AP’s Seth Borenstein gets something right (but only the date)

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I often get emails asking me to comment in detail on an article on global warming that pretends the “problem” is worse than it is. Here is my reply to one such request.

Earth is a wilder [no], warmer [no] place since last climate deal made in 1997

By SETH BORENSTEIN, November 29, 2015 [At least he got the date right]

PARIS (AP) — This time, it’s a hotter [Satellites show no global warming for the 223 months (i.e., 18 years 7 months) since April 1997], waterier [Water vapour is difficult to measure, but some records show no change in water vapour except in the vital mid-troposphere, where it has actually declined], wilder Earth [The IPCC, both in its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Weather and in its 2013 Fourth Assessment Report, says there has been no particular overall trend in storminess, floods or droughts] that world leaders are trying to save [They are not trying to save the world: Bjorn Lomborg has reliably calculated that the effect of honouring all nations’ Paris pledges will be to reduce global temperature by 0.05-0.17 C° by 2100 compared with having no pledges, and the cost of getting that reduction will be $1 trillion].

The last time that the nations of the world struck a binding agreement to fight global warming was 1997, in Kyoto, Japan [It wasn’t binding: any nation had the right to give a year’s notice and just walk away, and one or two have done so]. As leaders gather for a conference in Paris on Monday to try to do more, it’s clear things have changed dramatically over the past 18 years [But according to the mean of the RSS and UAHv6 satellite records there’s been no global warming in all that time, so none of the changes that have occurred could have been caused by warming].


Some differences can be measured: degrees on a thermometer [a zero trend since April 1997], trillions of tons of melting ice [global sea-ice shows little change in extent or trend since satellite monitoring began 37 years ago], a rise in sea level of a couple of inches [the ENVISAT satellite showed that sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 1.3 inches per century]. Epic weather disasters, including punishing droughts [declining for the past 30 years globally], killer heat waves [but killer cold snaps kill far more] and monster storms [nothing unprecedented], have plagued Earth [But no more than usual].


As a result, climate change is seen as a more urgent and concrete problem than it was last time [on no evidence: the rate of global warming since 1990, on all datasets, is well below the least rate predicted with “substantial confidence” by the IPCC in that year, and is only half to one-third of its central prediction].


“At the time of Kyoto, if someone talked about climate change, they were talking about something that was abstract in the future,” said Marcia McNutt, the former U.S. Geological Survey director who was picked to run the National Academies of Sciences. “Now, we’re talking about changing climate, something that’s happening now. You can point to event after event that is happening in the here and now that is a direct result of changing climate.” [The climate has been changing for 4 billion years: time to get used to it. Since there has been no global warming for 18 years 7 months, the extreme-weather events that are now occurring must be of natural and not manmade origin].

Other, nonphysical changes since 1997 make many experts more optimistic than in previous climate negotiations [for instance, Professor Richard Tol has said no net harm will occur unless there is at least 3.5 C° warming, but modellers’ reductions in their estimates of how the climate responds to direct warming caused by CO2 imply that not more than 0.5 C° of global warming will occur by 2100, even if we do very little to mitigate warming].

For one, improved technology is pointing to the possibility of a world weaned from fossil fuels, which emit heat-trapping gases [But the gases don’t trap anything like as much heat as was originally thought]. Businesses and countries are more serious about doing something, in the face of evidence that some of science’s worst-case scenarios are coming to pass [There is no evidence that worst-case scenarios are coming to pass, for the good and sufficient reason that for almost two decades, despite a considerable increase in Man’s emission of greenhouse gases, there has been no global warming at all to trigger those “worst-case scenarios”].


“I am quite stunned by how much the Earth has changed since 1997,” [except that global temperature has not changed since 1997, so any other changes were not caused by rising temperature] Princeton University’s Bill Anderegg said in an email. “In many cases (e.g. Arctic sea ice loss [which has been more or less matched by gains in Antarctic sea ice], forest die-off due to drought) [The most comprehensive recent drought survey, conducted just last year, found that the fraction of the Earth’s land surface suffering drought has declined throughout the period of record], the speed of climate change is proceeding even faster than we thought it would two decades ago.”[In 1995 the IPCC had issued predictions of warming that were in some respects even more extreme than those it had made in 1990: but there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1990, and none at all since 1997]

Some of the cold numbers on global warming since 1997 [There has been no global warming since 1997]:

—The West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have lost 5.5 trillion tons of ice, or 5 trillion metric tons, according to Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds, who used NASA and European satellite data [Even if this were true, and there is plenty of evidence that it is not, it was not caused by global warming because there has not been any, and the analysis omits the 80% of global land-based ice that is on the East Antarctic ice sheet, and the ice there has been growing].


—The five-year average surface global temperature for January to October has risen by nearly two-thirds of a degree Fahrenheit, or 0.36 degrees Celsius, between 1993-97 and 2011-15, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [The correct statistical approach is to maximize degrees of freedom by using as many data points as possible, and the monthly NOAA global temperature data from 1995 to the present show a warming of less than 0.3 C°, equivalent to just 1.6 C°/century; however, until two years ago the NOAA data showed no warming since the late 1990s, just as the satellite data did, but NOAA tampered with the record in preparation for Paris and suddenly a warming trend has appeared: Congress is investigating, as is the former vice-chancellor of Buckingham University in the UK].


In 1997, Earth set a record for the hottest year, but it didn’t last. Records were set in 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014, and it is sure to happen again in 2015 when the results are in from the year, according to NOAA [Its results have been tampered with in a manner that, when set against the satellite record, seems suspicious: hence the Congressional investigation. The satellites do not show 2014 as the warmest year, and will not show 2015 as the warmest year either. Besides, the weather was warmer in the mediaeval, Roman, Minoan, Old-Kingdom, and Holocene warm periods, so there is nothing special about today’s temperatures].


—The average glacier has lost about 39 feet, or 12 meters, of ice thickness since 1997, according to Samuel Nussbaumer at the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Switzerland [but that organization has taken measurements of mass balance at only 230, or one-seventh of one per cent, of the world’s 160,000+ glaciers. It has done very little work in Antarctica, which contains about 90% of the world’s ice mass, and which, except for a small area of West Antarctica, has not warmed or lost ice mass throughout the satellite era].

—With 1.2 billion more people in the world, carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels climbed nearly 50 percent between 1997 and 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The world is spewing more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide a day now [and yet, 265 years after the Industrial Revolution began, to the nearest tenth of one per cent there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at all, for the atmosphere is big and our emissions are small by comparison].

—The seas have risen nearly 2 1/2 inches, or 6.2 centimeters, on average since 1997, according to calculations by the University of Colorado [However, the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites showed no sea-level rise at all from 2003-2008, and the ENVISAT satellite showed sea level rising at a rate equivalent to 1.3 inches/century from 2004 to 2012, and the sea-level rise found by the University of Colorado is smaller than the intercalibration errors between the series of laser-altimetry satellites it relies upon; the sea level rise comes chiefly from an artificial and unjustifiable “glacial isostatic adjustment”; and Professor Mörner’s best estimate is that sea level is rising no faster this century than last – i.e., at about 20 cm/century].


—At its low point during the summer, the Arctic sea ice is on average 820,000 square miles smaller than it was 18 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. That’s a loss equal in area to Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico and Arizona combined [But, compared with the large annual summer-to-winter fluctuations, the loss is quite small, and it is largely compensated by an increase in Antarctic sea-ice extent].



—The five deadliest heat waves of the past century — in Europe in 2003, Russia in 2010, India and Pakistan this year, Western Europe in 2006 and southern Asia in 1998 — have come in the past 18 years, according to the International Disaster Database run by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster in Belgium [The centre, inferentially for political reasons connected with its funding, has not made any studies of loss of life caused by extreme cold, which, however, kills roughly 20 times as many people as extreme heat. Warmer weather would actually bring about fewer deaths than colder weather. In a single cold winter in just one country, the UK, four years ago, there were 31,000 excess deaths; the European heatwave may have killed 35,000-70,000 across Europe as a whole. The centre’s website returns only one search result for the word “cold” on its database, and that is a reference to the “Cold War”].

—The number of weather and climate disasters worldwide has increased 42 percent, though deaths are down 58 percent [This increase, to the extent that it exists, for no reference is provided, is likely to be attributable to better reporting: the IPCC is quite clear that there is no evidence for increased extreme weather in almost all categories]. From 1993 to 1997, the world averaged 221 weather disasters that killed 3,248 people a year. From 2010 to 2014, the yearly average of weather disasters was up to 313, while deaths dropped to 1,364, according to the disaster database [In fact, the annual number of deaths from extreme weather worldwide is at its lowest point in the satellite era, according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: and that is what we should expect, given better forecasting of individual extreme events and a small increase in warmer weather, which reduces temperature-related deaths].


Eighteen years ago, the discussion was far more about average temperatures, not the freakish extremes. Now, scientists and others realize it is in the more frequent extremes that people are truly experiencing climate change [The reason why mean temperatures were the topic 18 years ago is that they had increased for 20 since 1976, largely influenced by the phase-change in that year from the cooling to the warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index, and the reason why Mr Borenstein does not want to focus on mean temperatures now is that they have not increased, and, since they have not increased, there is no reason to blame Man for any consequential increase in extreme temperatures].

Witness the “large downpours, floods, mudslides, the deeper and longer droughts, rising sea levels from the melting ice, forest fires,” former Vice President Al Gore, who helped negotiate the 1997 agreement, told The Associated Press. “There’s a long list of events that people can see and feel viscerally right now. Every night on the television news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation.” [But Al Gore is no scientist and, when his claims of disaster were subjected to court scrutiny in the London High Court in 2007 Mr Justice Burton said, “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.”]


Studies have shown that man-made climate change contributed in a number of recent weather disasters. Among those that climate scientists highlight as most significant: the 2003 European heat wave that killed 70,000 people in the deadliest such disaster in a century [even if one accepts the tampering by which the original estimate of 35,000 deaths (probably an exaggeration in itself) was doubled, just three typical British winters will cause more excess deaths than that one-off Europe-wide heatwave, which is known to have been caused not by global warming but by a blocking high]; Hurricane Sandy, worsened by sea level rise, which caused more than $67 billion in damage and claimed 159 lives [Sandy was also not caused by global warming but by a rare coincidence of three storms from different directions over a major population centre, and sea level at the New York Battery tide-gauge shows just 11 inches’ increase in 100 years, most of that before Man could have had any influence]; the 2010 Russian heat wave that left more than 55,000 dead [such events are neither new nor more commonplace now than formerly: the great multi-decadal drought in the Great Plans of the US before 1950 was far worse]; the drought still gripping California [the IPCC has repeatedly said one should not assign blame for individual weather events to global warming, and Hao et al. 2014 showed that the fraction of the globe under drought has been declining for 30 years]; and Typhoon Haiyan, which killed more than 6,000 in the Philippines in 2013 [but recorded history shows many far worse storms: in 1881, for instance, more than 20,000 corpses were recovered from the shoreline near Manila after a typhoon, and in those days the population was far smaller than today].

Still, “while the Earth is a lot more dangerous on one side [except that, on the evidence it isn’t: and, to this day, the believers have been unable or unwilling to state what the ideal global mean surface temperature is, and what variance either side of that temperature is net-beneficial], the technologies are a lot better than they were,” said Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Solar and wind have come down tremendously in price [but they are still up to 20 times costlier per MWh generated than coal], so much so that a Texas utility gives away wind-generated electricity at night [That is because every wind turbine has to be backed up by a fossil-fuelled power station running at inefficient, highly-CO2-emitting idle-speed, so that, according to Professor Hughes of Edinburgh University, under most operating conditions wind power actually emits more CO2 than a coal-fired power station: accordingly, a grid surplus arises every time the wind blows, particularly when electricity demand is low at night-time].


Another big change is China. In Kyoto, China and developing countries weren’t required to cut emissions. Global warming was seen as a problem for the U.S. and other rich nations to solve. But now China — by far the world’s No. 1 carbon polluter — has reached agreement with the U.S. to slow emissions and has become a leader in solar power. [In fact, China has made no definite commitment of any kind; has absolutely refused to allow any international monitoring or control of its emissions; already emits one-third of all CO2 worldwide; has recently been found to have understated its emissions by as much as one-sixth; has built hundreds of surplus coal-fired power stations so that in a few years it can get the kudos for announcing a halt to its building programme; and is a “leader” in solar power only to the extent that, at huge environmental cost and using rigged low wages, it manufactures cheap and often unreliable solar panels for export].

“The negotiations are no longer defined by rich and poor,” Gore said. “There’s a range of countries in the middle, emerging economies, and thankfully some of them have stepped up to shoulder some of the responsibility.” [That’s as may be, but the “countries in the middle” will make little difference to global emissions either way, and in any event there will be no cuts in global CO2 emissions before mid-century at the earliest because China and India, the world’s two largest populations, will continue to burn cheap coal in ever-larger quantities, and have already begun to gain a massive commercial advantage by supplying coal-fired electricity at prices not more than one-third of the mean Western electricity price].

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said there’s far less foot-dragging in negotiations: “There is not a single country that tells me they don’t want a good Paris agreement.” [And I want motherhood and apple pie too, but whatever happens in Paris will, on Bjorn Lomborg’s calculations, and on those of Professor Tol, make a barely measurable difference at a huge cost, and will not be necessary even if the predicted warming actually occurs, which on the record of the past couple of decades it will not].

Figueres said that while the Kyoto agreement dictated to individual nations how much they must cut, what comes out of Paris will be based on what the more than 150 countries say they can do. That tends to work better, she said. [Yeah, right: translate this as “The questioners have won, the consensus is absent, the science isn’t there, even if it was it would be cheaper to let warming happen and adapt the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today, and we can’t get a binding agreement anyway”].

It has to, Figueres said. “The urgency is much clearer now than it used to be.” [No, it isn’t. How can it be, given that on all terrestrial and satellite temperature records there has been at most half the warming that the IPCC originally predicted in 1990? The IPCC itself has been compelled almost to halve its predictions of medium-term warming, so there is far less “urgency” than there was. Indeed, there is now no urgency at all. The climate scare has died, but it will not be given a decent burial until the corpse smells so foul that the profiteers of doom can no longer make any money out of it at taxpayers’ expense].


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 29, 2015 4:48 pm

“It has to, Figueres said. “The urgency is much clearer now than it used to be”
Yes, it is becoming increasingly important that every COP pi$$-up decides which five star resort will host the next year’s one, even the COP troughers are starting to realise their gravy train will hit the buffers sooner or later – probably sooner.

John Law
Reply to  catweazle666
November 29, 2015 11:39 pm

AAH; the additional CO2 from all that champagne!

November 29, 2015 4:48 pm

Just great, thank you Mr Monckton, lets hope that at least some journalists read this, and start asking themselves why they should only listen to IPCC.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  dankoehl
November 29, 2015 10:53 pm

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British … hereditary peer.
How to address a Viscount and Viscountess
This the fourth grade in the peerage. A viscount is, in conversation, referred to as Lord (Monckton) rather than the Viscount Monckton.
The wife of a viscount is a viscountess and is known as Lady (Monckton). Use of the title viscountess in speech is socially incorrect unless it needs to be specifically mentioned, for example in a list of patrons.
The recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lord/Lady Monckton
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Viscount/Viscountess Monckton
Verbal communication Lord/Lady Monckton
Invitation* & joint form of address Lord and Lady Monckton
Description in conversation Lord/Lady Monckton
List of Directors or Patrons The Viscount/Viscountess Monckton
Place card The Viscount/Viscountess Monckton
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Debretts does not describe a form for blog posts, but I would guess from the above that you should write:
Just great, thank you Lord Monckton

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 30, 2015 8:12 am

Good point. However, as the majority of us are not British, such matters are an optional formality.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 30, 2015 12:51 pm

I’m a Brit – and you’re plus lots.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 30, 2015 11:27 pm

Hey Walter? How should the rest of us address you? Perhaps you might show some respect for those who aren’t subject to the British hierarchy? I’ll note that dankoehl didn’t reveal a particular national allegiance and was polite in addressing Mr. Monkton?
Perhaps you could save the involved protocol for some other venue?

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 1, 2015 7:53 pm

I’m sure Chris will get over it ; )
I think he does well to retain/use the title openly though, certainly in very public statements and presentations and such.

John Law
Reply to  dankoehl
November 29, 2015 11:41 pm

Modern journalist can’t read (in the sense of gaining understanding), they merely “cut and paste”.

Jason Joice
November 29, 2015 5:01 pm

Perfect rebuttal. However, even when presented with indisputable evidence contrary to their narrative, worshippers of the CAGW myth will never admit they were/are wrong.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  Jason Joice
November 29, 2015 5:42 pm

What probability do you put on the likelihood that there will be man made warming in this century? My guess is zero, ergo you will never admit you could possibly be wrong, despite the inability of anyone to predict the future with 100% certainty. CJ#22

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 5:55 pm

Leland, whatever free will you have should be managed by someone else.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:38 pm

No one disputes CO2 causes warming, Leland. The question is: What is the climate sensitivity to CO2?. In fact sensitivity is much lower than forecast by alarmists. So, no catastrophic warming.
“Our methods of inferring climate sensitivity – using GCM climate models and energy balance models – are leading us to reject the highest values of climate sensitivity that were determined using methods or models that have been deemed erroneous.”

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 8:00 pm

Daniel O’Hare?

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 8:49 pm

Oh yay! I love this game! You pretend to know exactly what someone else thinks, or does, or would do (even though we all know that no human being has ever SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrated the ability to do such a fantastical thing) and then you make a wild, illogical declaration about that person, based upon your own assumptions. Crap….what’s it called? Er….um…..oh yeah-Logical Fallacies! Let us know when you’re done Leland so the next person can go!

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 30, 2015 5:03 am

RD says:

No one disputes CO2 causes warming, Leland. The question is: What is the climate sensitivity to CO2?.

And no one disputes H2O vapor causes twice (2X) the warming of CO2.
Therefore, if atmospheric CO2 is at 400 ppm (0.04%) …. and atmospheric H2O vapor in the tropics is at 40,000 ppm (4%)……. then the climate sensitivity to CO2 in the tropics is … one (1) 200ths that of the H20 vapor.
In the more temperate climates where the atmospheric H2O vapor averages between 20,000 ppm (2%) to 35,000 ppm (3.5%) ….. then the climate sensitivity to CO2 is increased a tiny fraction.
And since there is no scientific means or ways to measure the “climate sensitivity to CO2” you might as well forget about it ….. unless you are discussing it while enjoying a cold 12-pack of beer.

Reply to  Jason Joice
November 30, 2015 5:45 am

C’mon, you’re trying to take away their moral high ground–“greener” than thou!

November 29, 2015 5:02 pm

Excellent! A great put down, and sorely needed at this time.
And even though die hard AGW nutters won’t admit it, it *will* make a difference.

November 29, 2015 5:02 pm

The “Leaders” of governments, whether democracy, republic, dictatorship or totalitarian need slaves! Slaves to enrich and sustain the “Leaders” life style of the rich and famous.
Ha ha.

November 29, 2015 5:12 pm

Far be it for me to argue with Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, but I would feel remiss if I didn’t point out that Seth Borenstein also got his name right.

Reply to  JohnWho
November 29, 2015 8:06 pm

And Paris

Reply to  JohnWho
December 1, 2015 11:58 pm

The last six letters of the surname were redundant.

Richard Keen
November 29, 2015 5:15 pm

Christopher, thanks for taking up the hammer to whac-a-mole yet another Borenstein’s ramble. A couple of years ago I likewise responded to one of Seth B’s rants, that time it being on snowstorms http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/19/whac-a-moling-seth-borenstein-at-ap-over-his-erroneous-extreme-weather-claims/
It’s like trying to drown a balloon.

November 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Epic take-down. Well done – thank you.

Reply to  RD
November 29, 2015 5:30 pm

Could somebody please print 40,000 copies and distribute it to all the idiots presently spending taxpayers money to support this fraud? Plus another heap for all the mainly-young protesters who are clogging the Parisian streets but who seem incapable of studying the science.

Reply to  mikelowe2013
November 29, 2015 5:41 pm

Indeed. Sadly those people care not for facts. Instead they buy the narrative. And most are scientifically ignorant in any case.

November 29, 2015 5:24 pm

“and in its 2013 Fourth Assessment Report, ” Fifth?

Don B
November 29, 2015 5:24 pm

“The [NASA] study reports that, between 1992 and 2001, the ice sheet that covers the continent — a polar desert of some 5.4 million square miles, or about the size of the United States and Mexico combined — gained 112 billion tons of ice annually, and from 2003 to 2008 added 82 billion tons a year. And, contrary to the IPCC’s conclusion, Antarctica is not contributing to sea-level rise — in fact, it is slowing the rate of rise by 0.23 millimeters annually.”

Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 5:37 pm

If 2014 is the hottest year on record, to be handily beat by 2015, how does he get away with repeating the statement “there has been no global warming since 1997”? He repeats it a lot too. Does anyone know what the slope of the trend line is?

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 5:44 pm

Because he’s right.
It’s essentially zero for almost 19 years.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:02 pm

You won’t get decent answers because your question is not clear. The first chart in the post does not show 2014 as the hottest year and the folks that did claim that (totally different data set for different places), when pressed, agreed it was unlikely to have been and if it was, then only by a small unimportant number. {I think they agreed there was only a 38% likelihood that it was.}
About a trend line — seems not to matter when the phenomenon of interest is not linear. Good luck making sense of a trend line, then.
Why not explain this chart.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:21 pm

” Does anyone know what the slope of the trend line is?”
Yes, many people do.
Talking specifically about the last 18 years of so, it has been flat showing no statically significant cooling or warming.

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 9:29 pm

If 2014 is the hottest year on record, to be handily beat by 2015, how does he get away with repeating the statement “there has been no global warming since 1997”?

2014 was hottest on GISS and Hadcrut4 and 2015 will beat 2014 on these two. But on the satellite records, RSS and UAH, 1998 is still in first place and 2010 is in second place and this will not change in 2015. And it is just on the satellite records that “there has been no global warming since 1997”.

Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 5:48 pm

NASA chart in above link says otherwise. NASA data, versus dude on blog site, I’ll take NASA.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 5:57 pm

You posted a link but apparently did not read the conclusions leland. No one disputes the long term trend to the present of modest warming of perhaps 0,5 degrees C, but there has been no warming for almost 18 years. That’s no warming at all during the satellite record. Period. Got it?
As Christopher Monckton of Brenchley explained in a previous thread….
“One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet for 224 months since then there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause equals last month’s record at 18 years 8 months.”

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:00 pm

You are comparing the much adjusted NASA/NOOA/GISS (especially since Karl et al) to satellite. Come back when you learn to differentiate.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:17 pm

Just “eye-balling” it, but that NASA chart seems to show clearly that there has not been much of a change in the global temperature since 1998.
NASA also says “warmest year in modern record, not the warmest year ever.
Modern record starts according to NASA at 1880, at just after the end of the LIA. Nothing out of the ordinary or surprising here.
Except, apparently dude on website Leland Neraho doesn’t know how unreliable the NASA surface station data is.

Leland Neraho
Reply to  JohnWho
November 29, 2015 6:30 pm

Seriously? “Just eyeballing it?” and “but not the warmest year ever”? The article stated the last 17 years, so it’s irrelevant to the discussion of how he states no warming in the last 17 years. 10 of the warmest years of instrumental record are since 2000.

Reply to  JohnWho
November 29, 2015 7:14 pm

Talking points for the gullible and scientifically ignorant, Leland.
Statistically the “records” you refer to are insignificant and indistinguishable from zero and in fact fall outside the measurement of error. Reality is that climate sensitivity is much lower than predicted when compared with actual temperature observations.
Additionally, none of the climate models work. All predict much more warming than observed. So, no catastrophic warming. In any event, no CO2 mitigation plan will have any real effect on warming. Indeed, what is contemplated even if effected will be immeasurable as far as temperatures go. What’s really the goal is to transfer money to developing nations.

Reply to  JohnWho
November 29, 2015 7:16 pm

Leland –
Let’s just stay with this, where does NASA claim it was the “warmest year ever”?
And “just eye-balling it” implies that the relatively flat trend is obvious on that chart for the 18 years or so visually even without knowing the exact measured data and the margin of error plus or minus.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:28 pm

Like a good lemming, ‘Leland’ says: “I’ll take NASA”.
It doesn’t matter how huge the mountain of evidence is that NASA is fudging the numbers, there are always a few folks who don’t care; their eco-faith in ‘authority’ is complete and unshakable.
However, there are plenty of credible scientists who have looked at NASA’s fake ‘data’, and found “massively altered” numbers:
This is the same NASA that has juggled its priorities to make “Muslim Outreach” its #1 Priority, above science or anything else.

Scott Scarborough
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 7:14 pm

How about taking satellite records which contradict the NASA record and are far more accurate.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 7:16 pm

NASA data, versus dude on blog site, I’ll take NASA.

Poor choice, NASA GISS is notorious of “adjusting”, “correcting”, and “homogenizing”, their data to achieve the desired result.
On the other hand, “some guy on a blog” is the UAH and RSS satellite data sets, the best we have.
And yes, lots of us have done this.
Here is the UAH data set I plotted a few months ago, The Pause at about 18 years, 5 months IIRC.
{click to embiggen}
Now you can say “a couple of guys on a blog, and the UAH data set too”.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  TonyL
November 30, 2015 8:46 am

TonyL: further to your post, here is a graph from NOAA showing just how biased their adjustments are.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 7:44 pm

Leland, this GISS NASA data is from terrestrial sites and heavily adjusted to cool past temperatures, thus showing a warming trend. It is famous for that. Is it not interesting that ALL adjustments for ALL terrestrial stations are in the same direction. This is statistically impossible; it is what is known in the scientific world as bollocks.
Look at the satellite data, which has better coverage and no need of “adjustments”. There is NO warming trend.
Of course you will quibble, but then your objective is not truth but propaganda.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 29, 2015 8:15 pm

The disingenuous engager whose main intent is to play “gotcha”.
Lately, in real life when I sense this I stick to the ice cores of the past 10,000 years.
I simply ask, geee what does this mean ?
I get crickets, eyerolls and ad homs to my knuckle dragging tendencies.
Why should I be so worried about CAGW, double my energy bill and cow tow to your silly demands about how I should live a more sustainable lifestyle. I’m fairly frugal, respect what I use, eat what I kill and bust my ass to sustain my dependents.
Tell me again, why should I give you anything for something that is a natural rythm of the earth ?

Werner Brozek
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 29, 2015 9:39 pm

Oh, and you say: “There is NO warming trend” in satellite data?

The no warming only applies since 1997. Also, WFT uses the old UAH5.6 which is not as accurate as the latest UAH6.0beta4. For the slope for UAH6.0beta4, see:

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 29, 2015 10:42 pm

@1oldnwise4me@reagan.com You quibble about the UAH adjustment, presumably because UAH is operated by a skeptic. However, there are two, independent, providers of satellite temperature data for the lower troposphere and upper atmosphere and there is remarkable agreement between these two data sets. It is well known that the scientists in charge of them sit on opposite sides of the CACC debate. Roy Spencer (UAH) is a skeptic, while Carl Mears (RSS) is not. So, what’s your beef with UAH? Then, completely missing the plot, you show a linear trend over data which is definitely NOT linear.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
December 1, 2015 12:46 am

Thermocouple data (microvolts) has to be run through a model to get a temperature. You were probably aware of that when you made the comment about the IR signal being converted into a temperature.
Thermocouples drift, age, have hysteresis, have voltage variability all of which add up to uncertainties. My life would be easier if this were not so.
UHI is a huge problem when trying to determine the global temperature. Ocean currents in the deeps make getting the sea temperature is plagued with uncertainties.
The best we have is the satellites largely because the conversions are so well understood and the instrument can be calibrated daily to a reference (the inky, cold blackness of space). I also trust the satellites most because they have global coverage which is the first step in attempting to climb this mountain.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 9:07 pm

“During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 135 years in the 1880–2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).”
Leland, please educate us all here-what type of instrumentation/devices/thermometers etc does NOAA have that can measure “the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces to an accuracy of 0.07 F (0.04 C)” ??? And if the globe has only warmed by 0.07F (0.04C) over the previous records 10 and 5 years ago despite the supposed massive increases in human emissions since 2005…what does that tell us about Earth’s sensitivity to increasing CO2?
Oh wait, you’re just some guy on a blog. Why would anyone listen to you?

Reply to  Aphan
November 30, 2015 1:41 am

It would be interesting to see the instrumentation that measures temperatures to one thousandths of a degree F (or C even). But you miss the greatest achievement of NASA. They have instrumentation that can go back in time and measure the 1900s to two decimal places!
I think they have a wormhole device like in the book “Time Line”. They send teams back in time daily to measure past temperatures and then adjust the data sets accordingly. Where the heck is the Nobel Prize for this great achievement?
And does “Dr.” Mann get to share in that prize? 🙂

Reply to  Aphan
November 30, 2015 1:12 pm

NASA is, I think, the initials of the National Something-or-other.
Logically, therefore, as a US National (I believe, I assume, and I can’t be bothered to check – modern scientific method (c) a Mann) that Mann would be a joint-fellow-co-Laureate.
Just as many commenters here are.
Just as all citizen/residents of the EU are, when we won some Prize [Peace; Fudging Euro criteria; Bullying small* nations; some-such] a few years ago.
I can’t recall where I was when I won my share.
* Smaller than Germany

Dave G
Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 9:44 pm

Do you know how much that NASA data has been adjusted since 2001? or since 1981?
Read Hansen, et. al 1981 and see for yourself.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 10:03 pm

I’ll meet you right where your link is Leland. The chart on that page does not show a trend line of the actual amount of warming that has taken place over the past 18 years Leland. It shows “Annual Temperature vs 1951-1980 Average”. It’s a chart based on temperatures relative to an arbitrary average.
That page states:
“Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades.”
But the chart shows an 0.8C difference between 1950 and 2015, not from 1880 to 2015. It also shows no change in pace between 1950 and 2015-which it would have to if it was attempting to show that the majority of the warming took place in the past 3 decades. Somewhere around 1985, a “trend line” would jag upwards, but I used a straight edge, and all those colored lines stay in the exact same trajectory they started at in 1950.
1880-2015=135 years. The “majority” of 1.4 F is anything over 0.7 F and 0.4 C, and while the chart does show approx 0.4C of an increase after 1985, it also shows an increase of 0.4C in the “three decades” between 1955 and 1985. So?
The page also says:
“While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña. These phenomena warm or cool the tropical Pacific and are thought to have played a role in the flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years. However, 2014’s record warmth occurred during an El Niño-neutral year.”
So, NASA is stating that there has been a “flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years”, but you are arguing the opposite. NASA statement, vs dude on a blog site. I’ll take NASA?
OH…and one more NASA tidbit-published in June of 2015, after the article you linked to- (which was Jan of 1015)
“The changes produced a decrease of 0.006°C/decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003°C/decade increase reported by NCEI. Both are substantially less than the margin of error for that quantity (±0.016°C/decade). Impacts on the changes of the annual Land-Ocean temperature index (global surface air temperature) were about 5 to 10 times smaller than the margin of error for those estimates.”
A DECREASE per decade for the 1880-2014 trend????
Good thing NASA told you that and not just some dude on a blog!

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 30, 2015 12:02 am

Leland , if I was allowed to ” adjust ” the data , I could make it show anything I want !!! ONLY the satellite data is ” UNADJUSTED ” !!!

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 30, 2015 5:44 am

Leland Neraho:
You say

NASA chart in above link says otherwise. NASA data, versus dude on blog site, I’ll take NASA.

Really? Why do you choose that “NASA data” and not one of these versions?
And, importantly, will you still “take” that “NASA data” after NASA GISS changes it next week as they do almost every month?
That “dude on blog site” cites the satellite data (i.e. RSS and UAH).
Only someone who knows nothing about the subject would choose the transient and inaccurate NASA GISS data over the satellite data. And you proclaim you know nothing about the subject when you say you prefer the NASA GISS data.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 30, 2015 4:19 pm

Leland; “I’ll take NASA.” For what, their Muslim outreach program?

Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 5:50 pm

@CJ27 Or in written form: The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:36 pm

And ONCE AGAIN, for the slow witted here: NASA has been found “massively altering” the termperature record.
What would it take to convince those folks that NASA cannot be trusted? Another great Ice Age could once again smother Chiocago under a mile of ice… and some folks would still be parroting, “But NASA…”.
*Sheesh*, get a clue. Bolden is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of the President. Past presidents have all had a ‘hands off’ policy toward NASA. But Obama changed all that, and made NASA totally political.
The conclusions are obvious to any thinking individual.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 6:39 pm

Yes, the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2000, but given the margin of error, they are statistically equal to 0C change (since 1850), and are even on a cooling trend.
Please read http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 7:02 pm

Now the ‘appeal to authority’ is to GISS??comment image

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 7:19 pm

That’s “appeal to perceived authority” and therein lies the problem.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 7:43 pm

Whoaaaa DB
Fancy moving graphics. Nice.
Hans Rosling will want some of that action.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 8:04 pm

Super graphic, db!
Leland, is the “reliability” factor of the NASA/NOAA/GISS data a little clearer to you now?

Reply to  dbstealey
November 30, 2015 1:44 am

That is a devastating gif. To any thinking, educated person it shows blatant duplicity. Thanks for posting that.
(I would use the F-word but … you know)

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  dbstealey
November 30, 2015 5:43 am

@ dbstealey
Great graphic.
If I may, I would like to suggest, for greater effect, that you move the “year version” down to the center of the next line or right on the graph itself …. increase the font size, …… and change the text “color” of the “year” from “dark blue” to “bright red” as it increases.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 1, 2015 8:52 pm

So, “the slope of the trend line is” . . trending upward, Leland ; )

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 7:27 pm

This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature
Yes, temps have been increasing since the LIA. No one has shown what is causing this. No one knows what caused the LIA. No statistical test has been found to separate manmade from natural warming.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2015 7:50 pm

The single most easy to understand sledgehammer to the ruse and it is incredibly hard to take in for many.
Just have to keep at it I guess.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  ferdberple
December 1, 2015 3:46 am

No statistical test has been found to separate manmade from natural warming.
And that is one (1) of the reasons why the use of the US’s Historical Temperature Record (1880 to present) for calculating surface temperature increases caused by increases in CO2 …. has been FUBAR from the get-go.
For scientific purposes, Historical Temperature Records are little more than …. “collections of random noise” …… that miseducated people actually believe they can squeeze and/or filter useful data or information out of.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 29, 2015 7:42 pm

Perhaps they mean that 2010 was the hottest 2010 on the record, 2011 was the hottest 2011, etc.?
The record they speak of is relatively short and as many have pointed out, the dubiously adjusted, homogenized sparse surface data that predicts the so called hottest years ever is highly suspect and contradicts the satellite record.
The ice core records show many times during just the last 12K years when it was warmer than it is today and 100K years ago, a stretch of 1000 years when it was nearly 3C warmer than today at far lower CO2 levels. The ice cores also show rates of change in century long averages that exceeds the contemporary rate of change in far shorter term averages. There is nothing unusual going on. If anything, the relative stability recently has been unusual.
Anything from NASA is suspect because of James Hansen who during the Clinton administration did a thorough job of redirecting GISS to push only the CAGW party line. This bias has persisted and infected NOAA and more. I suspect he had no clue how wrong he was and his persistence pushing the broken science was a vendetta for being called a lunatic by the previous administration for his chicken little alarmism and unfortunately, he was in the position to push the science into absurdity by using incremental plausibility to support his position. It’s quite telling that his chief propagandist (Gavin Schmidt) become his successor.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 29, 2015 8:01 pm

Luckily, unadjusted weather satellite data is available and since it starts as imagery where each pixel is a unique measurement, manipulating it is much more difficult, especially when overlapping satellites are available (which is most often the case).

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 29, 2015 8:19 pm

You determine the temperature by applying a radiative model to predict what the pixel should be if the surface was a specific temperature. Relative differences are very accurate and you can adjust the absolute calibration and relative linearity to surface measurements. Specific imagery from other sensors can detect the amount of water vapor which is then used to modify the radiative model. It all works quite well.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 29, 2015 9:14 pm

Satellite data has a good match to weather ballons. Every heard about the predicted hotspot? Never materialized.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 29, 2015 9:17 pm

“That’s right, that data comes from NASA and NOAA. They own the satellites”
You may want to rethink that. . old n wise my, my. If you really were old n wise you would know why the satellite record is trust worthy.
When were the satellites put up and by who? The people who put the satellites up also were and still are users of their output. Yes the Military.
Do you have any idea what an advantage it was during the cold war? To be able to map the temperature anywhere in the world. Think about the enhanced accuracy for a re-entry vehicle. Wonder why our CEP was one third the soviet’s?
Any old timers here will know and understand exacting what I am speaking of.
by the way all the above is public knowledge.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 30, 2015 12:09 am

1oldnwise4me@reagan..Lucky for us Roy Spencer doesn’t ” ADJUST ” his data !!!!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 30, 2015 12:58 pm

1oldunwise says:
…pixels don’t measure temperature.
By your definition, a mercury thermometer doesn’t measure temperature either.
But that nitpicking aside, satellite temperature data is the best and most accurate available. Some folks just don’t like it because of that. They prefer the very sparse land-based surface station network, which only records temperatures on the 29% of the globe that is land (and most of those surface stations are >±5ºC!).
But satellites measure the entire globe (with the minor exception of a very limited area at the poles). Global satellite temperature measurements are the most accurate by far. They show that global warming stopped almost twenty years ago. And that is why the alarmist crowd doen’t like satellite data.
In science, when a conjecture such as CO2=cAGW is falsified by real world observations over many years, honest scientists try to understand where they went wrong.
But in climate science™, they just dig in their heels, double down, and head for Paris to beg for more taxpayer loot.
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”
The climate alarmist clique has stopped being honest, if they ever were.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 30, 2015 1:35 pm

Are you really that desperate? The debate is over global warming. There was no distinction between the lower troposphere (which includes the altitude of your head) and “land”.
When it’s advantageous to cherry-pick ‘land’, that’s what the alarmist crowd does. But when that’s debunked, they just move the goal posts to the oceans. And when that’s debunked, the goal posts are moved to the ‘lower troposphere’. And so on, ad infinitum.
Face it, you lost the argument and the entire debate. Global warming has stopped.
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
Try being honest for a change.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 30, 2015 12:06 am

Leland…again, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything…( study subject.. the inquisition )

Reply to  Leland Neraho
November 30, 2015 5:47 am

Leland Neraho:
My post explaining your mistakes for you is in moderation. Assuming it will be approved, it will eventually appear probably here.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Leland Neraho
December 1, 2015 1:06 am

Leland, it was warmer in the 1930’s than it is now. NASA GISS hiding the facts doesn’t change them. It was a lot warmer 800 years ago. There is (yawn) nothing interesting about the global temperature in 2015 other than the fact it is soon going to drop as we plunge into the next solar minimum.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 13, 2015 7:19 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
December 14, 2015 10:19 am

‘Buster Brown’ makes the elementary mistake of assuming the chart is part of a math class. It isn’t. It is part of a Real World class that Buster has failed miserably.
Buster is squirming because his feet are being held to the fire of truth: the planet has been much warmer in the past, without any problem.
Deflection is one of the primary tactics of the alarmist cult. Buster can’t stand facing reality, so he deflected to the chart axis, instead of admitting what the rest of us know: he was wrong.

Reply to  Leland Neraho
December 13, 2015 6:46 pm

Why cherry-pick “the instrumental record”?
Here’s why:
The planet has been up to 9ºC warmer than now, and during those times the biosphere flourished with life and diversity.
So the scare over 2ºC is enough to frighten little children. But most readers here know that warming is good; it’s cold that kills.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 6:49 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  BusterBrown@hotmail.com
December 13, 2015 7:16 pm

So what? My point stands despite your irrelevant nitpicking.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 7:20 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 7:25 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 8:02 pm

Then let’s do it this way, ‘Buster’:
If I post a graph produced with data from a peer reviewed paper showing that past temperatures were much higher than now, will you admit you’re wrong?
I have plenty of graphs showing the same thing — while all you have is your baseless opinion. So, right up front: Yes or No?
Or would you rather just snipe from the peanut gallery about an irrelevant axis?

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 8:08 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  BusterBrown@hotmail.com
December 13, 2015 8:35 pm

Don’t be boring.
The graphic he gave you was an image given to introduce the concept.
You’re hanging onto the the need to demonstrate something that won’t get you far.
If you must know, your subconsicous clings to the desire to be heard so you flail your arms around like an underfed bird. Once your given a little attention, your subconsicous doesn’t want to be exposed so it flips over to nitpicking the image it was just given beeeecause your subconscious wants to stay hidden
It thinks it’s job is to protect you from reality because then you’ll be fully conscious and won’t need the old pattern.
If you really want to be “un”boring try holding that nasty little subthing at bay long enough to critically examine a few realities.
Uncle Been There Knute

Reply to  dbstealey
December 13, 2015 8:10 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  BusterBrown@hotmail.com
December 14, 2015 10:14 am

So BusterBrown’ admits that he’s got nothin’.
I made a simple offer that would have saved me the time to go to my chart folder and pick out some relevant data-based charts that would falsify what BB said. But Buster tucked tail and skedaddled, instead of accepting my offer.
Knute is right, BB just got a ‘splendid smackdown’. ☺

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

November 29, 2015 5:53 pm

“In 1997, Earth set a record for the hottest year, but it didn’t last. Records were set in 1998, 2005, 2010 and 2014, and it is sure to happen again in 2015 when the results are in from the year, according to NOAA [Its results have been tampered with in a manner that, when set against the satellite record, seems suspicious: hence the Congressional investigation. The satellites do not show 2014 as the warmest year, and will not show 2015 as the warmest year either. Besides, the weather was warmer in the mediaeval, Roman, Minoan, Old-Kingdom, and Holocene warm periods, so there is nothing special about today’s temperatures].”
Splendid smackdown.
The above was good enough.
And then it kept going … as if to make a believer have a nervous breakdown.
I saved for future reference.
If I was a climatologist I would learn another trade.

Reply to  Knute
November 29, 2015 6:41 pm

Exactly right. Satellite data shows that 2014 was not nearly “the hottest EVAH!!”
Not only that, but the alarmist lemmings here who are fanning the flames of the ‘DAGW’ scare always disregard the past century of amazingly FLAT global temperatures:

Reply to  dbstealey
November 29, 2015 7:45 pm

Yes, in 150 years the temperature has changes less than the temperature of your house changes when your furnace or air-con cycles and this is called climate change? Is climate so static that we would expect it to never show any change all on its own? Explain ice ages. Which we now know can happen in time scales of less than 100 years. Possibly in as little as 20 years

Reply to  dbstealey
November 30, 2015 12:13 am

dbstealy , give me that data and I will torture it until it confesses to being higher than it claims!!!!

November 29, 2015 5:56 pm

“If 2014 is the hottest year on record” …. 14.6C is not ‘hot’. In fact
there will be a great many people around the world who might think
that 14.6 has hardly taken the chill off the air. How can something
that’s not hot at all be described as ‘hottest’?
It’s like ‘warming’ : if we defined ‘warming’ as “an increase in temperature
that can be discerned by the average human”, then most of the ‘warming’
over which hands are being wrung would disappear.

Gary from Chicagoland
November 29, 2015 6:10 pm

This rebuttal of Seth Borenstein’s newspaper article by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley is outstanding work. Most of the rebuttal is based on scientific facts not judgement. If everyone who reads this rebuttal emails it to another person, the world could be a better place as actual discussions of the global warming issues as caused by the burning of fossil fuels can lead to the conclusion that mankind has very little influence on Earth’s climate. Spread this rebuttal, and sleep better at night knowing the truth about the natural causes of global warming will win in the end, but at what cost in trillions of dollars before the scientific method rules. In conclusion, enjoy this nature given warmth as another ice age will be coming geologically soon (within 4,000-6,000 years +\- 2,000 years).

Reply to  Gary from Chicagoland
November 29, 2015 7:29 pm

But Swth Bornstein won’t see it and write a retraction which will be published in the same places his original article was published.

November 29, 2015 6:19 pm

29 Nov: Politico: Oren Cass: Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless
(Oren Cass is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow)
But the more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be about the plan for Paris. With so much political capital and so many legacies staked to achieving an “agreement” — any agreement — negotiators have opted to pursue one worth less than…well, certainly less than the cost of a two-week summit in a glamorous European capital…
In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.
Here’s how the game works…ETC
After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved…
And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.”…
The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away…
***An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise…
From a political perspective, perhaps this outcome represents “victory” for environmental activists launching their next fundraising campaign or for a president building his “legacy.”…

November 29, 2015 6:28 pm

Non angled misguided inverted oblique geometric analytic calculus of word made lies and fraud.

November 29, 2015 6:29 pm


Smart Rock
November 29, 2015 7:11 pm

Good work, as usual, your lordship. Trouble is, you can’t counter belief with facts. For example (this was the result of a 1-minute Google search):
40 percent of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and 80 percent believe in miracles. In that kind of epistemoligical environment, what chance does rational discourse and sober analysis of facts stand?
That doesn’t mean that we should give up hope, but it’s going to be a lonely and frustrating road, and I applaud your lordship for taking such a public stand, which has undoubtedly earned you more enemies than friends.
NB I don’t mean to say that creationist beliefs lead to belief in cAGW, probably the reverse is true (why bother saving the earth when the end is nigh?). What the two have in common is (a) holding beliefs in a dogma without supporting evidence, (b) extreme anger and hostility to anyone trying to question that dogma and (c) refusal to even consider the remotest possibility that the dogma might be unfounded. One could also add (d) unquestioning reliance on the pronouncements of anointed elders. Other parallels have been pointed out by more insightful observers than me.
Also, I don’t mean to single out Americans as being particularly gullible. It’s a species-wide trait. I could even speculate that the absence of religiosity in an increasingly secular world has left a dogma-shaped hole in too many minds, which CAGW has opportunistically filled.

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 29, 2015 8:01 pm

80 percent believe in miracles.
The Pope believes in miracles. He also believes in climate change.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2015 8:14 pm

A miracle by definition must defy the laws of physics. Something like walking on water or turning water to wine or raising the dead. So why does the Pope not have God fix global warming. Where is the power of prayer if it can’t change the temperatue? It wouldn’t take much. If prayer can change the temp say 1 part in ten thoaand a day, that would solve rhe problem. Since we can’t measure such a small change no one could prove it wasn’t a great success.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2015 11:46 pm

Actually God has “fixed” global warming–many times over billions of years–through the natural processes he set up that govern the behavior of matter in the universe and on this planet. Given the great consistency he established in the properties of matter (uniformitarianism), it is virtually inevitable that the recent low-level warming will be reversed sooner or later.
As for answering prayers, there are no guarantees. The Pope and anyone else can ask, but God has the final say as to which ones get answered. And that is actually a very good thing, as we recognize implicitly in the adage to “be careful what you ask for.”

Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2015 12:19 am

ferdberple, you actually read anything from livescience ??? P.S.. stop talking to yourself !

Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2015 1:07 am

“The man who does not believe in miracles surely makes it certain that he will never see one.” William Blake
I believe that most people as they grow older are capable of witnessing a miracle, not one of happenstance where luck plays a role but simply the cohesion to existence which ties the individual to the Universal in physical terms or in the older,gentler religious way of expression of the person to God.
A miracle for me would be to see a person withdraw from the aggressive strain of empiricism that drives these agendas and take a wider view of the environment which allows people to assert such ridiculous claims.
“New justifications have now appeared in place of the antiquated,
obsolete, religious ones. These new justifications are just as
inadequate as the old ones, but as they are new their futility cannot
immediately be recognized by the majority of men. Besides this, those
who enjoy power propagate these new sophistries and support them so
skilfully that they seem irrefutable even to many of those who suffer
from the oppression these theories seek to justify. These new
justifications are termed ‘scientific’. But by the term ‘scientific’
is understood just what was formerly understood by the term
‘religious’: just as formerly everything called ‘religious’ was held
to be unquestionable simply because it was called religious, so now
all that is called ‘scientific’ is held to be unquestionable…..Such
are the scientific justifications of the principle of coercion. They
are not merely weak but absolutely invalid, yet they are so much
needed by those who occupy privileged positions that they believe in
them as blindly as they formerly believed in the immaculate
conception, and propagate them just as confidently. And the
unfortunate majority of men bound to toil is so dazzled by the pomp
with which these ‘scientific truths’ are presented, that under this
new influence it accepts these scientific stupidities for holy truth,
just as it formerly accepted the pseudo-religious justifications; and
it continues to submit to the present holders of power who are just as
hard-hearted but rather more numerous than before.” Tolstoy to Gandhi
With dismay I watch as the icon of the Catholic Church adopt the ‘prophesies’ of the empirical modelers rather than deal with the root of the problem which began when the Church couldn’t resolve the differences between the predictive side of astronomy which existed since geocentric times with the astronomy of Copernicus.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2015 5:19 am

RalphDaveWestfall November 29, 2015 at 11:46 pm
“Actually God has “fixed” global warming–many times over billions of years–through the natural processes he set up that govern the behavior of matter in the universe and on this planet. Given the great consistency he established in the properties of matter (uniformitarianism), it is virtually inevitable that the recent low-level warming will be reversed sooner or later.”
Good to know that God was a physicist. Now I can sleep well at night.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2015 6:40 pm

“Uniformatarianism” is basically just the idea (in geology) that the “great flood” never happened . . The God of the Book does as He pleases, and that goes for any properties of matter too . . He does make a very general promise about the “climate” of Earth though (Genesis 8:22);
~ While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. ~

Reply to  Smart Rock
November 30, 2015 2:35 am

’80 percent believe in miracles’
Explain to us exactly and scientifically how and why you’re here and alive. If you can do so to my satisfaction I’ll no longer believe miracles are possible as last I heard all scientific and mathematical attempts have shown that we are a statistical impossibility in a chaotic un-ordered universe.

Reply to  Hoplite
November 30, 2015 4:34 am

Yes, I have always found it interesting that scientifically minded people are so quick to embrace the concept of Occam’s Razor, or ‘maximum parsimony’ as a truism of our existence.
In fact, if you accept the idea that all life arose from a single common ancestral life form, then you must believe that mankind and all modern life is the product of billions of highly unlikely and un-parsimonious “miracles” of evolution. One after the next after the next, like beads on a string stretching back billions of years.
That’s all well and good, but Occam’s Razor would cut it to ribbons. So if we accept Occam’s Razor as a true principle of our existence, then we must not exist…

Pat Frank
Reply to  Hoplite
November 30, 2015 11:07 am

Statistics has nothing to say about the likelihood of life in this universe. That’s a matter of physics, only.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Hoplite
November 30, 2015 11:09 am

Natural selection is a deterministic ratchet, KTM. Miracles need not apply.

Reply to  Hoplite
November 30, 2015 7:06 pm

Um, felllas, please explain how natural selection could generate genetic coding . . (and win a noble prize for sure ; )

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Hoplite
December 1, 2015 4:30 am

Hoplite says:

Explain to us exactly and scientifically how and why you’re here and alive. If you can do so to my satisfaction …… I’ll no longer believe miracles are possible

But, …. but, ….. but, ….. that in itself would require a “miracle”.
So “DUH”, ….. iffen a “miracle” has to happen ….. before you no longer believe that “miracles” are possible ………………!!!!!!
HA, ….. science book learning is the only cure for miracle believing.

Reply to  Hoplite
December 1, 2015 6:19 am

Some strange responses to my post re miracles. In the face of having no rational explanation for our existence it is FULLY rational to assume or believe in some supra-rational ‘being’ or prime mover of it. It is illogical to assume such a ‘being’, if they can originate the universe and all life within it, cannot suspend or deflect the laws of that same universe. Whether it does so or not is something you can choose to believe in but to hold such a ‘being’ or prime mover cannot do so is simply doltish. Believing that physics or genetics fully explains how and why we exist demonstrates wonderfully and completely how lacking in inquisitiveness and profundity some people are when it comes to life’s big questions.
Finally, even God cannot figure out what Cogar is on about in his reply!

Reply to  Hoplite
December 1, 2015 12:16 pm

They’ve been indoctrinated to believe Big Siants has everything almost figured out, and that only fools doubt Big Siants, it seems to me Hoplite. Even as they watch Big Siants deceive others, they cannot question what Big Siants has gotten them to believe . . ’cause that would be foolish ; )

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Hoplite
December 2, 2015 3:56 am

Hoplite – December 1, 2015 at 6:19 am

Finally, even God cannot figure out what Cogar is on about in his reply!

GIMME A BREAK, ….. Hoplite, me thinks you comprehended exactly what the context of my post was intended to convey to you. That is why you posted that big paragraph of CYA “piffle” instead of questioning me about my verbiage.
Surprise, surprise, but your challenging statement of ……“If you can do so to my satisfaction ..” …… is an impossible task for anyone to perform simply because there is not a single (1) avidly believing Biblical Creationist that can be or will be “satisfied” with a scientific explanation of the “origin of the species” or anything else that is not Bible based.
To understand the origin of life on planet earth ….. and the “descent with modification” that is responsible for all past and present plant and animal species ….. one first has to have a basic understanding of the Atomic Theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory ) which defines how the atoms and molecules of the different Elements act, interact and/or react with one another to generate or produce what us humans call “life”.
A “life” exists only because of the chemical reactions between the various atoms and molecules …. and if that chemical reaction(s) stops or ceases then the aforesaid “life” is pronounced to be “dead”, …. dead as a doornail and never to be “alive” again.
God “beliefs” should be limited to the per se “creation” of the atom and/or its elementary particles ….. and not to the origin of plants and animals.

Reply to  Hoplite
December 2, 2015 5:06 am

Cogar – interesting that your knowledge of the those who believe in God doesn’t even extend as far as knowing that not all believers are ‘creationists’. Catholics (I’m sure it is news to you) have never had any difficulty with evolution as a process in the development of the universe. Catholic doctrine only holds that man cannot have naturally have evolved from apes without some divine intervention or previous setting aside (the so-called creature God created twice). Whether the universe is 6,000 years’ old, six billion or sixty billion is a totally uninteresting and irrelevant question to me and has rarely taken up anyone’s time in Catholic circles. I always find it amusing that non-believers believe that as the universe measures as such-and-such billion years old that that ‘proves’ creationists are wrong with their 6,000 years old. If Irish companies can make brand new Irish pubs in cities around the world look like they’ve been there for the last 150 years I think placing such an antique effect on our universe is not beyond an omnipotent creator.

Reply to  Hoplite
December 2, 2015 5:21 am

“To understand the origin of life on planet earth ….. and the “descent with modification” that is responsible for all past and present plant and animal species ….. one first has to have a basic understanding of the Atomic Theory …”
So, you’re claiming that you understand the origins of life on earth?

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Hoplite
December 3, 2015 5:33 am

Hoplite says:

Cogar – interesting that your knowledge of the those who believe in God doesn’t even extend as far as knowing that not all believers are ‘creationists’.

Hoplite, any person that believes in the God of the Bible is ipso facto a “creationist”.

Catholic doctrine only holds that man cannot have naturally have evolved from apes without some divine intervention or previous setting aside (the so-called creature God created twice).

When you say “God created twice” are referring to both of Adam’s wives?
And yup, “divine intervention” by your God of the Bible, ……. ipso facto “creationism”. And it must have been “divine intervention” by the Flying Spaghetti Monster that resulted in the “creation” of Cain’s wife in a far country where he fetched her from, …… right?
My knowledge of Biblical history as well as those who are Bible believing Creationists is quite extensive so don’t be touting your nurtured Religious beliefs as being literal facts.
@ JohnKnight
John, and I am also claiming that …… “You are what your environment nurtured you to be” …… and iffen your environment nurtured you to believe that no human is capable of “understand the origins of life on earth”, …… then so be it, whatever appeases your emotions or “turns your crank” is OK by me.
End of this off-topic discussion for me.

Reply to  Hoplite
December 3, 2015 12:46 pm

“John, and I am also claiming that …… “You are what your environment nurtured you to be” …… and iffen your environment nurtured you to believe that no human is capable of “understand the origins of life on earth”, …… then so be it, whatever appeases your emotions or “turns your crank” is OK by me.”
More BS, I was raised in a non-religious environment, and believed in Evolution since I was maybe ten.
Reciting some vague dogmatic verbiage I could have recited as a pre-teen does nothing to demonstrate you actually understand anything about the origins of life on Earth, O imagination worshiper.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Hoplite
December 4, 2015 3:03 am

@ JohnKnight
John, to gain a better understanding of the biological processes of how your environment nurtured your brain/mind resulting in …. “Why you are what you are” ….. and/or …. “Why you think and believe what you think and believe”, …. click-on the following url link and read my commentary.
No magic, no miracles and no divine intervention …. which you will surely realize by reading said.
Unless or until you “Know thyself” ….. it is highly improbable you will ever be willing to understand “the origin of the species”.

Reply to  Hoplite
December 4, 2015 11:05 pm

I read your piece at that site, and recommend you avoid drawing conclusions about what the ultimate truth of these matters is, based on the realization that you have unconsciously absorbed many aspects of your society. There’s no way to know you didn’t absorb what you would “re-program” yourself with, in exactly the same way.
Self awareness is great, I say, self manipulation is pointless, I’ve found.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  Hoplite
December 5, 2015 6:24 am

Shur nuff, John, …. shur nuff.
“HA” and just why did you make such a “recommendation”?
T’wasan’t out of fear that the “ultimate truth” about the “root causes” of your personality traits would be “outed” for others to see or read, …….. t’was it?

Leon Brozyna
November 29, 2015 7:20 pm

So, come mid-century and COP56, the third-rate political hacks that party on the taxpayers’ dime, will declare that the hard work they’ve been engaged in has paid off as the climate hasn’t heated up (or has only heated slightly) and that the demanding sacrifices must continue (which they’ll continue to selflessly keep collecting) as they lead the way to a great victory … which keeps on slipping on into some distant, obscure future that only the sacrifice gatherers will ever enjoy.

Robert of Ottawa
November 29, 2015 7:26 pm

This is a very good put-down of the lies that are openly and deliberately spouted by those who should know better. I find myself simply denying (no it isn’t) every statement made by the Warmistas. I guess that makes me a “denier” but actually that puts me on the side of the angels.
What else can one do when presented by someone who spouts a demonstrable lie, then acuses you of denying!

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 29, 2015 8:00 pm

So the funny thing about projection in this circumstance is that normally the best counter to a relationship that is engaged in projection is to respectfully disengage. Don’t end the relationship if there is more to it than just episodic projection, but disengage when it is being hoisted on you. The worst thing to do is to defend your behavior because afterall projection is not about YOU.
This also happens to be the root of the majority of most victim mentalities, including racism and gender inequality. It’s a mindfield out there.
Now, the problem becomes that CAGW is a pretty big mindf___k. It’s hard to disengage from its effects on your life and your immediate community. It leads to social justice warriors, who are aligned with race justice advocates, and extends to environmental edicts that are just off the charts.
It’s quite the predicament.
I haven’t figured out to engage without finding myself on the defensive more often than not.
Working on it.

Reply to  knutesea
November 29, 2015 8:24 pm

Limit your replies to asking questions until the other side contradicts themselves. Then ask which side of the contradiction is true/false.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 30, 2015 12:23 am

The TRUE ” Climate Change Deniers ” are the fools on the left that believe the climate has never changed before !

November 29, 2015 7:48 pm

It’s hard to take Borenstein seriously. He looks so much like Groucho Marx. What a joke.

Mark Leskovar
November 29, 2015 7:48 pm

Well done. My experience talking AGW with most people is they believe what they read in the newspaper or see on TV and anyone with a contrary opinion is a conspiracy theorist/nut out to destroy the world at the behest of big oil. All the flailing with “proper science” only makes the skeptic feel good but does nothing to sway the ordinary people. Not that we should stop promoting proper science. Look at all the people who accept CO2 is now a pollutant because the current American administration says so. Propaganda pure and simple.

November 29, 2015 7:52 pm

A right proper fisking the likes of which I haven’t seen in quite a while.

Reply to  ELCore (@OneLaneHwy)
November 29, 2015 11:04 pm

Lord, oh Lord, that was a Lordly Fisking, indeed.

November 29, 2015 8:09 pm

As an ugly hypothesis collides with a beautiful fact, it rarely destroys the hypothesis.
Initially the facts are stretched to fit.
In the end, inconvenient facts are described as paradoxes.
This has happened in the case of the former consensus that a high fat diet leads to CHD.
The French eat a high saturated fat diet and have a lower incidence of CHD relative to much of the rest of Europe.
Consequently this situation is described as the “French Paradox”.
The most obviously conclusion would be that the hypothesis is seriously flawed.
We can expect that soon we will be told about the Antarctic Paradox, the Greening Paradox, the Sea Level Paradox etc. Tediously…

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 29, 2015 8:33 pm

Good point. The paradox exists because the theory doesn’t fit the facts which is impossible if the theory is correct. And the theory must be correct because science says so and science is like the Pope, infallible.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2015 9:05 pm

Thanks Ferd
I’ll try that. I wasn’t born with an abundance of patience and of course your technique requires that I be so, but I have to find a better way and if improving my impatience is part of the deal, then it’s worth it.

Joel O’Bryan
November 29, 2015 8:26 pm

Seth Borenstein -serial liar
Joe Romm – serial liar
Al Gore – serial liar
Barack Obama – serial liar.
Serial liars gonna lie. Capisce?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 29, 2015 8:39 pm

Lying to save the world isnt lying. It is a Nobel deed. Thus the large number of climate scientists with Nobel prizes.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 29, 2015 10:13 pm

How many climate scientists have Nobel prizes?

Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2015 1:42 am

A Nobel Lie.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  ferdberple
November 30, 2015 10:21 am

Svante Arrhenius received 1903Nobel in Chemistry for his equation describing chemical reaction rate dependence on temperature. But not for his theory of CO2 warming.

Reply to  Eliza
November 29, 2015 9:46 pm

Glad to see a glimmer of hope in that poll.
Perhaps costly energy is waking the people up.
While one sees a glimmer of light there on another front it gets worse. In a move that befuddles the imagination and shocks the senses, many in the EU have convinced themselves in an upside down world that to be selective about who comes in to their countries is akin to being racist. It’s a similar group mental illness akin to embracing a carbon tax because some feel false guilt as a first tier nation for their lifestyle.
Women in the EU will suffer a great deal as infidels are prime targets for rape culture. Rape culture is promoted among many of the young men who are part of the migration. It doesn’t have to be this way, yet it is this way. The common person both in the first world and in the third world does not have to scrounge around for expensive unreliable energy. It will retard their lifestyles.
Both symptoms of the common illness of false guilt.

November 29, 2015 9:34 pm

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
An overview, directly relevant to the Paris “climate change” meeting, which destroys the substance of all of the IPCC and associated claims demanding immediate political and financial sacrifices intended to prevent catastrophic global environmental changes.
No such changes are occurring, there are no proven scientifically valid supporting facts, lies have been exposed, a political agenda is clear.
It is past time that leaders and the people woke up to reality.

November 29, 2015 11:55 pm

What’ are Borensteins’s qualifications to write and comment on science? Does he have a BS/MS in chemistry, physics, biology or geology, or else a professional degree in medicine or engineering.
If this crapweasel Borenstein is going to write about carbon and global warming, I want to know that he has at least taken a university level sequence of courses in general and organic chemistry, physics, biology and calculus/statistics. What is his education? Psychology. communication, sociology, journalism LOL. What?

Richard Barraclough
November 30, 2015 12:03 am

It’s good to see scare stories rebutted with facts.
However, one nit-pick on the facts.
Antarctic sea ice is no longer way above the satellite-era average, and has been close to average for the last few months (0.12 million sq, km above as of today)
Arctic ice has been below the satellite-era average for several years (1.2 million below average today), so global sea ice is about 1.1 million sq km (or about 5 per cent) below average

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Richard Barraclough
November 30, 2015 12:53 am

“so global sea ice is about 1.1 million sq km (or about 5 per cent) below average”
See: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Chris Schoneveld
November 30, 2015 3:22 pm

Yep. Really.
You have linked to a graph which goes to the end of October, with “anomalies” only up to the end of June. At that time there was indeed an excess of Antarctic sea ice of about 1.2 million sq km, roughly balanced by the Arctic shortfall.
It illustrates how one should use up-to-date figures when making claims, and how quickly the near-record Antarctic sea ice has disappeared

November 30, 2015 12:24 am

The ‘balance’ of nature was a sacred cow in ecology and the early decades of the field never questioned it at all but studied and tried to model it with increasingly complex models. The problem however became increasingly apparent that as researchers examined data from the field on predator and prey populations or plants and foliage in very diverse eco-systems the dominant characteristic they found was not balance and stasis but constant dynamic change that, while bounded, could only be described as unpredictable and chaotic. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and apparently with only the younger generation of ecologists, did the sacred cow of ‘static balance’ in nature eventually give way. However, the balance concept seems to suit our way of thinking about nature and we don’t give it up easily as the public still clings religiously to it and regards any rise or fall in tree or animal numbers as evidence of unbalance (and usually man’s nefarious contribution to the ‘problem’). No doubt whatsoever man has had measurable impacts in eco systems but in the context of unpredictable change they are harder to isolate. This whole issue is covered well by Adam Curtis in the 2nd part of his documentary ‘All watched over by machines of loving grace’ and covers other areas (such as economics) that we similarly mis-project or misunderstand ‘balance’.
It seems that most climate scientists are under the same delusion that ecologists were under in the early years of ecology – as clearly the journalist here in question is too. The difference here is timescale and as Longhurst asserts in his new book ‘Doubt & Uncertainty in Climate Science’ it is next to impossible to characterise the global climate on such short timescales of measurements that we have available to us. Unluckily for us skeptics, it seems the pro-GW climate community have time on their side before they are eventually ‘found out’ by unassailable and ineluctable data.

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 30, 2015 1:33 am

On the Copenhagen experience of 2009 I predict that Paris will be a resounding success … for taxi drivers and workers in the physical entertainment professions.

November 30, 2015 1:39 am

Well done. A timely look behind the facade of that case for alarm made by one of the more notorious of the many climate clowns in the mass media. They are modern builders of virtual Potemkin Villages for CO2 Alarm. The lack of substance behind their constructions is there for all to see. But too few look. Fortunately for us all, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley likes to get out and about, and examine their confections for himself.

November 30, 2015 1:46 am

Christopher–Here’s a typo. Insert “years” in the following:
“they had increased for 20 since 1976”
Also see lee’s typo-fix near the top of the thread.

November 30, 2015 1:49 am

The true ecological disaster is human population expansion which cannot go to infinity. The Pope who is screamingly freaked about ‘climate change’ also wants unlimited population growth to infinity. This is impossible.
Europe, which (until the flood of foreigners from anti-birth control countries) had near zero population growth is being pushed into energy poverty to fix ‘global warming’ which is crazy. The US which has higher population growth and millions of illegal aliens, is supposed to strangle itself, too, while also taking on millions of refugees from anti-birth control countries.
The US right wing is against the concept of ‘global warming’ but also wants to have unlimited population growth and attacks people who want birth controls. So the world’s true danger, overwhelmed by great population growth mainly in hot climate countries, is being ignored as liberals focus on ‘global warming’.
This means that both sides of this debate are confused.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  emsnews
November 30, 2015 6:03 am

I think you are the one who’s confused. Population growth may be a problem in parts of the world, but it is a local one, and up to those particular governments to decide how to address it. It is a completely different issue, having nothing to do with “global warming”. Eyes on the prize.

Reply to  emsnews
November 30, 2015 6:24 am

You fail in your attempt to deflect this thread onto Malthusian nonsense.
The fallacy of overpopulation derives from the disproved Malthusian idea which wrongly assumes that humans are constrained like bacteria in a Petri dish: i.e. population expands until available resources are consumed when population collapses. The assumption is wrong because humans do not suffer such constraint: humans find and/or create new and alternative resources when existing resources become scarce.
The obvious example is food.
In the 1970s the Club of Rome predicted that human population would have collapsed from starvation by now. But human population has continued to rise and there are fewer starving people now than in the 1970s; n.b. there are less starving people in total and not merely fewer in percentage.
Now, the most common Malthusian assertion is ‘peak oil’. But humans need energy supply and oil is only one source of energy supply. Adoption of natural gas displaces some requirement for oil, fracking increases available oil supply at acceptable cost; etc..
In the real world, for all practical purposes there are no “physical” limits to natural resources so every natural resource can be considered to be infinite; i.e. the human ‘Petri dish’ can be considered as being unbounded. This a matter of basic economics which I explain as follows.
Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything. The usage of a resource may “peak” then decline, but the usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource (e.g. flint, antler bone and bronze each “peaked” long ago but still exist in large amounts).
A resource is cheap (in time, money and effort) to obtain when it is in abundant supply. But “low-hanging fruit are picked first”, so the cost of obtaining the resource increases with time. Nobody bothers to seek an alternative to a resource when it is cheap.
But the cost of obtaining an adequate supply of a resource increases with time and, eventually, it becomes worthwhile to look for
(a) alternative sources of the resource
(b) alternatives to the resource.
And alternatives to the resource often prove to have advantages.
For example, both (a) and (b) apply in the case of crude oil.
Many alternative sources have been found. These include opening of new oil fields by use of new technologies (e.g. to obtain oil from beneath sea bed) and synthesising crude oil from other substances (e.g. tar sands, natural gas and coal). Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude.
Alternatives to oil as a transport fuel are possible. Oil was the transport fuel of military submarines for decades but uranium is now their fuel of choice.
There is sufficient coal to provide synthetic crude oil for at least the next 300 years. Hay to feed horses was the major transport fuel 300 years ago and ‘peak hay’ was feared in the nineteenth century, but availability of hay is not a significant consideration for transportation today. Nobody can know what – if any – demand for crude oil will exist 300 years in the future.
Indeed, coal also demonstrates an ‘expanding Petri dish’.
Spoil heaps from old coal mines contain much coal that could not be usefully extracted from the spoil when the mines were operational. Now, modern technology enables the extraction from the spoil at a cost which is economic now and would have been economic if it had been available when the spoil was dumped.
These principles not only enable growing human population: they also increase human well-being.
The ingenuity which increases availability of resources also provides additional usefulness to the resources. For example, abundant energy supply and technologies to use it have freed people from the constraints of ‘renewable’ energy and the need for the power of muscles provided by slaves and animals. Malthusians are blind to the obvious truth that human ingenuity has freed humans from the need for slaves to operate treadmills, the oars of galleys, etc..
And these benefits also act to prevent overpopulation because population growth declines with affluence.
There are several reasons for this. Of most importance is that poor people need large families as ‘insurance’ to care for them at times of illness and old age. Affluent people can pay for that ‘insurance’ so do not need the costs of large families. These effects are completely isolated from refugee migration.
The result is that the indigenous populations of rich countries decline. But rich countries need to sustain population growth for economic growth so they need to import – and are importing – people from poor countries. Increased affluence in poor countries can be expected to reduce their population growth with resulting lack of people for import by rich countries. These effects are also completely isolated from refugee migration.
Hence, the real foreseeable problem is population decrease; n.b. not population increase.
All projections and predictions indicate that human population will peak around the middle of this century and decline after that. So, we are confronted by the probability of ‘peak population’ resulting from growth of affluence around the world.
Also, declining population implies fewer Einsteines, fewer Beethovens, fewer Shakespeares, and fewer & etc..
The Malthusian idea is wrong because it ignores basic economics and applies a wrong model; human population is NOT constrained by resources like the population of bacteria in a Petri dish. There is no existing or probable problem of overpopulation of the world by humans.
So, now please ignore the non-issue of overpopulation and return the thread to its subject.

Reply to  richardscourtney
November 30, 2015 2:11 pm

Thanks Richard for a well argued explanation of another non-problem. Nota bene, all!

Reply to  emsnews
November 30, 2015 2:03 pm

emsnews on November 30, 2015 at 1:49 am
The true ecological disaster is human population expansion which cannot go to infinity.

There is an a large set of interesting observations about your concepts and thinking. Here are several.
First, of course “human population expansion which cannot go to infinity” is trivially true. The Earth is finite so human population on Earth cannot become infinite.
Second, while it is trivially true that “human population expansion which [on Earth] cannot go to infinity” it is also trivially true that human population can expand by magnitudes over current population and at the same time reduce the actual net ecological impact below the current level of ecological impact that the current human population has.
Third, to be fair one should give equal weight to the ecological disasters caused by all other earth based life’s which has significant impact on man. So then we can decide about the relative important (or unimportance) of human caused ecological disasters impacting on all the other earth based life forms. Fair for one life form is fair for all others wrt causing ecological disasters. Let’s be impartial.
Lastly, your term “The true ecological disaster” is trivially incorrect. There is not ”The true” ecological disaster”, instead there are many true ecological disasters, most of them caused by non-human life forms here on Earth; including ones that impact humans.

Reply to  John Whitman
November 30, 2015 5:34 pm

Why worry? A few “super bugs” can control the earth’s population anyway. Lost a young relative due to a “super bug” a couple of years ago.

Reply to  Barbara
November 30, 2015 6:02 pm

Sorry for your loss.
The whole super bug thing is real and scary.
Gives me the willies to have to go to a hospital.

Reply to  John Whitman
November 30, 2015 7:41 pm

Barbara on November 30, 2015 at 5:34 pm,
Medical science still has a lot of knowledge to pursue.

Merv M
November 30, 2015 2:38 am

The estimate of a trillion dollars reads as if that will be the cost by 2100. Lomborg’s estimate in his WSJ op ed, quoted in Judith Curry’s recent post about climate policy likely being iatrogenic, is a trillion dollars each year until 2100. Serious money for stalling a fraction of a degree rise over the next 80 odd years.

Dermot O'Logical
November 30, 2015 2:52 am

I find the Lord’s rebuttal to the “5 trillion tons” of ice loss to be somewhat apples/oranges.
Mass comes from volume, but the counterpoint statements above deal only in area and extent. You can’t compare area/extent in km2 to volume in km3.
Here are some references which, if totalled, claim an annual trillion tons of ice melt per year, so Lord Monckton must discuss and rebut these papers before being able to dismiss the “5 trillion” claim with a wave of the “plenty of evidence that it is not” hand.
Indeed, given the _enormous_ amount of energy taken to melt ice, this could be claimed to be where some of the “missing heat” has gone.
None of the above says Lord Monckton is wrong, it just says he’s been vague at best, and misdirecting at worst.

Reply to  Dermot O'Logical
November 30, 2015 3:35 am

Dermot when you can explain this to me Greenland Melting I will switch to the dark side that the world is ending.http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html now 400ft deep

Dermot O'Logical
Reply to  Russell
November 30, 2015 4:32 am

Oh yes – I can just imagine someone swapping their position on the basis of one data point in the discussion on one objection to one aspect of one blog post.
Anyhow… I can’t explain it any more than I can explain why some glaciers grow and some glaciers shrink. I am not surprised by it, even in the context of a supposedly warming world.
It has been stated many many times here on WUWT and mainstream science that glaciers aren’t shrinking everywhere, and indeed that many glaciers are growing. On that basis alone, how could the existence of one artifact buried in ice prove one theory over the other?
This lost squadron was news to me, so Googling got me some education. Turns out it’s been discussed here before: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/
The squadron was lost in South East Greenland, 1942. Another flight was lost in North West Greenland, in 1947 – a B-29, found about the same time “near the surface”. So here we have two similar objects lost and found in similar timescales. Apologies for assuming on your behalf, but I suspect you would not propose that the lack of burial of the B-29 is evidence of a warming world.
It turns out that the two locations have wildly different levels of precipitation – see observational data image here: http://websrv.cs.umt.edu/isis/images/e/eb/Greenland_precip_countours.gif
Looks to me like South East pinnacle gets nearly 10 times more precipitation that North West. Thus if there’s any area of the world where something gets buried in ice, it’s going to be somewhere damn cold with a high level of snow.
For a fantastic map showing the spatial distribution of “anomalous” precipitation, here’s a lovely image from NSIDC showing Greenland snowfall anomaly in one year: http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/files/2015/08/Fig3_SMB_Snow_anom.png
On the South East corner, it shows many small patches with -600mm anomaly alongside zones of +600mm anomaly. “Unpredictable” is one way of putting it.
What I’m trying to say is that evidence of large accumulation in one spot is not evidence of an absence of melt on a wider scale.
Now, back to my comment.
Is Lord Monckton comparing apples to oranges and dismissing many peer-reviewed published papers with a blithe “plenty of evidence” assertion to the contrary? As engineers put it – “In God we trust. All others bring data.”

Reply to  Dermot O'Logical
November 30, 2015 4:51 am

Dermot Thank you for your response I fully accept the science. However to me this is weather I lived in Montreal for 70 years the last few winters have been extreme to me this is weather.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Dermot O'Logical
November 30, 2015 6:59 am

They could, and have tried all kinds of claims vis a vis the “missing heat”, all laughable failures. That’s why they’ve switched tactics to denying the “Pause” ever existed.

November 30, 2015 3:29 am

Even to someone from a non scientific background like me it is becoming abundantly clear that the Alarmist narrative is based on falsehoods that are demonstrably and obviously false. This leads to two alternative conclusions: either those propagating the narrative are dumb as rocks or, more worryingly, they are deliberately propagating a narrative they know to be false.

November 30, 2015 3:45 am

I feel sorry for the people and holy life on the planet, which Vissi believe some models, the wrong mathematical predictions and political manipulation, but what we allow laws of nature and our consciousness, which is related through intuition with all causes of phenomena in the universe.
Climate change on the planet, not just on our own, depend exclusively, from the mutual influence of the planets and the sun. When you take science as the basis of research, everything will go right through.
I again, as anonymous in science, I must warn you, at least those who use their consciousness and intuition, not politicized erroneous theory that the human factor is so small compared to the relationship of the planet, as well as a man smaller than planets.
In previous worthless and false works of all kinds, spent so much money, in vain, that it may resolve the matter in the right way, and that throughout the planet could equalize the impact of these changes.
My proof, that no one so far refused to publish it, without my payment is:
Four influential planets causes the sunspot cycle, every 11.2 years .This are only indicators of climate change on the planet, while the rest cycles and other planets in relation to the sun, are much longer and more intense and causing changes inside the planet that making changes in the behavior of all the planets.
I draw the attention of all scientists of the impact of that, if you have the will, to this way of thinking is applied and will see that they made a mistake, because it will come to amazing results, which so far has not been the case. NUDIM correspondence: !!!
Download this in Paris, let them know that all their decisions and agreements have nothing to do with the true causes of phenomena around us and in us.

Bruce Cobb
November 30, 2015 4:40 am

The only thing that has changed since 2009 is that they have ramped up the rhetoric and in complete desperation have nailed their Klimate Kolors to the mast of “extreme weather” or some variation thereof. Yes indeed, after years of screaming that “weather is not climate” they are now screaming just the opposite. And True Believers like our friend Leland, in mindless lockstep go along with it. Amazing.

Robert S
November 30, 2015 4:41 am

Lord Monckton should be invited to the Paris CO2/Global Warming Conference by the IPCC to present his above succinct and excellent paper thereby bringing some much needed perspective to the proceedings. By the way who is Seth Borenstein?

Solomon Green
November 30, 2015 5:11 am

A great debunking. Thank you Lord Monckton.
The rest of this post may be considered off-message but Seth Borenstein has to earn a living and to give a feel as to how AP only prepared to print news that supports its bias, I attach a link to an article by the journalist Mark Lavie, who worked for AP for 15 years.

Kevin Kilty
November 30, 2015 8:07 am

Other than this, however, the article was accurate.

November 30, 2015 9:20 am

I concluded some years ago (maybe 10) that increases in CO2 from 380 to 400 ppm, the present situation, would have negligible effect on atmospheric temperatures. I carried out spreadsheet calculations incorporating Planck’s Law, absorption bands for CO2 and water vapour and emissivities for both ‘gases’ and had to conclude that for even higher cocentrations of CO2 there would be no discernible temperature rise and from Lord Monckton’s analysis of satellite data there does not appear to have been any. However with the avalanche of propaganda from the BBC, the Met office, all UK scientific institutions, the government (particularly the Lib Dems’ 5 year tenure of the department of energy and climate change, in coalition, when they went to extraordinary lengths to reduce CO2 emissions), the newspapers except for Christopher Booker who all contend that the planet is getting hotter every year, the ice caps are melting the sea levels are rising, Peking is enveloped in a perpetual thick smog etc etc. I am beginning to believe that as there is very little counter propaganda except a balanced blog from wattsupwiththat, I must be wrong and catastrophic global warming is rapidly taking place.

November 30, 2015 9:44 am

One thing to note:
Seth says, “The world is spewing more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide a day now.”
I have noticed most, if not all, statements by the enviro NGO’s say “spew” when referring to any emissions from a fossil fueled power plant. It used to be they would say “belch.” Obviously, the playbook has been altered to say “spew” and Seth has been reading it.

Reply to  oeman50
November 30, 2015 11:25 am

Seth is an expert on spewage. 🙂

Gunga Din
November 30, 2015 1:18 pm
November 30, 2015 2:26 pm

Seth Borenstein has loosed on the not-so-gullible public a vast host of less than midge-like intellectualizations of the pseudo-knowledge kind.
It is good that someone like Christopher Monckton has the Herculean patience to fatally swat each of Borenstein’s less than midge-like intellectualizations . . . . : )

Reply to  John Whitman
November 30, 2015 2:51 pm

A pattern to the writing. Climate Depot perhaps made it a tad easier for the Lord to unleash his wrath.
On another note, if WUWT ever really wanted to get a top of the line real reporter in the information loop they could do no better than Sharyl Attkinson. She’s a very bright, tenacious and deliberate person. Pretty darn good writer too. Ya never know if ya don’t ask.

Reply to  knutesea
November 30, 2015 7:34 pm


wake maberry
November 30, 2015 4:56 pm

Thank you for blowing Seth Boringstein’s “chicken little” nonsense out of the water!
Sick and tired of these lies!!!

December 1, 2015 12:23 am

“The climate scare has died, but it will not be given a decent burial until the corpse smells so foul that the profiteers of doom can no longer make any money out of it at taxpayers’ expense.”
Very well said.

Jodi Crosson
December 2, 2015 8:50 am

Seth is smarter than you are recognizing. The man has never missed the right answer starting at age 4. Just saying… Be ready to eat your words.

Reply to  Jodi Crosson
December 2, 2015 12:09 pm

Read the head posting. Borenstein is wrong at all points I have marked, and I have provided evidence that he is wrong. He will not dare to debate with those of us who know a little climate science and economics, for he knows very well that he would lose.

johann wundersamer
December 2, 2015 6:03 pm

that’s what the Seth Borensteins are needed for –
a grand withstanding.
Christopher Monckton of
Brenchley –
unvaluable Youre self declaring graphs.
Best Regards – Hans

Reply to  johann wundersamer
December 2, 2015 6:23 pm

This was definitely my favorite.
Elegant and simple.
Increases my confidence speaking on this issue.
Truly nothing to see here except the simple truth that the public is being conned.
40K people are meeting in Paris for no good reason.
We are ignoring real problems but this webpage isn’t for those.

December 3, 2015 10:40 am

Does global warming mean (a) warming of the globe, (b) warming of the surface of the globe, (c) warming of the atmosphere surrounding the globe or (d) warming of the atmosphere and the surface (land and sea) in that order. I guess it must mean (d) as (a) is pretty hot already having a solid hot core surrounded by molten (liquid) iron core, a stiffer mantle, an asthenosphere, a rigid mantle, a basaltic ocean crust, a granitic continental crust and a crust consisting of plates with boundaries fissured in places releasing molten rock under the reduced pressure. I shouldn’t think that a fraction of degree rise over 10 to 100 years or so at the surface would have any effect further down. I’m sure we could live a with a miniscule rise at the surface without having to spend trillions of $ trying to get the temperature down a fraction of degree

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights