Greenpeace should stop fabricating global warming claims

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

A co-founder of Greenpeace International, Rex Weyler, described as a “journalist”, has recently blog-posted a Gish-gallimaufry of half-truths and downright falsehoods under the heading Global warming update. Mr Weyler says: “If you are environmental activist, or someone who cares and wants to help, you may find yourself confronting a denialist campaign that sows doubt and confusion.”

As with most such compendia of codswallop from the lavishly-funded Traffic-Light Tendency – the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds – this latest roundup of ranting rodomontade is calculated to mislead as much by what it does not say as by what it does say. So let me sow some facts.

For the record, nobody pays me a sou to research or write about global warming, though I occasionally get a speaker’s fee. Greenpeace is far less candid about its funding, much of which comes from taxpayers.

Mr Weyler begins with the assertion, taken from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, that

“March 2015 was the warmest March in 136 years of records”.

We are not told that it is warmer by just one-twentieth of a degree; nor that the satellite datasets do not show March 2015 as the warmest March:


We were not told that taking a single month (or even a decade) out of context is not how grown-up scientists evaluate temperature trends; nor that the NCDC temperature record has been repeatedly tampered with so as to suppress warming in the early 20th century and enhance it over recent decades. The effect is artificially to bump up the otherwise negligible warming rate by more than the puny March 2015 “record temperature”:


The serial tampering of the surface temperature data by NOAA’s NCDC has become particularly noticeable in the past decade:


In fact, approaching half of all 20th-century “global warming” seems to have come from adjustments to the NCDC record, particularly over recent decades. Deducting the 0.3 Cº fictional warming arising purely from these adjustments, and also deducting a further 0.2 Cº to allow for the fact – demonstrated by Michaels & McKitrick (2006) – that the recorded rate of warming over land in recent decades has been twice what it should have been because insufficient allowance had been made for urbanization and industrial development, leaves only about a quarter of a degree of genuine global warming since 1990.


Next we are told that

“global warming has stricken farmers around the world”.

We are not told what the ideal global mean surface temperature for agriculture is, however. Until very recently, warm periods such as the Holocene, Old Kingdom, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Climate Optima were described as “Optima” because it was universally recognized that warmer and hence slightly wetter weather is better for agriculture than colder, drier weather. Now, however, these embarrassing “Optima” are being renamed with the Orwellian, politically-correct term “Climate Anomalies”.


Nor are we told that for various reasons, including increased use of nitrogen fertilizers and also CO2 fertilization, as well as warmer weather, crop yields rose rapidly worldwide till about the year 2000, when use of fertilizers declined and global temperature stabilized. Crop yields, however, remain high, thanks in no small part to continuing CO2 fertilization, which has added 2% per decade to the “primary productivity” or total green biomass of trees and plants worldwide in recent decades.


Next, we are told that

“science has observed enough to know that global warming is real, and that the primary cause is human activity”.

We are not told that when climate extremists at the “University” of Queensland attempted to prove that 97% of the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published in the learned journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 had said recent warming was mostly manmade, they had themselves marked only 64 papers as saying that, and only 41 of the 64 had actually said that. So the “consensus” is not 97% but 0.3%.

Next, we are told that

“In 1896, using known observations of energy radiance and conduction, Swedish chemist Svente Arrhenius introduced the fundamental postulate: ‘If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases … the temperature will increase.’”

We are not told that the chemical formulae for carbonic acid is not “CO2” but H2CO3.

Nor are we told that Arrhenius, ten years after his 1896 paper, wrote a second paper, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen (“The possible cause for climate variability”) in vol. 1 no. 2 of the Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut (Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute), in which he reduced his estimate of climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling from 4-8 Cº to 1.6 Cº:

“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”


Next, Mr Weyler, who appears to know practically no science of any kind and still less climate science, mangles his descriptions both of how greenhouses warm and of how the (quite different) greenhouse effect works. He makes the elementary mistake of assuming that the two processes are identical. Greenhouses warm chiefly because the glass prevents non-radiative transport of heat – notably convection – from the air inside them.

He digs himself further in by saying that

“Once reflected light is polarized …”

No, it is not “polarized”: its peak wavelength is displaced to the near-infrared in accordance with Wien’s displacement law. We are not told that it is not only “reflected light” from the surface that interacts with greenhouse gases, but also the not inconsiderable fraction of incoming solar radiation that is already in the near-infrared.

Next, Mr Weyler mangles his definition of “global warming”, saying it is

“a relatively large change in a short time, specifically 0.4 C° in one century. Earth’s temperature has increased by 0.8°C in one century, a state of global warming.”

His source for this inaccurate definition is an article on global temperatures in 2014 and 2015 by James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and others at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. However, the article contains no statement akin to Mr Weyler’s formulation. We are not told that that the world’s first regional temperature dataset, that of Central England, showed warming over the 40 years 1694-1733 at a rate equivalent to 4.33 degrees per century, long before we could have had anything to do with it.

Next, we are told that

“A cold winter is weather, and does not indicate the direction of climate change”.

We are not told that a warmish March is also weather, and does not indicate the direction of climate change.

Next, Mr Weyler says,

“The Canadian tar sands open-pit mine in Alberta is one of the major contributors to global warming, releasing carbon to the atmosphere, while removing the Boreal Forest”.

Even using the IPCC’s extreme climate-sensitivity estimates, the tar sands have a barely measurable effect on global temperature, and cannot have had any effect sufficient to cause any global at all in the past 18 years 5 months. As to the removal of the forest, under agreements between the extractors and the Canadian Government the forest will simply be replanted once the extraction is complete. This has long been common practice among all forms of opencast mining in recent decades. The tar sands are undoubtedly messy and polluting for now, but the long-run environmental benefits greatly outweigh the reversible short-run environmental costs. Were it not for the widespread use of cheap coal and oil, there would be far more destruction of forests as people cut down trees for firewood. Canada’s climate is not warm.

Next, Mr Weyler says CO2 emissions are now more than three-fifths higher than they were in 1990, and are

“dominated by China, the US, Europe, and now India”.

We are not told that Communist China now emits twice as much CO2 as the United States, a gap that will continue to widen as China’s program of building one or two coal-fired power stations a week continues till at least 2030. Nor are we told that Mr Obama, during a visit to China in December 2014, unilaterally granted China the right not to endure any of the restrictions that the new Treaty of Paris will inflict on her capitalist competitors:


The graph showing the rapid growth of China’s emissions cannot be too often reproduced, since it shows that whatever the West does is now altogether irrelevant. CO2 concentration in China will rise. It will also begin to rise more steeply in India, where Mr Modi and his environment minister have made it quite plain that they will not sacrifice lifting their people out of poverty and hence stabilizing their population by the most effective means (increasing prosperity) on the altar of non-existent “global warming”.

And where is the major Greenpeace campaigns to ensure that China does not emit more CO2? Or are we to think that the totalitarians in Greenpeace are assisting the totalitarians in China by keeping the focus on shutting down the major industries of the capitalist West that they hate even as they profit from it?

Next, Mr Weyler says:

“Meanwhile, carbon uptake by plant life is reduced through deforestation and ocean acidification,” which, we are also told, has made the oceans “30% more acidic”

…killing off marine species and threatening coral reefs. We are not told that CO2 uptake by plant life is increased through CO2 fertilization and that, notwithstanding deforestation, the net primary productivity of trees and plants worldwide is increasing.

Nor are we told that there are no global measurements of the acid-base balance of the oceans; that calcifying organisms such as the calcite and aragonite corals survived the last acidification of the oceans 55 million years ago; that studies of estuarine floodwater runoff in South America (rainwater is strongly acid, with a pH of 5.4, where 7.0 is neutral and ocean water is 7.8-8.0) show calcifying organisms to be unaffected even by considerable swings in ocean pH; and that under modern conditions acidification of the oceans is in any event impossible because the oceans lie in pronouncedly alkaline basalt basins. Ocean “acidification” is simply the fall-back position of those who are beginning to realize that no one is going to believe “global warming” for very much longer.

Next, Mr Weyler again asserts that Man is

“the primary cause of global heating” [the new politically-correct term for “global warming”, because “heating” sounds worse].

Mr Weyler says that manmade greenhouse gases have added a net 1.5 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, or “heating effect”, in the past couple of centuries.

Mr Weyler advises the faithful to challenge “denialists” [the politically correct term for skeptics because we are made to sound as recalcitrant as Holocaust deniers] to name an alternative forcing that is as big as this. That’s easy: it’s called “natural variability”. Man may or may not have caused most of the global warming since 1950: but, on any view, we had nothing to do with the warming equivalent to 4.33 degrees/century from 1694-1733.

Nor did we have much to do with the warmings of 1860-1880 and 1910-1940, at rates statistically indistinguishable from the warming rate of 1976-2000 that was substantially caused by the sudden shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its negative to its positive phase in 1976.

Mr Weyler’s statement that…

“The available information shows us that humans stand out as the primary cause of modern global heating since 1750”

…is untrue. The consensus to that effect in the reviewed journals of climate science is 0.3%.

Next we are told, in a whiningly apocalyptic tone:

“The danger civilization faces is that we can easily lose control of global warming. The heating itself causes feedbacks within the ecological system, which in turn increase heating.”

We are not told of the growing evidence in the temperature record and in the reviewed literature that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. See, for instance, Why models run hot, published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences at (please click on “Most Read Articles”: ours is the all-time no. 1, with 30,000 downloads of either the abstract or the full paper) that temperature feedbacks may be net-negative, attenuating rather than amplifying the direct “heating” caused by CO2.

We are not told of the IPCC’s own recent reduction in the feedback sum acting to equilibrium from 2 to 1.5 Watts per square meter per Kelvin, which in turn requires a reduction in equilibrium sensitivity by a third from the 3.3 degrees in the models to just 2.2 degrees, only half of which would occur within a century of the doubling:


Next, we are treated to the traditional litany of supposed catastrophes that are already said to be occurring as a result of “global heating”:

We are shown a picture of drought in California. But to cite an individual extreme-weather event as having been caused by “global heating” is to perpetrate the Aristotelian fallacy of the argumentum a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, or converse accident:


Next, we are told that there has been

“global heating” of 0.8 degrees in “only one century”.

But there was a warming of more than twice this amount in just 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. Inferentially, a substantial warming will have occurred worldwide over the same period, for Central England is on the right latitude to give a fair approximation to global temperatures. Not many SUVs about in the early 18th century.

Next, we are told that, because of “global heating”, in the Arctic the “average temperature increase is about twice the global average”. We are not told that this has nothing to do with Man: it is the consequence of naturally-occurring advection of heat from the tropics (whose temperature changes little) to the Poles. We are not told that there has been no particular warming in the Antarctic, so that, strictly speaking, there has not yet been “global” warming at all.


Next, Mr Weylers says:

“Ocean temperature has increased to depths of 3000 meters.”

We are not told that the 3600 ARGO bathythermograph buoys floating about in the oceans each take only three temperature profiles a month over 200,000 cubic kilometres per buoy, not exactly a well-resolved record; we are not told that they take no measurements below 1900 meters; we are not told that there is no global campaign of measurements at depths of 3000 meters; we are not told that the abyssal strata are influenced far more by magmatic heat transfer from below, chiefly via the mid-ocean divergence boundaries, than by global warming from above; and, above all, we are not told that the rate at which the upper 1900 meters of the ocean has been warming in the 11 full years of ARGO data is equivalent to just 0.23 degrees per century.

Next, we are told that the

“rate of warming has nearly doubled in the last 100 years”.

I arranged for a Parliamentary Question to be put down on this topic in the House of Lords a few years back. The Minister for Weather replied that one could not distinguish statistically between the rates of warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1996-2000. But he added that mere facts such as this would not alter the Government’s policy [which is to shut down as much of Britain as it can, killing as many poor people as possible in the process]. Nor are we told that there has been no statistically-significant global warming at all in the quarter-century since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 (McKitrick, 2014). The rate of warming, far from doubling, has dropped to zero, notwithstanding record rates of increase in CO2 concentration.

Next, we are told that 11 of the last 12 years

“rank among the warmest since 1850”.

So what? Was 1850 an ideal year for global temperature? If so, why? If not, why is a warming of 0.8 degrees in more than a century and a half thought to be a problem? And trends are not, repeat not, determined by grown-up scientists by saying that n of the last n + 1 years were “the warmest evaaah”. One determines either a least-squares trend, or an AR(n) trend, or a polynomial fit. One does not cherry-pick individual years or decades.

Next, we are told of

“Glaciers and polar ice melting in Northern and Southern hemispheres”.

We are not told that there are more than 160,000 glaciers on the planet; that most of these are in Greenland and in Antarctica; that Antarctica contains 90% of the world’s land-based ice; that most of the glaciers in Antarctica have never been visited or measured by Man; that Antarctica has not warmed in the satellite era; that in Greenland from 1992-2003 the mean ice thickness above 1500 m was found to have grown by 2 feet in 12 years, and that only about a quarter of that growth has since been lost to the ocean; that Antarctic sea-ice extent has been at its greatest in the satellite era for several months; and that global sea-ice extent shows remarkably little change either in area or in trend in more than a third of a century:


Next, we are told that the rate of sea-level rise is increasing and that, on current projections,

“sea rise will wipe out thousands of cities and displace billions of people”.

We are not told that according to the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites sea level actually fell from 2003-2008, but was brought into line with the desired rapid rate of rise by an unduly large “glacial isostatic adjustment” to allow for the fact that land surfaces covered by ice during the last Ice Age are still rebounding:


Nor are we told that the ENVISAT satellite, which operated from 2004-2012, showed sea level rising over the entire eight-year period of operation at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century:


We are also not told that, since ARGO shows the upper 1900 m of the global ocean as warming at a rate equivalent to only 0.23 degrees per century, there is no reason to imagine that sea-level rise is accelerating significantly.

And, of course, we are not told by how many (or, rather, how few) inches per degree of ocean temperature change sea level is likely to rise. However, we can gain an estimate of the upper bound on this useful but strikingly absent quantity by assuming that global temperature in the medieval warm period was as little as 1 Cº above the 1000-year mean and was as little 1 Cº below that mean in the Little Ice Age. Grinsted et al. (2009) show a reconstruction of the past 1000 years’ sea-level change, which covered an interval from 8 inches above to 8 inches below the 1000-year mean, implying 8 inches of sea-level rise per degree of warming:


This value, 8 inches’ sea-level rise per degree of ocean warming, is supported by the fact that in the 20th century temperature increased by 0.8 degrees and sea level rose by 7 inches.

Nor are we told that the intercalibration errors between the three successive laser-altimetry satellite systems of the “official” sea-level record exceed the sea-level rise they purport to have found – a rate of rise far greater than the GRACE or ENVISAT results.

We are not told, in short, that nearly all of the imagined sea-level rise since satellite altimetry began in 1993 arises not from measurements of real sea-level rise but from a combination of intercalibration biases and arbitrary and excessive glacial isostatic adjustments.


If the oceans continue to warm at the rate observed by ARGO over the past 11 full years, sea level will rise by 2 inches this century – the central estimate made by Professor Niklas Mörner, the world’s foremost expert on sea level. If, as Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015:, January) conclude, global temperature will warm by less than 1 degree this century, sea-level rise will be less than 8 inches – in other words, much the same as it was in the 20th century, and nothing at all to worry about.


Next, Mr Weyler tells us there will be more tropical cyclones. We are not told that, despite the warming since the satellites first monitored tropical storminess, there has been no uptrend in the frequency, intensity or duration of such severe storms. On the contrary, the index maintained by Dr Ryan Maue shows tropical cyclonic activity over the past five years at just about its lowest in the entire satellite record:

Next Mr Weyler tells us “Precipitation has increased in eastern Americas, northern Europe, and Asia.” So what? Natural variability will cause more rainfall in some places and less in others. Overall, as even the IPCC admits both in its 2012 report on extreme weather and in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, there is no evidence yet that precipitation patterns or quantities are being affected by global warming – which is not really a surprise given that there has hardly been any. We are not told that the world’s oldest national annual rainfall record, the Met Office’s England and Wales series, shows that the annual rainfall trend has increased by just 2 inches in a quarter of a millennium, which is well within natural variability:


Next, Mr Weyler bangs on about

“Diversity loss due to climate changes and habitat destruction”.

We are not told that it is not known, perhaps to within two orders of magnitude, how many species exist on Earth, or at what rate species are dying off or being replaced. Nor are we told that some 90% of the world’s living species are in the tropics, where it is warm, and only 1% at the Poles, where it is very cold. On that surely obvious evidence, warmer and hence a little wetter weather will if anything help to increase the variety of species with which we share our planet.

Next, we are given a paleohistory lesson, the object of which is to blame every past warm period and mass extinction (except the warm periods of the past 10,000 years) on high CO2 levels. An example: “By 100 million years ago, CO2 content reached 2000 ppmv, and the average temperature was about 11 degrees hotter than today.” We are not told that for most of the past 550 million years the temperature was around 22 Cº, or 7 Cº warmer than today, but that during that period the CO2 concentration ranged from 180 to 7000 μmol mol–1 (the correct unit), and there was no link between these major fluctuations in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature. Plainly, therefore, influences other than CO2 were at work.

Next we are told that over the past 400,000 years the Earth’s temperature and CO2 concentrations “have fluctuated in lock-step”. We are not told, of course, that throughout that period it was temperature that changed first and CO2 concentration that followed, probably through outgassing from the oceans in accordance with Henry’s Law. We are also not told that the extent to which the outgassing constitutes a CO2 feedback amplifying an original temperature change is extremely poorly constrained. The estimates in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report range from 25 to 225 μmol mol–1 of additional CO2 concentration from outgassing per degree of warming.

Next, Mr Weyler asserts:

“The data suggests that Earth may be headed for severe temperature increases, due to this CO2 build-up in the atmosphere” and also “runaway heating”.

We are not told that, though one-third of all the CO2 emitted by Man since 1750 was emitted in the past 18 years 5 months, no global warming at all has occurred in response.

Mr Weyler quotes a paper by climate campaigners at MIT, published in the Journal of Climate in 2009, which predicts that CO2 concentration will rise from 368 μmol mol–1 in 2000 to 550 μmol mol–1 in 2100, causing 5.2 degrees of warming. We are not told that since 40 μmol mol–1 of CO2 concentration increase in 18 years 5 months has caused no warming at all, and since the entire 120 μmol mol–1 increase since 1750 caused only 0.9 degrees of warming, assuming that all the warming was anthropogenic (and it probably wasn’t), the suggestion that a further 180 μmol mol–1 of CO2 concentration over the coming century will cause neither zero nor 1.4 but as much as 5.2 degrees of warming is – to put it mildly – a transparent exaggeration.

Finally, Mr Weyler weyls thus:

“I do not enjoy writing about it. Avoidance, denial, despair, and anger are completely natural reactions. Nevertheless, to avoid these outcomes, caring citizens must speak up and help inspire the large-scale and realistic actions that will reverse carbon release into Earth’s atmosphere and halt the warming trend.”

The only emotion burning in my breast on reading Mr Weyler’s ignorant, mendacious, stream of fiction is anger – anger that Greenpeace and far too many other environmental-extremist organizations are fraudulently raising hundreds of millions a year from innocent and often kindly-intentioned people on the basis of lie after lie after lie after lie. And no one prosecutes.

I was struck, on reading the Greenpeace nonsense, by how similar the talking-points were to those trotted out by Mr Obama in his recent commencement address to the U.S. Coastguard and by Mr Varley of the Met Office in his article for a retired British servicemen’s journal. Why have the news media never, or almost never, mentioned any of the balancing considerations I have set out here? They are not doing their job.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
June 1, 2015 11:48 am

Go to it, Christopher 🙂

June 1, 2015 11:52 am

All true except the last sentence. The job of the media is to sell information — right of wrong information doesn’t matter.

Reply to  Gary
June 1, 2015 12:46 pm

Gary, you may want to research your comment. Start here with this benchmark study. The media sells VERY SPECIFIC information for a VERY SPECIFIC desired outcome. The media is not neutral and is employed to drive the agenda, whatever agenda the elite neocons desire to colonize their power and wealth toward the Agenda 21 targets.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  1gr8world
June 2, 2015 4:16 am

Please take your conspiracy theory nonsense elsewhere.

Reply to  1gr8world
June 2, 2015 6:31 am

what is your definition of neocon? Perhaps who is a neocon is a better question?

Reply to  1gr8world
June 3, 2015 10:15 am

I am a neocon yet unaware of what “Agenda 21” is. Have I been secretly kicked out of the Neocon Brotherhood? Please help.

Stephen Richards
June 1, 2015 11:54 am

So apart from all those misses this is an accurate and upto green standard as required by Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and and the dictators of Brussells

June 1, 2015 11:54 am

Now here is an opportunity for a progressive government to offer a CO2 production subsidy – the more you produce the more you prosper.

Reply to  cnxtim
June 1, 2015 2:30 pm

Minister for weather? We don’t have such a position in the UK. However, it is strange but true that during the last coalition government that the ‘owning minister’ with special responsibility for the Met office was Norman Lamb MP, none other than the son of Hubert Lamb, probably the worlds greatest climatologist and first director of CRU.

Richard Mallett
June 1, 2015 12:07 pm

I do hope that you will send a copy of this to the news media, and to Greenpeace.

June 1, 2015 12:07 pm

Brilliant! Thank you.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
Reply to  Old'un
June 1, 2015 5:06 pm

Amen to tht ! ! 🙂

Reply to  Old'un
June 2, 2015 5:50 am

Yes indeed!
Bravo Sir Christopher!

Richard Mallett
Reply to  menicholas
June 2, 2015 7:24 am

Let’s hope that he keeps on slaying those alarmist dragons !

June 1, 2015 12:10 pm

“Greenpeace should stop fabricating global warming claims”
How else could they justify their existence, as they aren’t green or peaceful.

Reply to  1saveenergy
June 1, 2015 5:18 pm

I’ve been waiting for a long, long, very very long time for a proper account of the “well documented billion-dollar campaign to deny CAGW” that so many green-mongers go on about (including personalities of some “standing”) but have yet to be given a single proof of such a campaign, its funding, or even its characteristics.
It truly is one of the biggest mysteries of modern times.

June 1, 2015 12:17 pm

In short a professinal BS seller pratices their ‘trade ‘

June 1, 2015 12:18 pm

Kudos for an excellent deconstruction of the catastrophic man-made global warming scare. If it were not for misinformation, people like Weyler would have no information at all.
But when I read this:
…the world’s first regional temperature dataset, that of Central England, showed warming over the 40 years 1694-1733 at a rate equivalent to 4.33 degrees per century, long before we could have had anything to do with it.
I wondered: how could global T rise by more than 4ºC/century in only forty years, if it were not for human interference? Then I realized the answer must have something to do with Thiotimoline. That could explain it! Mr. Weyler needs to investigate that angle.
(do I need: ‘/sarc’?)

Reply to  dbstealey
June 1, 2015 2:36 pm

Db stealey
In 2006 Phil jones of CRU wrote of the astonishing warming from the 1690’s that ended with the very warm decade of the 1730’s and the extremely harsh winter of 1740
He concluded that natural variability was likely greater than he had hitherto realised.

Reply to  dbstealey
June 1, 2015 3:31 pm

I don’t disagree about Dr. Jones (although my comment didn’t mention him).
Here is some data compiled by Jones, showing that global temperature steps occur exactly the same way whether CO2 levels are low, or high:

richard verney
Reply to  dbstealey
June 2, 2015 1:26 am

I seem to recall that Dr Jones did accept/acknowledge that there is no statistical difference in the late 20th Century warming and the mid 20th Century and late 19th Centuriy warmings.
If the rate of warming is no different, where is the driving force behind CO2?
If CO2 truly drives temperatures (is dominant above natural vaiation) then why the post 1940s cooling (just as manmade CO2 emissions began to significantly rise) and why the present day ‘pause’? These need explaining since the so called settled and basic science provides that whenever there is an increase in CO2, temperatures MUST ALWAYS rise unless there is some downward forcing that counteracts the positive CO2 forcing. So what is the downward forcing operating mid Century and again for the past 18 or so years?
Don’t forget the satellite data that shows two ‘pauses’, not one; ie., the ‘pause’ between 1979 (the launch date) and say 1996/7 (the run up to the Super El Nino of 1998), and then the current ‘pause’ running from around the Super El Nino of 1998 to date.
The Satellite data shows no first order correlation between Co2 as a driver and temperature change. There is simply a one off step change in and aroundth Super El Nino of 1998 which was a natural event, not driven by the levels of CO2 (manmade or otherwise).

Reply to  dbstealey
June 1, 2015 4:07 pm

DB the 4.33 Deg C per Century is the RATE over the 40 years not the actual (for additional effect I suspect). The actual temp rise was close to 2 Deg C . Lord Chris apparently used 1.73 Deg C (1.73 x 100/40 ~ 4.325).
What I find more interesting regarding the Central England temperature gauges (3 spread in a triangle over Central England) is that over 350 years the linear trend from 1659 to 2014 is 0.26 Deg C per Century whilst the sea temperature as quoted by the CM is 0.23 Deg C per Century. A co-incidence?

Reply to  FrankKarrvv
June 1, 2015 9:25 pm

How could you have three points NOT in a triangle, I wonder?

Reply to  FrankKarrvv
June 1, 2015 10:15 pm

Pedantic, but – straight line ?? … although I’m sure they weren’t.

Reply to  FrankKarrvv
June 3, 2015 1:40 pm

Jer0me and Phillin
Golly. Depends on the triangular shape and therefore extent. Please re-read my post. Not confined to a narrow zone but SPREAD over Central England.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  FrankKarrvv
June 4, 2015 4:21 am says the stations are Rothamsted (Hertfordshire), Malvern (Worcestershire), Squires Gate (Lancashire) and Ringway (Manchester)

June 1, 2015 12:18 pm

“Diversity loss due to climate changes and habitat destruction”
It makes perfect sense. Back in the Cambrian, when temperatures were 7C warmer and CO2 was at 4000+ PPM, life was stifled, diversification non-existent, and extinction rampant.

Reply to  John
June 1, 2015 12:35 pm

We,, I wasn’t there so I can’t tell; but the only habitat about whose potential destruction by Global Warming the warmunists caterwauled was the habitat of the Polar Bear. So what if ice caps melt; the growth of biological diversity in Greenland alone would make it a win for the biosphere.
Why do the Greens love the one animal that sees humans as a food source so much? Rethorical question. Because they’re self-loathing to a suicidal degree.

Reply to  John
June 1, 2015 12:53 pm

You must be thinking of a different era.

Reply to  pochas
June 1, 2015 4:29 pm

Methinks that was a little geologist’s in-joke. We’re like that.

Reply to  pochas
June 1, 2015 4:39 pm

He’s either really screwed up or he forgot the /sarc tag. EVERYONE knows that life blasted off in the Cambrian, perhaps the greatest proliferation in the history of the planet.

June 1, 2015 12:33 pm

Good job….but I have to comment a little off topic….It’s a sorry state of affairs when the appellations of political opponents are “warmist” and “denialist”…what ever happened to “bastards” and “No good sons of bitches”!

Reply to  fossilsage
June 1, 2015 12:36 pm

It’s warmunist, not warmist. Warmist tells only half the story.

Reply to  fossilsage
June 2, 2015 5:57 pm

I prefer Climateers and Mannikins (@tm)

Alan Robertson
June 1, 2015 12:36 pm

Traffic light tendency- Greens too yellow to admit they’re Reds- I’m using that.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 1, 2015 2:00 pm

I’m Red but not Yellow enough to go along with being Green.
And yet this politicisation of science makes active opposition to the anti-science of alarmism more difficult for the Left.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
June 1, 2015 3:01 pm

Traffic light environmentalists – Greens too yellow to admit they’re Reds.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 1, 2015 12:41 pm

Here in England today, it is 10c (50f). It is one of the coolest June 1sts I can remember, though someone will probably say that it is not unusual. It doesn’t seem like the first day of Summer.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 1, 2015 3:07 pm

You know… June 1st isn’t the first day of summer. June 21 is.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
June 1, 2015 11:24 pm

Jeff, you genius, here in Britain, the Met Office use June 1st as the first day of Summer. ‘Seasons’ are:
Winter – Dec/Jan/Feb
Spring – Mar/Apr/May
Summer – Jun/Jul/Aug
Autumn – Sep/Oct/Nov

Richard Mallett
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 2, 2015 6:59 am
Richard Mallett
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
June 2, 2015 2:36 am

Meteorological summer is June, July and August – makes calculating the averages much easier.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 1, 2015 4:33 pm

Here in NJ, I zipped out of the house in short sleeves, entirely neglecting to put an eyeball on the thermometer first; it was 55F. The average low is around 58F, and it just barely hit 60F today. It’s not looking good for tomatoes this year.

Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
June 2, 2015 2:47 pm

48F here in sunny MA. Oh well, maybe next year…

Richard Mallett
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 2, 2015 2:14 am

The Met Office Hadley Centre CET at shows that 2015 (green line) is so far about 1 degree colder than 2014. If you download the monthly data since 1659 from you can see that the monthly differences so far are -1,3, -2.2, -1.2, -1.2, -1.4 degrees.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Richard Mallett
June 2, 2015 4:15 am

And December 2014 was 1.2 degrees colder than Dec 2013, so there’s a run of 6 months all more than 1 degree colder than the previous year. Mind you – it was the “hottest” year on record, so perhaps a slight cool down is not unexpected?

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Richard Barraclough
June 2, 2015 7:12 am

Yes, we don’t want to have too much of that global warming that everybody is talking about, or else it might go to our heads, and we would want it every year 🙂

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Richard Mallett
June 2, 2015 4:34 am

If the monthlys were to continue for the rest of 2015 in the same vein, then we would be looking at a yearly value of 9.49c. Very normal! It’s damn cool again today where I am in England. Thermometer says 16.0

Richard Mallett
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 2, 2015 7:19 am

And 2010 was 8.86 C, followed by 10.72, 9.72, 9.56 and 10.93 – typical British weather, as you say.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
June 2, 2015 4:07 am

No – not in the least unusual !!
Forty years ago, on 2nd June 1975, the cricket match between Derbyshire and Lancashire at Buxton was interrupted by an inch of snow. It just shows how much the climate has warmed in that time that it’s up to 10 deg C now.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Richard Barraclough
June 2, 2015 4:26 am

Richard, I remember that day. I looked out of my bedroom window around lunchtime and saw real snow – in June! But it was very brief, lasting for no more than a few minutes. But it was actually snow, not hail, as is sometimes reported.

June 1, 2015 12:44 pm

I would also like to point out that some greenhouses are also warmed by a gas fired CO2 generator used to replace the CO2 that the plants pulled out.

Reply to  DGP
June 1, 2015 12:46 pm

CO2 not COS. COS would be bad.

Alex B
Reply to  DGP
June 3, 2015 12:24 pm

It gets even better. In the Netherlands in het Westland, an area in the west of the country with vast areas of greenhouses, the greenhouses are fed with CO2 brought in by an old petrol pipeline that comes from the Shell refinery in Pernis. This way the farmers don’t need to use the gas burners and pump the exhaust gasses through the green houses. Makes it a lot more economic too.

June 1, 2015 12:45 pm

“Traffic-Light Tendency – the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds”
In the US we call them watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside..

June 1, 2015 12:46 pm

But wait, this is just a pointing-out-errors blog while there are those 1000’s of pal reviewed hoar grant papers published in “reputable” “climate” journals that say otherwise. And they can’t be wrong, no way!

June 1, 2015 12:46 pm

We are still in the warming phase of the Holocene aren’t we? Every month on average should be warmer than the previous years. Every ten years should on average be warmer than the previous ten years and every thirty year climate phase should again on average be warmer than the last thirty years . If this past March was the warmest in136 years, so what, it should be. That’s not proof of “man-made-global-warming”. Is the position of askeptical persons that there should be no warming of any sort under natural conditions and therefore any warming at all is proof of CAGW?? What should be noted is how little warming there has been. Warming is what we should expect under natural conditions.

June 1, 2015 12:49 pm

Avoidance, denial, despair, and anger are completely natural reactions. Nevertheless, to avoid these outcomes, caring citizens must speak up and help inspire the large-scale and realistic actions that will reverse carbon release into Earth’s atmosphere and halt the warming trend.
The histrionics of the true believers seems to indicate that much of their public lives are spent role-playing. This could explain why they so often get twisted into pretzel-like contortions due to hypocrisy and don’t display any feelings of regret, shame, embarrassment or humility.

James Harlock
Reply to  PiperPaul
June 2, 2015 1:05 pm

Gee, looks like Weyler completely forgot about Stage Five: Acceptance.

June 1, 2015 1:01 pm

Seems to me that feedbacks to increased forcing must be net negative, otherwise would we not be boiling shortly after sunrise?

June 1, 2015 1:02 pm

How do I sign up on the warmunista bandwagon? I need to make a few extra Pesos to pay my electric and gas bills. I’ve been using cardboard and recycleable plastic junk to keep warm and cook with. I’ve already cut down and burned all the trees in my hood. Dogs and cats are also going extinct in my hood ; )…Shhhh. Had to come to the liberry to write this and I see a few good books for fuel.

Gunga Din
June 1, 2015 1:06 pm

Remove the “A” from CAGW (or whatever the current claim is that the “A” causes) and there is zero justification for controlling the “A”. That the “A” is the cause must be upheld at all cost!

David A
Reply to  Gunga Din
June 2, 2015 3:35 am

True. However; remove the “C” for which there is far less evidence, and “there is zero justification for controlling CO2 emissions, as the benefits of CO2 are well known and manifesting daily, while the purported harms are failing to manifest except in the models.
In truth the C, the G and the W are MIA, leaving anthropogenic nothing, and “there is zero justification for controlling CO2 emissions”.

June 1, 2015 1:09 pm

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.

June 1, 2015 1:19 pm

“This has long been common practice among all forms of opencast mining in recent decades.”
“long” “recent decades”? Isn’t that redundant?

Reply to  MarkW
June 1, 2015 2:52 pm

On a climate blog?

June 1, 2015 1:26 pm

Greenpeace is just dipping into the skeptical science rebuttal well
For an example, see #42 for a litany of hand wringing and half truths.

Reply to  lgp
June 2, 2015 1:29 am

“6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles.”
Really? In the real world, the opposite has happened, with deserts greening. Also, who are they trying to kid that in nature (outside a greenhouse), plants could get “too much CO2”? Again, the opposite is true – only in a greenhouse could you create too much CO2!

June 1, 2015 1:26 pm

“Mr Weyler quotes a paper by climate campaigners at MIT, published in the Journal of Climate in 2009, which predicts that CO2 concentration will rise from 368 μmol mol–1 in 2000 to 550 μmol mol–1 in 2100, causing 5.2 degrees of warming. We are not told that since 40 μmol mol–1 of CO2 concentration increase in 18 years 5 months has caused no warming at all, and since the entire 120 μmol mol–1 increase since 1750 caused only 0.9 degrees of warming, assuming that all the warming was anthropogenic (and it probably wasn’t), the suggestion that a further 180 μmol mol–1 of CO2 concentration over the coming century will cause neither zero nor 1.4 but as much as 5.2 degrees of warming is – to put it mildly – a transparent exaggeration.”
I have been pointing this out on here (and to anyone else who might show signs of listening) for months now. I also point out that IF the relationship between CO2 and temperature was linear and 1.4C is the predicted result by 2100 then logically following this Earth’s surface temperature would surpass that of Venus before concentrations hit 5% of the atmosphere. Seeming as Venus is a) closer to the sun b) has a CO2 concentration of 96.5% and c) has 92 times the atmospheric surface pressure due to having 96 times as much atmoshere, one should conclude this is impossible and defies all common sense!!!!
The 5C claim is even more ridiculous as when you plot the prediction plus the last 0.9C rise observed on a graph it implies 2 theory shattering conclusions:
1) we will surpass the surface temperature of Venus before concentrations reach 1% of the atmosphere
2) the first 280ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere added less than 0.2C of heat to it!! (If further rises cause a compounding of heat trapping, then logically decreases must be logarithmic)
If you still believe the doomsday predictions after reading this you either a) need your head examined or b) need to go back to primary school and practice reading comprehension and basic mathematics

DD More
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
June 1, 2015 3:05 pm

Wicked, did you catch Arrhenius mistake on the halving/doubling?
“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”
Looks like he had not found out about the Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide. A halving should be greater than the doubling.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  DD More
June 2, 2015 1:46 am

The least of Arrhenius’s mistakes.

June 1, 2015 1:35 pm

Please don’t refer to them as “tar sands”, as this is a derogatory term used by the environmental extremists. There is in fact no tar in the “tar sands”, it’s a mineral called bitumen. Oil sands or oil fields are more accurate descriptions.

Reply to  PaulH
June 1, 2015 1:52 pm

… and cleaning them up as quickly as possible should be a first order priority for any responsible authority interested in environmental protection.

Reply to  Henry Galt
June 1, 2015 7:47 pm

Great comment – a good chuckle . For those that haven’t clicked how clever this remark is …. think about it ….. clean them up by carting them away to be made into oil .

Dave Worley
Reply to  PaulH
June 1, 2015 8:40 pm

Oh, but the oil sands are a natural environmental disaster which should not be remediated./snark
Did you see where tar balls on the beach in CA are being examined to determine whether they came from a pipeline break….or from the natural seeps off the coast of CA?
If they are from the natural seep, there will be despair among the greenfleas. If they are from the pipeline, then there will be cause for celebration because the penalties will generate revenue!

Reply to  Dave Worley
June 2, 2015 7:54 am

Surely the quickest way to clean them up would be to burn them?
Caution, this comment may include sarcasm.

Reply to  PaulH
June 2, 2015 4:18 am

You are absolutely correct, Tar is largely a man made product at the end of the refining process, the idea that we are mining and recovering tar is a joke. Continued misnaming or misrepresenting of something does not change its content, if it was so, Rap would be music by now. Tar makes asphalt or Tarmac, oil goes in fuel tanks and crankcases, how is this confusing?

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Craig
June 2, 2015 7:15 am

Tarmac is only Tar plus Macadam, after John McAdam, so that one should be easy 🙂

June 1, 2015 1:37 pm

The warmest March?
In London on 1st June – ie today – it was 14C
Its been below average all year so far. Where is my global; warming?

Reply to  fretslider
June 1, 2015 2:10 pm

Typical of Londoners to hog all the global warming . Here in Manchester it is 10C and double duvets on the bed again tonight.
Bit worried that perhaps Greenpeace are correct in predicting a tundra climate .

Reply to  mikewaite
June 2, 2015 7:17 am

It will be 32 C here today, again. Not lovin’ it. Bug capital of the world, heat , humidity….Not sure why everyone loves florida weather so much?

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Glenn999
June 2, 2015 7:48 am

No, I thought New York was bad enough. Why do so many people want to retire to FL ?

BeeJay in UK
Reply to  mikewaite
June 3, 2015 9:29 am

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Right on about the Londoners!!!! Very funny Mike. We’ve never had our double duvets off here in West Yorks. Just drive over the M62 to Junction 22 and drop down towards Halifax if you want to see a tundra – we’ve already got one. Its tough here up North.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  BeeJay in UK
June 3, 2015 10:04 am

Must be worse in Scotland – they don’t know what sunshine is 🙂

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Richard Mallett
June 3, 2015 10:47 am

That’s why the Scots are so miserable. ‘It has never been hard to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.’ (with thanks to PG Wodehouse).

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Brian Jackson
June 3, 2015 11:28 am

I have heard that the reason Scots are so hard to understand is that they have to speak with their mouth closed so as not to suck in all that cold air.

martin h
Reply to  fretslider
June 1, 2015 2:10 pm

Yes the BBC tv weather tell us that May was up to two degrees below average but CET shows just -0.1. There’s lies, damned lies and data.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  martin h
June 2, 2015 2:30 am

CET monthly data from 1659 from shows May 2014 as 12.2 C and 2015 as 10.8 C so it’s much colder than last year. Averages can be misleading.

Reply to  fretslider
June 1, 2015 3:41 pm

We were told in Dec 2014 that 2015 will be the hottest evaaa
Believe what you are told…NOT what you experience !!

June 1, 2015 1:40 pm

They are not just similarities in the talking points with Obama. Greenpeace is actually writing the WH speeches and press releases, including the attack language against anyone who does not tow the policy line.

Bruce Cobb
June 1, 2015 1:44 pm

He didn’t enjoy writing all those lies? How very sad! If you’re going to lie, you should at least get some enjoyment out of it. Warmunists travel such a hard road.

Tom Anderson
June 1, 2015 1:44 pm

The answer is in the recent essay about persuading believers. They care more about social acceptance and group support than by weighing the merits of arguments. The essay made an analogy to a flock of sheep following where the bellwether’s jingle leads them. Gore, Obama, Kerry, Mann and the whole bunch are bellwethers for the flock of the faithful. Bellwethers don’t have to think either. Chances of reforming all those muttons with better reasoning are not very good.
And that reminds me. That may also be why hammering on needless and burdensome levies, money down the drain, don’t have much traction either. As the Eli Wallach character said in “The Magnificent Seven,”
“If He didn’t want them shorn, He wouldn’t have made them sheep.

June 1, 2015 1:48 pm

Trouble is, 1000X as many citizens will behold Weyler’s lies than heed Christopher’s un-scaling of their eyes.

Reply to  Henry Galt
June 1, 2015 2:10 pm

But those 1000 times number of people will not have changed their minds. They are already the Choir whom he is preaching too.
And they think that they are the majority because they only see themselves.
But true majority give AGW nary a thought.
Which is strange if the people really thought that it was the End of the World.

June 1, 2015 1:50 pm

When Mr Weyler reads this he will likely choke on his goose or choke his goose. Either way Weyler and/or his goose will no longer be the same.

Reply to  eyesonu
June 1, 2015 2:28 pm

Pretty soon the goose that lays the golden eggs is going to be cooked. And not by global warming…

Reply to  eyesonu
June 2, 2015 1:30 am

Weyler choking his goose = suicide.

Reply to  eyesonu
June 2, 2015 8:18 am

I beg to differ , he will not give a tinkers cuss , he will just laugh at the inane criticism knowing that he has the might of just about every single Government and Science Academy behind him.
These people are like Sepp Blatter ( head of FIFA accused amongst many of taking bribes to secure Football World Cup placings, there might be a correlation there for his Lordship, the bankruptcy of corruption in World Football and in Climate sceance,)
on steroids ; facts , truth , argument, rationality mean zero to them because they have the might and as we know ,might is right. Until of course the FBI turn up as they are now doing in Football. A weird comparison I am aware , but at some point ,some people are going to be arrested for pernicious lies and the sowing of fears about the climate . I sincerely hope that Obama will have his collar felt (English expression ,meaning arrested ) as the first of the liars to be be apprehended or impeached for gross dereliction of duty, and when he says ,I am not a scientist , well just let him know that in his capacity of the President of the United States of America it was his duty to get things right , not to repeat the garbage espoused by his “science” advisor ,a charlatan who has been long ago exposed as such.
It is truly sickening that these scientific perverts can be allowed to continue to betray the people they pretend to wish to protect. They are , every single one of them , pigs to the trough ,sucking off the hind teat of Government largesse.
Beyond the pale Lord Monkton, I am reminded at all times of the Nazis , “I was only obeying orders”
Yes those people are that bad or at least ,that stupid.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  RogueElement451
June 2, 2015 8:58 am

They are really more stupid than bad, because they are just jumping on a band-wagon, without seeing where it’s going 🙁

June 1, 2015 2:00 pm

Weyler also doesn’t say that population is actually controlled when more energy is used.

June 1, 2015 2:08 pm

One of the silliest scare statistics of the warmists is ocean “acidification”. This is a foolish alarm on lots of different levels. It can only frighten those who are entirely ignorant of chemistry.
– As lord Monckton notes, average ocean pH’s are in the range 7.8-8.0 and 7.0 is neutral, so “30% more acid” actually means: ‘slightly less caustic”.
– Because pH is a log scale, and biological processes react in a logarithmic way, 30% is simply false. For unbuffered water it means the difference between pH 7.9 and 8.0. Not exactly alarming.
– Ocean water is buffered so in many cases the extra CO2 would cause an even more trivial pH change.
– Because the predicted warming would cause CO2 outgassing and thus LESS carbonic acid, then if the warming models are correct then more CO2 could lead to alkaline-ization, not acid-ification

Reply to  TYoke
June 1, 2015 2:20 pm

It occurs that it might be useful to explain the calculation used to go from pH of 8.0 to pH of 7.9 for an “acid increase of 30%. pH is a log scale so pH 8.0 implies a hydronium molar concentration of 0.00000001. If we increase the hydronium concentration by 30%, that would imply a new molar concentration of 0.000000013. The log of that number is -7.89. Pretty scary stuff.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  TYoke
June 1, 2015 5:17 pm

Thanks TYOKE, saved me writing it. 30% is indeed true and totally not scary.

David A
Reply to  TYoke
June 2, 2015 3:41 am

not only not scary, but well outside our current ability to measure for the global oceans.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  TYoke
June 1, 2015 3:04 pm

The term “acid” is a boogeyman for most people who are scientifically illiterate. I’ve had about 1/2 dozen annoying skin irritations, caused by chemicals, in my life, all of them by agricultural chemicals which were fairly alkaline.

Reply to  TYoke
June 2, 2015 1:37 am

The ocean ‘acidification’ term is akin to using the term ‘reversing’ (when driving along in a car) when all you have done is slowed down by a mph or two. Meaningless and utterly wrong!

Richard Mallett
Reply to  ilma630
June 2, 2015 3:13 am

The pseudonymous ‘Tamino’ Grant Foster) said that he could prove that global warming was accelerating. When I pressed him on it, he said that negative acceleration was still acceleration !

Mark from the Midwest
June 1, 2015 2:10 pm

“sows doubts and confusion.” The word “confusion” seems to be showing up a lot in many areas of the progressive agenda. While it’s still basic Saul Alinsky it also leaves a big opening, if there’s confusion, rather than denial, you can have a conversation, refute their points 1 by 1, and leave them really confused

June 1, 2015 2:24 pm

This is why it will always be warming even if its freezing—2014/index.html
Where else would they find this amount of revenue
No amount of common-sense will change their belief in the effects of Fairy gas because its not in their interest to do so

June 1, 2015 2:33 pm

[snip -off color political rant -mod]

M Seward
June 1, 2015 2:48 pm

The graphs showing the upward trend in adjustments fits my anecdotal recollections of the upward trend in hysterical statements over the past decade as the ‘pause’ unfolded as a reality and the free ride on the cyclic temperature increase of the 90’s in particular drifted from the public mind.
It is almost a perfect proxy for the increasing angst and even hysteria in the green-left world where the reality that world domination of their moronic ideology was just a fantasy. Will these buffoons have the humility to accept fate like the great Australian bushranger (outlaw) Ned Kelly who simply said ‘Such is Life’ as they slipped the noose over his head. I doubt it. Ned was a cop killing, bank robbing, take a whole town hostage gentleman compared to the arrogant CAGW scum.
News from the front line, here in Tasmania we have had a cold start to winter, -2˚C ( Ok northern hemispherites thats pretty mild but we don’t dress up like you do – I was still wearing shorts when it started) with snow down to 300 metres, wind and rain etc. Even only 5˚C in Perth, a city that has the weather LA thinks its got according to a mate of mine.
As it happens I keep a plot of HadCRUT4 ( Gl,N,S & N-S) and the thing that most intrigues me is the differeence in hemispheric temparatures. Its now up to around 0.3˚C which is three times its long term average over the record. Looks like something will give before too long, methinks.

June 1, 2015 2:54 pm

Thank you Christopher Monckton I’m glad you’re on our Side.

Werner Brozek
June 1, 2015 3:08 pm

Excellent! However was there a typo?

1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1996-2000.

Was the last one supposed to be 1975 to 1998 from

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Werner Brozek
June 1, 2015 3:56 pm

Should be 1976-2000.

June 1, 2015 3:13 pm

Greenpeace has been fabricating nearly all of their claims, not just global warming. Look at their claims relating to nuclear safety, pesticides, and so on. It’s just that nobody calls them out on it.

June 1, 2015 3:15 pm

Is Alec Guinness perhaps a cousin of yours, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley? Not to pry into lineages but there does seem to be a correlation and being from an Island Nation cut off from the mainland by climate change and rising sea levels the likelihood of shared ancestry seems almost certain.

June 1, 2015 3:34 pm

Greenpeace dropout A MUST SEE

June 1, 2015 3:36 pm

In Australia, Greenpeace was bombarding UNESCO with how bad the Great Barrier Reef’s degradation was. When the Australian government put forward sound science, Greenpeace was shown at best to be exaggerating, at worst to be telling outright lies. They have been soundly trounced over this issue.
As far as balance goes, in Australia, the left and warmists are always trying to shut down free press commentators that disagree wit them by going to the Prewss Council complaining about balance. Yet, the ABC ( Australian Broadcasting Commission fully funded by government) runs entirely the Green left perspective.Their ratings are about 10% or less of the viewing public which corresponds with the green vote. So according to them, balance means leaning so fart left frost would freeze your hair to the ground.

Steve Case
June 1, 2015 3:42 pm

Damn good rant, thanks.

Warren Latham
June 1, 2015 4:00 pm

Mathematically proper and eloquently brilliant !
Thank you from deepest Worcestershire England, where, I’m still burning coal and wood today, the 1st. of JUNE, in order to keep the chill off mi’ particles.
Folks: there is just NO-ONE who can write, speak or WORK (for all our benefit) the way he can … NO-ONE is even “close”.

Reply to  Warren Latham
June 2, 2015 11:17 am

Well it could be worse, on the 2nd June 1975 I headed over to Buxton, Derbys. on a chilly morning. I was planning to watch the county cricket game between Lancs. and Derbys. that afternoon, by lunch time we had about 3″ of snow and play was abandoned for the day, ‘Snow stopped play!”
A few weeks later we started a heat wave and a drought which was to last through the next year.

Another Scott
June 1, 2015 4:27 pm

“For the record, nobody pays me a sou to research or write about global warming,” You would probably be paid handsomely if you wrote this eloquently from the warmist / alarmist point of view…..

June 1, 2015 4:42 pm

The following comment is from a Nancy Scamp from Tasmania as posted in today’s “Australian” newspaper and is highly relevant to the very recent Greenpeace / WWF lying disinformation campaign on the claimed major damage to the Australia’s 3000 km long Great Barrier reef system, claimed man made Reef damage which nobody seems to be able to identify except Greenpeace.
The following is a very relevant and direct comment on the highly selective hypocrisy and the anti western bigotry of Greenpeace, the WWF and the UN and other so called “enviromental” [ ? ] organisations;
“Where are WWF and Greenpeace as China dredges and dumps millions of tonnes of sand on live coral reefs in the South China Sea?
And where is the UN body which should be protecting such natural features ?”

June 1, 2015 4:52 pm

Great stuff, Monkton! Perhaps a few of the warmo-zombies will have their eyes opened, either by reading this or by having it told to them by us here. However, few if any non-cultists read the original BS. They already know AGW-CAGW is BS and commie-speak for “one-world government”.

June 1, 2015 5:02 pm

Beautiful deepest Worcestershire, where I was freezing a couple of weeks ago…still as cold then?! I’m now back in perishing cold, cloudy wet Victoria (Aus). What’s ‘global’ ? Warming or Cooling? The only let-up was a few days warming the old bones in Dubai!

Scott Scarborough
June 1, 2015 5:14 pm

The reason that every adjustment “goes in the direction of alarm” is because of bias – a very natural human tendency. As everyone says, station temperatures must be adjusted to achieve a “meaningful” average temperature. There are probably millions of adjustments and hundreds of categories of adjustments. All you have to do is look for the adjustments that effect the temperature in the direction “you know it should go” and you will find plenty of adjustments to make. The ones that go in the opposite direction you don’t quite recognize or you discount because you know which way the temperature record is suppose to go. It makes all of these adjustments much easier when you know the way they are suppose go. Just like in school, when you can find the answers in the back of the book it makes it much much easier to do the calculations! All of these “climate scientists” talk to one another and they are surer of Global Warming than anything else in their lives so any adjustments that cool the past and or warm the present just confirms what they already know.

June 1, 2015 6:06 pm

Mostly, methinks, it is time to start calling the true deniers, DENIERS! If these people cannot accept the reality that “heat” has paused for the last 18 years, then they are in denial!

June 1, 2015 7:04 pm

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
Yes, Greenpeace should stop fabricating global warming claims, but they won’t because they depend on the last millions that can be extracted from the public. They have seen the writing, not on the walls, but in the ice cores.

June 1, 2015 7:19 pm

A tour de force Christopher! Your article neatly summarises all the nonsense from Mr Weyler and demolishes it utterly. At the risk of picking a nit, I think there is one paragraph that reads a little misleadingly:

No, it is not “polarized”: its peak wavelength is displaced to the near-infrared in accordance with Wien’s displacement law. We are not told that it is not only “reflected light” from the surface that interacts with greenhouse gases, but also the not inconsiderable fraction of incoming solar radiation that is already in the near-infrared.

What is referred to here as “reflected light” seems to refer in fact to the light that is re-radiated by the ground after absorption of photons that were originally radiated by the sun at about 5,000K, heating the ground, which then re-radiates at ground temperature in the infra-red. Actual reflected light is still at whatever wavelength it was before – thus a green leaf reflects green light and we see it green. But the re-radiated light in the infra-red, depending on wavelength, stands a good chance of interception by water, CO2, or some other infra-red interactive gas.
Your final noun clause (“also the not inconsiderable fraction of incoming solar radiation that is already in the near-infrared”) is very important and should not be overlooked due to this terminology glitch.
Thanks again for the delightfully good read!

Scott Scarborough
June 1, 2015 7:53 pm

I thought that the glacial isostatic adjustment was real small. This plot says that it is 2mm/y… that’s large!

June 1, 2015 8:19 pm

The problem with the global warming alarmists is that they do not want to look at the scientific data relating to past climate changes. Why? Because they would have to acknowledge the planet has undergone, on many occasions, cyclical variations in climate … cooling – warming – cooling – warming … some of the changes having been far more extreme than humans have ever experienced. And it all happened through natural climate variability.

June 1, 2015 8:43 pm

So according to the graph of adjustments, it looks like about .14 degree C of the warming reported to have occurred since 1900 is due to adjustments.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
June 1, 2015 10:58 pm

The graph from NCDC. plainly shows 0.3 K of artificial upward adjustments to measured temperatures.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
June 2, 2015 9:06 am

The adjustments seem to be averaging around +.06 as of 2010, and averaging around -.08 as of 1900. That’s how I got +.14.

June 1, 2015 8:53 pm

As for the “Tamper, tamper” graph having a statement of “Why does every adjustment always go in the direction of greater alarm?” According to the graph as I see it, the cumulative adjustments for both January 1915 and January 2000 were most in favor of showing more warming sometime around February-March 2012, and since then the adjustments have slightly reduced the magnitude of reported warming trend.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
June 1, 2015 10:56 pm

The overall artificial addition to warming over the 20th century in Prof. Humlum’s graph is around 0.13 K.

June 1, 2015 8:55 pm

Christopher- excellent bit of writing and your anger is very justifiable. And everything you say is true including the statement that soon no one will believe in global warming anymore. So I would urge you not to get too frustrated. It is quite simply not worth it. These egets with their flawed ideology will soon be gone. But no doubt there will be others with equally misguided causes. At some point you need to let go …. to breath in the sweet fresh air and know that your life isn’t dominated by trying to refute such gross idiocy. You have done an amazing job …. just don’t forget that you still need to be able to laugh a little, or a lot.

June 1, 2015 9:15 pm

What’s up with 2 graphs of sea level change that cover narrow time ranges? That makes it easy for me to suspect cherrypicking, and that the presented graphs for sea level change are not the whole truth.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
June 1, 2015 10:51 pm

Mr Klipstein should note that both my graphs are from the cited sources. The first of the two sea level graphs, from CazenaveCazenave et al., shows the magnitude of the glacial isostatic adjustment, and the fact that the run of data is so short and yet the adjustment is so large makes the point that sea level rise comes chiefly from data adjustments. The second sea level graph, from ENVISAT, shows the full eight-year run of data, as the head posting explains. Sea level is not really rising.

June 1, 2015 10:27 pm

After this epic evisceration of Mr. Weyler’s comical arguments, perhaps Lord Monckton of Brenchley should consider changing his official title to Lord Monckton The Impaler…
It has a nice ring to it… Lord Monckton The Impaler… “Abandon hope all ye who enter here”…
It’s becoming increasing clear that the tiny 0.8C of global warming experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 is most likely attributable to:
1) Simple LIA recovery.
From 1000 to 1850, global temps fell approximately 2~3C, most likely (though not yet confirmed) caused by 4 Grand Solar Minimums (GSMs) (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton). Since 1850, global temps have managed to RECOVER 0.8C, leaving 1.2~2.2C of additional warming just to equal global temperatures that existed 1000 years ago.. (Rosenthal et al 2013).
The Medieval Warming Period was renowned for its economic and population growth for its time, and coincided with massive Cathedral building, which would only be possible with stable crop yields and growing economies and beneficial warmer temperatures. It’s cold that kills, not life giving warmth..
With the start of the Wolf GSM (1280~1350) Europe lost 25% of its population due to the effects of severe cold: shorter growing seasons, early frost loss, famine, falling crop yields, cold exposure, massive snowfall, impeded transportation, growing glaciers, etc.
BTW, not many SUVs were on the roads leading up to the Medieval Warming Period…. Hmmm… That begs the question of what caused the MWP, since it couldn’t have been manmade CO2 emissions? What, indeed…
Oh, I know… Let’s pretend the MWP didn’t exist…. Enter stage Left: Mann’s busted hockey stick… problem solved…
2) 20th Century Solar Maximum
From 1933~1996, the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred (Solanki et al 2003). I understand the Svensmark Effect hypothesis has not yet been confirmed, but I find it interesting the bulk of 20th century warming occurred during this 63-yr strong solar cycle phase and ended the same year these strong solar cycles ended in 1996…. Is this merely a coincidence? Perhaps, it is, but most likely not…
The current solar cycle is the lowest since 1906 and the next one starting around 2022 is expected by some astrophysicists to be the weakest since 1715… Oh, my…
3) PDO 30-yr Warm Ocean Cycles
It’s amazing to see the direct correlation between PDO 30-yr warm/cool cycles:
During PDO warm cycles, global temps increase and during PDO cool cycles, global temps decrease… Over the past 165 years, there has been a 100.00% correlation between these two phenomena… There is only about a 3% probability this direct correlation could be just random coincidence…
A new 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005, and global temps are starting to fall again (yeah, I know, too short, but look at past PDO data)… Moreover, a 30-yr AMO cool cycle starts around 2022, which corresponds to when the weakest solar cycle since 1715 will begin…
Given the above, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see global temps fall/remain relatively flat for another 20 years in addition to almost 20 years of flat RSS/UAH temperature trends.
CAGW model mean projections are already off by 2 standard deviations from reality (RSS/UAH/radiosonde data) and if current trends continue, in 5~7 years, they’ll be off by 3+ SDs, which is sufficient discrepancy/duration to toss the CAGW hypothesis in trash bin of failed ideas:

Siberian Husky
June 2, 2015 12:49 am

Reply to  Siberian Husky
June 2, 2015 2:56 am

Jeez, Siberian Husky:
1) RSS & UAH Temperature Data shows zero trend for almost 19 years:
RSS & UAH 6.0 shows no global warming trend since the middle of 1996. Mathematical iteration is a perfectly sound statistical tool to determine when trends begin and end.
The raw temperature data of other global temp data sets have been significantly “adjusted” as seen here below making their data suspect.
RSS and UAH temp data are compared to radiosonde data, to assure accuracy. Other global temp data sources have no such system.
2) Lord Monckton has contributed to peer-reviewed papers including Legates et al 2013 and also:
3) Arctic Sea Ice follows AMO 30-yr warm/cool cycles. The current AMO 30-yr warm cycle started in 1994, peaked in 2007 and switches to a 30-yr AMO warm cycle around 2022.
Satellite Ice Extent data started in 1979, which was at the peak of the last 30-yr AMO cool cycle from 1965~1993.
The Arctic Ice Extent’s sinusoidal trend can clearly be seen here:
BTW, forget the low 2012 Arctic sea ice extent, as it was due to the strongest and longest Arctic Cyclone in 50 years… Just months before the 2012 summer cyclone, Arctic Ice Extents were trending near the 30-yr average… The 2012 cyclone destroyed a lot of multi-year ice, which will take time to replace…
In 5~7 years as the AMO slowly enters its 30-yr cool phase in 2022, Arctic ice should continue to slowly trend back up to 1994 levels, and once the 30-yr AMO cool cycles starts in 2022, it’ll slowly make its way back towards 1980 levels…
4) Greenland Ice seems to be recovering in the same manner as Arctic Ice Extents:
Regardless, total global glacial ice has receding since the end of the last glaciation period 20,000 years ago. If we see global glacial ice increasing, it’ll mean we’re either entering a new Little Ice Age or a full-blown glaciation period, which will kill billions of people….
Be careful what you wish for.
Lord Monckton has done his homework. You don’t seem to have done yours.

Reply to  SAMURAI
June 2, 2015 6:23 am

“RSS and UAH temp data are compared to radiosonde data, to assure accuracy. Other global temp data sources have no such system.”
Actually, for the US, there is a “reference network” that runs much cooler than the “historical network”–but no one outside skeptics hears of it.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 2, 2015 8:50 am

How can I find out how to do this mathematical iteration thing (preferably in Excel) ? At the moment, I’m estimating by eye that NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC and Hadcrut4 have :-
cooling from 1880 to 1911
warming from 1911 to 1944
cooling from 1944 to 1956 (when CO2 started to increase rapidly)
slight cooling from 1956 to 1976 (when people were warning about the coming Ice Age)
warming from 1976 to 1998 (Mann’s ‘hockey stick’)
slower warming from 1998 to 2014.
There is also very good correlation between the years that the global temperatures increase and decrease, and the years when the AMO increases and decreases.

Siberian Husky
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 3, 2015 12:56 pm

(1) What about the other two satellite datasets? There is a reason why surface temperatures are adjusted.
(2) You neglect to mention that when the video was made and Monckton made his claims he had not published a single peer reviewed paper. So his statement was false. Of course, now he has published in a “peer reviewed” journal- not a particularly well respected or well known one- but one nonetheless. That being said, somebody in grade school could have done a better job, and for a withering take down see here:
But seriously, one peer reviewed publication?
(3) A clear sinusoidal trend. What a load of nonsense. The trend is down.
(4) Greenland is melting.

Reply to  Siberian Husky
June 3, 2015 10:13 pm

Siberian Husky– RSS and UAH data have been adjusted for orbital satellite decay and some design satellite flaws caused by insufficient shielding from solar radiation.
Again, the RSS and UAH data sets match very closely to radiosonde temp data once the necessary adjustments were made. Future satellites will have boosters attached to them to keep their orbits stable and additional shielding will be added.
Additional advantages of using satellite temp data over land-based data are:
1) satellite temperature data is not corrupted by UHI effects.
2) In-filling temperature data where no temp stations are available.
3) No artificial Arctic weighting is done.
4) All satellite data is collected from similar equipment (not true for land-data)
5) Land data stations are often removed (especially from higher elevations…)
6) Land data stations are often moved.
7) Land-data often suspended for various reasons (wars, equipment damage, lack of funding, etc.)
8) Land data time/frequency protocols have changed over the years and are not consistent around the globe, thus corrupting the data.
9) etc., Land-based data has become a mess…
2) Lord Monckton has two papers I cited… not one…
3) No… Naval records are VERY clear that Arctic Sea Ice Extents vacillate significantly over decades, and follow 30-yr AMO warm/cool cycles quite well. I don’t understand how you can’t see the recovery of Arctic Ice Extents since 2007…. It’s quite pronounced, especially if you remove the 2012 low Arctic Ice extent that ALL scientists attribute to the largest Arctic cyclone in 50 years…..
Anyway, there is no doubt the CAGW hypothesis is on the cusp of disconfirmation. The physics and empirical evidence clearly shows CO2’s climate sensitivity by 2100, will only be about 0.5C~1.0C, which is absolutely nothing to be concerned about.. It’s actually a net benefit, especially from the 20% increase in crop yields from CO2 fertilization, which will increase to 50% once CO2 levels reach 560ppm….
The CAGW hypothesis will be disconfirmed under the parameters of the Scientific Method within 5~7 years… It has already become a joke.

June 2, 2015 1:20 am

Obtaining money – in the form of public donations inspired by deceptive or fraudulent claims, is obviously a criminal offence. Makes you wonder where the authorities are, does it not?

richard verney
June 2, 2015 1:41 am

Monckton of Brenchley
Is the reference to 1990 in the below quote a typo?
“In fact, approaching half of all 20th-century “global warming” seems to have come from adjustments to the NCDC record, particularly over recent decades. Deducting the 0.3 Cº fictional warming arising purely from these adjustments, and also deducting a further 0.2 Cº to allow for the fact – demonstrated by Michaels & McKitrick (2006) – that the recorded rate of warming over land in recent decades has been twice what it should have been because insufficient allowance had been made for urbanization and industrial development, leaves only about a quarter of a degree of genuine global warming since 1990.”
It seems to me that you are suggesting that there needs to be a deduction of 0.5degC, and if 0.5degC is deducted from the peak of the mid 20th Century warming then you are left with about a quarter of a degree of what might be considered to be genuine warming.

richard verney
June 2, 2015 1:48 am

Further to my last comment;
Since there has only been about 0.7/0.8degC warming since the mid 19th Century/1880s, if 0.5degC should be deducted from the temperature record (to account for inappropriate adjustments/homogenisation and for a failure to sufficiently account for urbanisation), then there has only been about a quarter of a degreeC of what might be considered to be genuine warming since the advent of the global land based thermometer record.

Reply to  richard verney
June 2, 2015 2:57 am

Best tell Dana Nuccitelli double-quick, then. The poor deluded lamb has human-caused warming at c110% of the observed increase! Allocating a miserly 0.25C to human-causes would really upset him.

Rowland Pantling (UK)
June 2, 2015 3:34 am

None of this takes into account the geo-engineering which is ongoing and escalating beyond all doubt. See

Philip Arlington
June 2, 2015 4:04 am

North Korea is not democratic because it says it is, and China is not communist because it says it is. It is fascist.
Communism is bad and fascism is bad, but the difference between the two is important. Lefties who are sympathetic towards China because it is antagonistic towards the West are actually supporting a fascist state.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Philip Arlington
June 2, 2015 6:47 am

Mussolini said that Italy was a fascist state. He must have been wrong then too, so Italy must have been communist.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Philip Arlington
June 2, 2015 7:09 am

IMO it’s best to call them all totalitarian. They all require the people to submit to state control. In some ways, even democratically elected governments are becoming more totalitarian after they have been voted into power.

Reply to  Richard Mallett
June 2, 2015 7:31 am

I prefer the term statism.

Robert C Taylor
June 2, 2015 4:43 am

It is inaccurate to call Alberta’s ‘oil sands’ ‘tar sands’. Oil and tar are different. Oil is a naturally occurring substance and tar is man made. The word ‘tar’ is used as a slur much like global ‘heating’ to misrepresent facts and gin up fear.

Reply to  Robert C Taylor
June 4, 2015 7:31 pm

What about the La Brea Tar Pits? Are they in fact “Oil Pits”? Or did someone find all those remains of sabre toothed tigers and elephants and deliberaely (or accidentally) pour tar over them?

June 2, 2015 4:54 am

I went over to the Greenpeace site and to my surprise there was possibility to comment so I did and also got a reaction telling me I was delusional and in denial etc. So I answered and went back to check the eventual reaction, only to find out that ‘oops something went wrong’ and since that I cannot access the page anymore. I suppose my ip-is blocked, but of course I have no proof.
This is the address:

Reply to  theorichel
June 2, 2015 6:09 am

Hi Theo, here is what that page shows now:

(Unregistered) Theo Richel says:
Christopher Monckton has written an impressive reaction to this at WattsUpWithThat. The planet has not warmed in the past 18 years and more CO2 is a boon for food production. Let’s make a greener world – with lots of CO2!
Posted 17 h, 18 m ago Flag abuse Reply
Read less
(Unregistered) R James says:
According to RSS and UAH there has been no warming for well over 18 years. GISS and Hadcrut have homogenised, normalised, and whatever else ised data to increase recent warming. I don’t see how articles like this can just cherry pick one data source, and ignore all others without explanation.
Posted 5 h, 0 m ago Flag abuse Reply
Read less
Rex Weyler says:
Theo, you are being delusional and falling for the denialists tricks. Yes, Earth’s temperature has warmed over the last 18 years, and in any case, average temperature fluctuates, so a few years of no noticeable warming is irrelevant. (see the section above on “weather” vs. “climate.”
And the fact that plants like CO2 is also irrelevant. Humans like salt, but too much can kill a human or kill plants. CO2 is not “evil.” It is a natural molecule. But adding CO2 to the atmosphere heats up the Earth, whether or not plants use CO2. This is just another lame trick used by the denialists to confuse people. Obvoiously, these tricks work on some people. They seem to work on you.
Global warming is real. CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. Humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. This isn’t too complicated.
Posted 13 h, 38 m ago

I am getting the feeling that Weyler is basically a flim-flam merchant. (Consider: the final paragraph is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true if you replace “humans” by “a mouse hiccuping.” I.e. it is a non-sequitur cleverly designed to impress without containing any valid reasoning.)

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Ron House
June 2, 2015 7:51 am

You should ask him if he wants all the people and other animals in the world to stop breathing 🙂

Richard M
Reply to  theorichel
June 2, 2015 7:16 am

Your comment still appears.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  theorichel
June 2, 2015 7:22 am

Must be just you 🙂 I have been banned from two alarmist blogs for pointing out the obvious. Who are the deniers ?

Reply to  Richard Mallett
June 2, 2015 12:23 pm

I wasnt really blocked, but the last time I was there there were 14 posts, and now there are 10 (or eleven if they leave my last). They have deleted a post of mine, apparently for reasons of communitypolicy and truncated another one. I’ve never experienced it from this close.

June 2, 2015 6:28 am

The Canadian tar sands open-pit mine in Alberta is one of the major contributors to global warming
dominated by China, the US, Europe, and now India
[Hold] on now. If tar sand in Alberta is a major contributor, how come Canada and Alberta are nowhere on the list of top CO2 producers? How come the US is all tall and mighty about CO2, when it was historically the No1 CO2 producer, and only recently has slipped to No2?
And having slipped to No2 on the list of CO2 producers, how come US economic and political might has also slipped while China’s is increasing rapidly? At the [same] time that China has become the No1 producer of CO2. Could it be that CO2 production has much more to do with economics than it has to do with temperature?
Could it be that the US is shooting itself in the foot over CO2?

Richard Mallett
Reply to  ferdberple
June 2, 2015 7:30 am

Yes, the fastest growing economies are now China and India, while the West increases its national debt while building windmills (for tilting at ?)

June 2, 2015 6:29 am

We are not told that the chemical formulae for carbonic acid is not “CO2” but H2CO3.
We are also not told by Monckton that ‘carbonic acid’ is the archaic term for CO2 gas, as used by Sir Humphrey Davy in his paper describing the condensation of gases and by Thilorier in his paper describing the solidification of gaseous CO2 entitled “Solidification de l’acide carbonique”
But there was a warming of more than twice this amount in just 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England.
What Monckton doesn’t tell you is that they moved their thermometers indoors during that period!
To quote Manley in his description of his compilation of the CET:
“Still greater problems arise when before about 1760, some of the best-kept records depended on thermometers exposed in well ventilated north facing fireless rooms, following Jurin’s injunction in 1723”
So they moved the thermometers indoors and the temperature went up, what a surprise.

Reply to  Phil.
June 2, 2015 6:43 am

jurin’s injunction was not widely followed by those keeping independent records in Britain but mainly by the small number of official observers who took instructions from the Royal Society, especially a number overseas who were part of the attempt to capture ‘global’ temperatures’.
I have previously referenced you Phil Jones 2006 paper on the remarkable warming during the period,especially the 1730’s, backed up by ice melt and other records. When the severe winter of 1740 brought this warming to a halt It caused him to reflect that natural variability was greater than he had previously thought.
Manley was aware of these ‘problems’ and took them into account.
Please see Camuffo and Jones on adjusting early instrumental temperatures carried out by the EU ‘improve’ project.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  Phil.
June 2, 2015 7:42 am

If you take the top (started earliest, with the best coverage) stations in CRUTem4 (land based weather stations) 1723 had an anomaly of +1.65 C (de Bilt and Uppsala) and 1739 had an anomaly of -2.54 C (Berlin Tempelhof, de Bilt and Uppsala) so that’s cooling of -4.19 C in 16 years ! I guess that’s when they all moved their thermometers back out in the open again 🙂

June 2, 2015 6:33 am

Like it says in the Carly Simon song: “These are the good old days”.
What malevolence would cause children to doubt this fact?
What malevolence would foment fear of the future?
What malevolence would deny the less fortunate a chance to enjoy today’s blessings?
What malevolence would have poor persons freeze amid energy abundance?
What malevolence would attack those who disagree with their doomsday prophesying?
(repeat comment, yes, but it applies here too.)

June 2, 2015 8:14 am

“I do not enjoy writing about it…. Nevertheless… caring citizens must speak up”.
The nub of the belief system — good vs. evil. In the end, it’s not about science, even mangled science; it’s about self-image.

June 2, 2015 12:00 pm

As there are no known “tar-sands” in Canada, perhaps both Weyler and Monckton should made aware of this and update their information.
To my knowledge, tar is a by-product of coal, not oil. Therefore, unless there is coal processing going on in the “oil sands” area of which I’m not aware, this is a total misconception which should be corrected.
Actually, I feel that the term “tar-sands” is preferred and used primarily by the alarmist crowd as it has a more sinister sound than oil sands (somewhat like their preferred term “denier” rather than skeptic). The idea of cleaning up a relatively unusable area by removing the oil and cleaning the soil followed by reforesting the area doesn’t seem to have much appeal to those who prefer arguing and “hand-waving” over knowledge and reason.

June 2, 2015 12:37 pm

I can’t hear myself think with all that oinking at the trough.

June 2, 2015 7:57 pm

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
One more global warming post that deserve attention.
It has copious quantities of data and associated comment that show the warmist alarmists up as “Emperors without Clothes”.
A stark contrast to the lies and misinformation available for general public consumption, and unfortunately, fed to our unsuspecting youth in the guise of education.

June 2, 2015 8:17 pm

Corrupting the data to fit the hypothesis is not uncommon in Academic circles. And that is what these scaremongers are doing to get published and paid grants that they do not deserve. Look at the University of WA, and UEA. Climate and weather prophets have not as yet admitted, non of the models are reliable as there are too many variables to conclude any prophesy of future climate or weather patterns. Pollution though is another matter and that is and has been a concern in many large populated cities, particularly burning black coal domestically and industrial waste plus deposing waste products, sewerage and garbage for example. Surface uncontrolled coal fires is another, blighting East China, Indonesia and India. Volcanoes of course can not be controlled. Nor can we control the Jet stream, gulf stream, solar activity and our orbit. Spending millions and billions on solar and wind as alternative energy suppliers, will not change the climate. However where there are no grids in isolated properties and regions, having some electricity is better than non at all.
Best of luck all those who can effectively show these dishonest and alarmist for what they are. Con men and women who have hidden political agendas.

June 3, 2015 3:44 am

Cosmic Cinema
From Sydney university
Dr. S.

Richard Mallett
Reply to  vukcevic
June 4, 2015 2:32 am

That is wonderful – a young female student convinces all the professors that she was right and they were wrong !

Gary Pearse
June 3, 2015 3:56 am

“No, it is not “polarized””
We will have to give Mr. Wexler his polarization of light by reflection, but I’m not sure what is so terrible about it.

June 3, 2015 5:08 am

South East Australia has had its coolest Autumn 3 months(March, April and May) since 1998, while June 1 and 2 -the first days of winter in the SH (max 10c ) have been the lowest maxima since 1971.
Now I am aware that climate can/should only be measured over decades but that has never stopped the local warmists (particularly the AGE newspaper) from trumpeting previous warm episodes of similar time periods as evidence of CAGW.-eg like the 23 c we had one day in July- our coldest month- several years ago when deciduous trees started to bud and birds started to build nests..
The Age has not mentioned global warming in recent days in the context of the cold weather.
Incidentally I was amused that here we are moaning long and loud about the “freezing” 10c maxima for two days in our winter June, while in the UK they are encountering the same temperatures in their “summer”.June
Weather being the variable creature that it is, it is predicted to rebound to 17 c here by the weekend -not bad for so -called “winter” Guess we are spolied

June 3, 2015 7:59 am

Not only Greenpeace. You might like to have a look at this from a Mr Ruffalo, who is, I believe, an actor.
The above site was included in an appalling email to “Avaaz Supporters” (basically anyone who has actually supported any email they have run, rather like “Get Up”.
The only question is, which is worse?

Coeur de Lion
June 3, 2015 8:43 am

Christopher Monckton mentions Mr Varley who runs UK’s prestigious tax-payer-funded Met Office and his article in a British retired serviceman’s journal. Attached is a letter I wrote to the Editor of that journal. If I get a reply from Mr Varley, I’ll post it here. I think it’s shaming that Mr Varley should be so unscientific.
My Dear Editor,
Congratulations on a splendid issue for May 2015!
I have one massive quibble which you won’t have the space to print! As a naval officer and yachtsman, I have been a customer of the Met Office for over sixty years and would not wish to see its reputation diminished. I believe it needs a period of reflection about its website content where it deals with ‘climate change’. The article on pps 48-50 by Rob Varley, Chief Executive, attracts the following comments. I am copying this letter to him.
– Even climate change sceptics agree that the globe has warmed by 0.85degC in about 140 years. I note that the rate of change between 1910 and 1940 on his graph is as steep or steeper than 1970 to today, when CO2 concentration was negligible. He does not mention the fact that the globe has not warmed for 220 months – an awkward fact just visible on his graph and which destroys the credibility of the many models used by alarmists.
– ‘2014 the warmest year’ has been much challenged. He does not say ‘by how much’. The answer is 0.02 of a degree – it is not good scientific practice to quote numbers smaller than the error figure. The Met Office HADCRUT4 data are statistically indistinguishable from other years in the past decade. But it is convenient for alarmists to keep the narrative going.
– It is not mentioned that 1850 marks the end of the Little Ice Age which ‘cherry picks’ the ‘warming’ since that date. The Medieval Warming Period is not mentioned tho’ warmer than now.
– ‘Arctic sea ice, mountain glaciers and snow cover are shrinking’ I notice ‘Antarctic sea ice’ is not mentioned, presumably because it is increasing and this year exceeds by twice the standard deviation the previous mean. A better and more accurate graph than his of the decline in Arctic ice can be found at the Sea Ice Update page of the website in which rather encouragingly it is shown that the decline has stabilised, ice is thickening, and we are back to 2008 coverage.
– Mountain glaciers have been receding since 1850. A couple of clicks will get you, for example, the Swiss record of the Rhone glacier which has its steepest melt 1866-1870 and the slope of recession to today is constant despite CO2 increase. (see also Summary of Peer Reviewed Research).
– ‘Warming oceanic waters are expanding’ It is generally accepted that the sea level has risen about seven inches since the end of the Little Ice Age. The world’s sea level expert, Dr Nils Axel Morner’s work has abstracts in various places and his latest paper is available online. Conservation of angular momentum in the globe’s rotation verifies the seven inches, but there has been an acceleration in the last fifty years and Morner believes that there has been no sea level rise in that time, possibly a fall. His prediction of a sea level rise by 2100 of + 5cm + – 15 cm must be reassuring to those alarmed by Al Gore’s discredited movie An Inconvenient Truth. The single Hong Kong tide gauge scandal is exposed.
– I’m glad there’s no mention of the ‘97%’ of scientists who agree with man-made global warming, recently quoted by President Obama, no less. I expect Rob Varley has read Jose Duarte – his devastating exposure of the multiple frauds in the famous Cook et al study which has had so much coverage. Worse than the Mann et al ‘hockey stick’ and ‘climategate’ disasters. Instead see for 31,487 US scientists who disagree and their evidence.
– I note that comment on the effects on weather are muted. The IPCC agrees. But I recently heard a member of the Royal Society lying to John Humphreys on the Today programme about Cyclone Pam. A couple of clicks gets up the tracks, barometrics and velocities of all South Pacific cyclones for the last 40 years. Not exceptional, not global warming.
– no mention of the wonderful benefits to the biosphere of the increase in CO2 already measured. It’s a greenhouse gas and a plant food!
– I wonder how we are to ‘limit the global average temperature rise to no more than 2degC’ given the apparent disconnect between warming and CO2 levels. I saw recently a dispassionate study by BP of the mix of energy production worldwide for the next century. Thank goodness it included massive consumption of fossil fuels by developing countries – without which famine, disease, poverty would predominate.
What are my qualifications for talking about ‘Climate Change’ – which used to be ‘Global Warming’? Well, I have a recent first class honours degree in history from Southampton University, majoring on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Palestine in the Roman Period. That’s as good as the recently resigned under dubious circumstances Head of the IPCC, Rajenda Pachauri’s degree in Railway Engineering.
With best wishes

BeeJay in UK
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 3, 2015 9:54 am

Superb Coeur!!!

June 3, 2015 10:26 pm

I encourage everyone to write to (email) their MPs (political representatives) to ask them to read this article.

Brian Jackson BeeJay in UK
Reply to  ilma630
June 4, 2015 1:40 am

Which article – the Lords or Weylers??

%d bloggers like this: