice as much global warming on the business-as-usual case as there has been. The IPCC got it wrong, and – unlike Mr Clarke, who has no quantitative sense, it has accepted that it got it wrong; it has said so; it has explicitly abandoned the models that got it wrong; it has substituted for them its own “expert assessment”; it has accordingly all but halved both the lower and the upper bound of its medium-term interval of temperature projections; and, even then, outturn is scraping along the bottom of its current, sharply-downward-revised projection interval. Given that the IPCC has done this, Phil Clarke – if he disagrees with it – should not waste his time disagreeing with me. He should contact the IPCC and tell it the hard Left know better than mere scientists what is going on with the climate. The IPCC will pay no attention.
It is now undeniable that just about every model has prodigiously over-predicted the rate of global warming. Whether the models did so because they vastly overestimated methane concentration or somewhat underestimated CO2 emission growth or humungously overestimated the supposed net-amplifying influence of temperature feedbacks is neither here nor there. The IPCC and just about all the models have failed. They have nearly all failed in the same direction – enormous exaggeration. That suggests either that intercomparison has inserted the same errors into all the models or that a political influence is at work, generating a desired result rather than an honest prediction. Not for me to say either way: but the exaggerations can no longer be denied, ignored or airily explained away. The planet is not warming at anything like the predicted rate – and, as best I can work it out, it is not now going to do so.

nutso fasst
Reply to  Phil Clarke
May 28, 2015 11:39 am

Richard Tol:

The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed).
It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration. During that time, electoral fortunes will turn. Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support, at levels comparable to other public policies such as universal education or old-age support. Well-publicized but faulty analyses like the one by Cook et al. only help to further polarize the climate debate.

Regardless of Tol’s opinions, his analysis shows that those who use Cook et al as proof of a 97% consensus are either willfully ignorant or dishonest.
I have little reason to doubt that the only way to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to zero would be to eliminate production of concrete, asphalt, steel, aluminum, and a plethora of other materials from which modern civilization is built, and to cease industrial-scale farming and food distribution without which much of the current population would die of starvation.

May 28, 2015 8:35 am

Phil Clarke says:
I haven’t checked those figures…
They are correct. There has been no global warming for more than 18 years according to both satellites, and corroborated by radiosonde balloon data.
Clarke feels the need to write a long cherry-picked explanation trying to rationalize the fact that he has been flat wrong in his predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
Clarke is just tap-dancing around what Planet Earth and others are telling everyone: global warming STOPPED many years ago; Clarke and his ilk were completely wrong. And of course, Clark will never admit that the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial, with no global harm from CO2 ever identified.
When the facts change, skeptics will change their minds if it’s warranted. But not climate alarmists like Clarke. He simply cannot change his mind, even after almost twenty years of being wrong.
I don’t expect an answer to this question from Mr. Clarke, because the alarmist clique never answers it:
What would it take to convince you that your original premise of ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ is wrong?
Would a full twenty years of no global warming convince you?
Would it convince you if Arctic ice rebounded above its 30-year average?
Would it convince you if a new Ice Age was triggered, beginning with falling global temperatures?
What would convince Clarke he is wrong? Anything? Or could nothing ever convince him?
The “carbon” scare has colonized Clarke’s mind, and he cannot think clearly. His posts are nothing but cherry-picked examples of his confirmation bias. Anyone like Clarke who still actually believes John Cook’s “97%” nonsense is beyond hope. Global warming is not science to Phil Clarke, it is his true blue green religion.

MarkW
Reply to  dbstealey
May 28, 2015 12:25 pm

If glaciers were grinding through Chicago, Phil and people like him would be declaring that global warming is just hiding somewhere and any day now will come roaring back to roast us all.

Reply to  MarkW
May 29, 2015 2:55 pm

It’s worse than that.
They’d claim that the advancing ice sheets were conclusive proof of man-made climate change and that they were perfectly consistent with predictions and models. But, even so, it’s much worse than expected.

RusQ
May 28, 2015 10:31 am

where (in the world as you know it), is the single biggest source of CO2? I do not mean country, single owned industrial complex? and btw, I think they do a good job;)))

Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2015 10:53 am

Clarke then tries the tactic of claiming that the current 18-year Halt in warming is cherry-picked. Another lie.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2015 12:26 pm

When it’s all you got, make the most of it.

FrankKarrvv
May 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Mr Phil Clarke says:
“Even Richard Tol, perhaps the most outspoken critic of Cook et al. tells us that:
‘There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct ‘ ”
Perhaps you did not read my comment earlier to Climate Pete Mr Clarke. I shall repeat it again its a fundamental science principle:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/27/the-royal-anti-science-society-of-edinburgh/#comment-1946859
There was a very high consensus once that the earth was at the center of the solar system. Consensus is not a scientific proof and neither is a ‘peer-reviewed’ paper or are papers the last word on a subject that has many uncertainties. A scientific theory or hypothesis can only be disproved. There is currently a great deal of data available that does not agree that CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
See also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/27/the-royal-anti-science-society-of-edinburgh/#comment-1946882

Phil Clarke
May 29, 2015 1:30 am

Once again I am grateful to Lord Monckton for his response; it must get tiring constantly shifting those goalposts. I see that now the IPCC 1990 report’s failing was not one of climate modelling but rather that the authors failed to predict that the Montreal Protocols, the collapse of the Soviet Union and other global economic and political influences would blow the real-world global forcings trajectory away from their (BAU) Scenario A and nearer their Scenarios B&C.
Of course the IPCC makes no firm forecasts of how methane emissions and/or other any other GHG concentrations will evolve when issuing projections of temperature and other climate parameters, how could they? Rather they construct scenarios (or what they more recently term Representative Concentration Pathways – RCP) covering a range of economic and legislative assumptions and then use the associated forcings as input to a GCM. In the 1990 report, Scenario A assumed, inter alia, continued carbon-intensive energy production and only partial implementation of the Montreal Protocol, while Scenario B had a move to more natural gas in the mix and full implementation of the MP.
Regardless of the geopolitics, a glance at Figure 2.4 in the report is sufficient to make it clear that the current value for actual real-world forcings lies within the range projected for Scenarios B&C and well below that of Scenario A. Constantly to present only Scenario A, to ‘disappear’ the other Scenarios, to pretend that this means the IPCC models overestimated temperatures when the opposite is the case, and to growl at those who demur, is, I submit, rude

Reply to  Phil Clarke
May 30, 2015 5:16 pm

Mr Clarke says I have shifted the goalposts. I have not done so. The IPCC’s scenario A in 1990 showed that by now there should be CO2 emissions of around 10 GtC/yr: the outturn two years ago was 10.7 GtC. The IPCC now considers that CO2 accounts for some five-sixths of all greenhouse-gas forcings, compared with three-quarters in 1990.
And it matters not whether the models were in error in predicting rates of growth in methane concentration (which they were), or whether they were in error in predicting rates of growth in global temperature (which they were), or whether they were in error in according to chlorofluorocarbons a forcing far greater than they should have done (which they did). The fact is that in every instance the choices the modelers made tended to exaggerate the true position, contributing to the models’ now embarrassing over-prediction of the warming rate. Mr Clarke has done his best to cite the neo-Communist Potsdam Institute in support of his contention that the models would have got things right, really, if only they had understood how ENSO and volcanoes and solar irradiance work. But these are just further failures on the modelers’ part.
And RCPs are an artefact of the Fifth ASSessment report, not of the first four.
Finally, the debate is chiefly about CO2. The IPCC has always accepted that that would provide the bulk of the warming. The IPCC’s Scenario A, like it or not, is the scenario that comes closest to the actual change in CO2 emission. It is, therefore, the appropriate scenario. The values for forcings are far more slippery than measures of CO2 emission or concentration, and I have never placed much reliance on them. One has only to look at the shenanigans surrounding the aerosols. In 1990 the IPCC (correctly) estimated that anthropogenic aerosols had very little influence on global temperature. Thereafter, realizing that without a suitable fudge factor to bring down the total anthropogenic forcing it would not be able to argue for high climate sensitivity, it tried to maintain that anthropogenic aerosol forcings are strongly net-negative. There were many other fudges and kludges to do with both the direct forcings and the consequential forcings, or feedbacks, supposedly engendered by the forcings.
So in my analyses I stick to the data. There are enough uncertainties even there, but I see no logical reason to base my choice of IPCC scenarios on its numerous and constantly-fluctuating and mutually-incompatible estimates of forcings. They are made up to provide the desired high climate sensitivity, and transparently so.
And I did not growl at anyone for choosing particular values for forcings. The word was scarcely mentioned all day. I growled at someone for having suggested that the temperature outturn has proven consistent with the models’ predictions, when it has not. The models are wrong, and will continue to be wrong while they are endlessly tweaked and bashed to produce a desired high-sensitivity outcome that is, however, now embarrassing by its notorious absence. The world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate. Get over it.

Darkinbad the Brighdayler
May 29, 2015 2:43 am

Well done Christopher.
Good to hear that you are willing to go and confront them with the inconvenient aspects of their truths.

May 29, 2015 2:48 am

I’m not entering into a debate about the validity or otherwise of climate science but I will say this article misrepresents events at this meeting and simply highlights Christopher Monckton’s own arrogance and personal prejudices, the most glaring being:
– he talks about “I hear a member of the audience demand less science but the rest of the audience actually applauded.”, she did not advocate less science she questioned the quibbling about model results when (obviously in her opinion) the case has been made and we now have a moral obligation to act for the sake of future generations, she did not receive rapturous applause but a small number of people did support her statement with some applause
– Dr Edenhofer did not reply angrily, he frowned slightly and answered the question clearly and concisely. “Prices, he said, must reflect society’s most important scarcities. But that is what the free market does, all by itself.” the energy free-market is not doing it all by itself, it is not costing in the externalities of environmental impacts hence the IMF report on trillions of “subsidies”, not just CO2, we have large amounts of other pollutants directly from fossil fuel combustion, unequivocally causing damage to human health and ecosystems.
I also object to the implication that I have a fat arse, it’s actually quite compact and shapely although as I’m not funded to do climate research maybe I’m exempt from the accusation of steatopygia. 😉

Reply to  BossChakatheHat (@VCO3)
May 29, 2015 12:19 pm

BossChakatheHat
You say potato, I say po-tah-toh…

Reply to  BossChakatheHat (@VCO3)
May 29, 2015 2:53 pm

Sorry. but “quibbling” on this issue is the proper practice of science. The models are just plain wrong by the standards of the scientific method and therefore should no be used to formulate public policy. IMO Monckton’s characterization of such an attitude is correct.
Not having been there, I can’t assess his characterization of the volume of applause.
However IMO the fact that skeptical speakers are apparently personae non gratae at the RSE speaks volumes.

Reply to  BossChakatheHat (@VCO3)
May 30, 2015 5:02 pm

Like it or not, the lady who received some of the loudest applause of the day said she thought there had been too much quibbling about the science, and about tenths of a degree. That was what she actually said. But the world is only warming by tenths of a degree – and not by very many of them, particularly in the past two or three decades.
My questions, in any event, had been less about model results than about real-world data, for the chief difference between the skeptics and the true-believers is that the skeptics found their case on the data and the true-believers found it on the predictions of models that have repeatedly turned out to have exaggerated.
Dr Edenhofer was indeed angry at my politely-expressed statement that his proposal was for a totalitarian regime of price-setting, for that is exactly what he was advocating. And the words “But that is what the free market does, all by itself” were mine in the head posting, not his. And, since there has been no statistically-significant global warming since IPeCaC’s first ASSessment report in 1990, there are no negative externalities to which etatiste voodoo economics could be applied. The IMF’s language of “subsidies” is, therefore, the traditional Communist/totalitarian position, which is a very long way from reality or from sound economics, and will hit the poorest hardest.
And if BossChakaTheHat is paid by the State, then he, she or it is likely to exhibit a natural propensity to go along with the State’s party line on the climate question without actually checking any of the material facts. A few weeks reading WattsUpWithThat will raise serious questions about the state of climate science and about the New Superstition in any reasonably open mind.

Terry
May 29, 2015 8:50 am

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

May 30, 2015 10:05 am

Why is it that the POVs expressed on this forum on AGW and the greenhouse effect have zero effect on:
1) Science Education in Universities
2) Science Education in Secondary schools
3) The Positions of The World’s Science Academies, all of which conclude AGW
4) The Positions of the World’s Scientific Professional Societies, all of which confirm the same
5) Peer Reviewed science journal papers, in which we see no authors appearing on this forum.
6) World Leaders
Could it be that WUWT residents march to a different drummer than do the worlds of Education, Science, Policy, and Government?

Reply to  warrenlb
May 30, 2015 2:17 pm

Not only do they march to a different drummer than those the worlds of [government supported] Education, [government funded] Science, [government] Policy, and Government, they are PAID by a different Comptroller.
“Follow the money.”

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
May 30, 2015 2:52 pm

Hmm… it sounds like a massive conspiracy behind Education, Science, Policy, Religion, and world leaders. It’s pretty scary out there.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
May 30, 2015 6:12 pm

Pretty scary? Perhaps.
Pretty thievery? Most certainly.
Follow the money…. all the way from the taxpayers.

Reply to  warrenlb
May 30, 2015 4:49 pm

Warrenlb says the truth (which he calls the “points of view” expressed here) have no effect on science education, science academies and professional societies, peer-reviewed journals and world leaders.
Whether he likes it or not, several of us here have published in the reviewed literature, and have briefed world leaders, many more of whom are sympathetic to the truth than the media will admit.
As to science education in schools and universities, if it continues to present only one side of a question that should be studied in the round (as Confucius would put it), it will gradually lose the support of young people, who – in opinion polls, at any rate – are expressing more than a little cynicism at the messianic proselytizing to which several institutions of “learning” are subjecting them.
It is by now quite clear that the only method of demonstrating to the true-believers in the New Superstition that the central dogmas of their faith are false is to wait and see. Already, the IPCC has been compelled to halve both the upper and lower bounds of its medium-term predictions of global warming, because the world is simply not warming at the predicted rate.
Our own best estimate, published in January 2015 at scibull.com, the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is that there will be a small warming of about 0.9 K this century (of which, so far, none at all has occurred).
At root, the skeptical case is based on observation, measurement, and data, while the true-believers’ case is based almost exclusively on predictions which, to the extent that they have already become testable with the passing of time, have proven in just about every instance to have been considerable exaggerations.
Whether warrenlb likes it or not, science is not done by prediction: that is for astrologers and phrenologists. It is done by observation, measurement, and the application of pre-existing theory to the resulting data, and not by peering into billion-dollar electronic crystal balls.
And, since warrenlb is in essence complaining that the skeptics are not part of an imagined (and actually imaginary) scientific “consensus”, he should know that science is not done by mere headcount; that such headcounts as have been done do not show the unanimity he falsely claims; and that, as far as the economics of climate mitigation is concerned, the reviewed literature and the IPCC’s documents conclude that mitigation is costlier than adaptation, even if the rate of warming were to accelerate from near zero to the exaggerated values predicted by the useless models.

May 30, 2015 4:27 pm

warrenlb says:
Could it be that WUWT residents march to a different drummer…
warrenlb, WUWT is the mainstream when it comes to this subject. You are the outlier. No alarmist blog comes close to the traffic of WUWT. That’s because all points of view — even yours — are posted for all readers to consider. Readers can then make up their own minds about what is science, and what is political spin.
It’s interesting that the overwhelming majority of WUWT readers have read all the evidence and facts presented by both sides, and have come down solidly on the side of those skeptical of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare.
There are only a small handful of people on your side of the fence, warrenlb. That should tell you something.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 30, 2015 4:42 pm

.
What ya’ been smoking Stealey: “There are only a small handful of people on your side of the fence”,
Yes, only the ones on my list…!

Reply to  warrenlb
May 30, 2015 5:48 pm

That would be the carefully cherry-picked list of your ‘authorities’?

Reply to  warrenlb
May 31, 2015 8:00 am

No, that would be the list from my earlier post you’re replying to:
1) Science Education in Universities
2) Science Education in Secondary schools
3) The Positions of The World’s Science Academies, all of which conclude AGW
4) The Positions of the World’s Scientific Professional Societies, all of which confirm the same
5) Peer Reviewed science journal papers, in which we see no authors appearing on this forum.
6) World Leaders