Come off it, Offit!

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

When a medical doctor with no prior record of publication in the learned journals of climate science wanders off the reservation and writes for a collectivist website about the totalitarians’ favorite Trojan horse, global warming, one expects nonsense.

offit-article-captureOne is not disappointed by: When Scientists Hate Science

 

Paul Offit

Paul Offit

Paul Offit is a paediatrician. Yet, in an article for one of the sillier groupthink websites, he considers himself qualified to state that the “climate denialists” President Trump and his appointees to EPA and Energy, Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry, “deny the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the environment have trapped heat, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature … and consequent climate disruption”.

Offit loses ten points for his deliberate and malicious likening of those who disagree with him to Holocaust deniers. This is mere hate speech – and it is precisely this shrieking tone of quivering, anti-scientific, pseudo-moralistic, unreasoning hatred that has driven voters away from the Left on both sides of the Atlantic and has led to the timely collapse of the mainstream news media’s influence on public opinion.

In fact, Trump and his team cheerfully accept what experiment has established and theory demonstrated – that there is a greenhouse effect, and that some warming is to be expected.

How much “climate disruption” global warming causes, however, is a matter of legitimate scientific debate. Official sources such as IPCC have recently come down generally against the notion that warmer weather worsens floods, droughts, hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Next, Offit snarls, in that tone of perpetual malice: “Although climate change is undeniable, the current administration has managed to deny it.”

Note the calculated looseness and imprecision of the wording. Of course climate change is undeniable. One need only look out of the window to see the coming and going of the seasons. Climate change is cyclical. It has been occurring for about 4 billion years. Get used to it.

As recently as 5000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was green, fertile, and home to lakes considerably larger than the Great Lakes. Then, within 200 years, as the monsoon rains drifted southward owing to the libration of the Earth’s axis, the desert suddenly took hold, driving the inhabitants of that formerly fertile region into Egypt and leading to the flowering of that great civilization.

Now the Sahara is greening, thanks to warmer and hence somewhat moister air. Nomadic tribes have been returning to places where they had not settled in living memory.

No one, therefore, denies that climate changes. No one denies that Man is now capable of exerting some influence on climate. The true scientific debate is about how much change we shall cause (answer: not a lot), and about whether it is cheaper to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its imagined net-adverse consequences the day after tomorrow (answer: it is 1000 times cheaper to adapt later than to mitigate now).

Though Offit suggests otherwise, the new administration does not “deny” that Man’s energies and enterprises have restored to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was formerly present there.

Inevitably, Offit goes on to recite the Party slogan that “the overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists is that global warming is a real and present threat”.

Offit should get someone to read Legates et al. (2013) to him at bedtime. In that paper, we revealed that only 41, or 0.3%, of 11,944 learned papers on climate and related topics published in the journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 had stated that recent global warming was mostly manmade.

We also revealed that no peer-reviewed survey of a sufficiently large sample of published papers has even asked the question whether those peer-reviewed climate papers state – with evidence – that global warming will prove dangerous. This lack of curiosity is inferentially attributable to an awareness on the part of the dopes who conduct such surveys that they would not get the answer they want.

Not that that stopped Cook et al. (2013) from falsely reporting a 97% consensus when their own records clearly show they found only 64 of those 11,944 papers had explicitly assented to the consensus position as they had defined it: that recent global warming was mostly manmade. Police on three continents are investigating. Prosecutions will follow.

Science is not done by consensus, as Aristotle in the West and Al-Haytham in the East pointed out millennia ago. Totalitarian politics is done by consensus (or, rather, by the pretense of it). Those who argue from consensus, then, demonstrate two things: that they are scientifically illiterate and politically collectivist.

Offit is blissfully unaware of the mere facts I have set out here, for he is one of those drones who know that the only thing they need to know is the Party Line.

He then repeats, straight from the Party handbook, the smear that those of us whose research has led us to question climate extremism are no better than the tobacco corporations who pretended that smoking was good for you long after it was known that it was fatal.

He maunders on to accuse “climate denialists” of drawing inconvenient conclusions from the recent temperature record about the rate of global warming. For 18 years 9 months from 1997 to late in 2015, satellites showed there had been no global warming at all, even though one-third of all anthropogenic influences on climate had occurred over the period.

Offit says: “By examining only the 10-year interval between 1998 and 2008, scientists minimized the problem.” What he should have said was, “By examining a period of almost two decades with no warming, scientists found that the predicted acceleration in the warming trend as CO2 concentration increased was not occurring, and concluded that the predictions had been exaggerated and were wrong.”

But let us help him out in his ignorance by going back further in the record. The warming rate over the 40 years 1694-1733, demonstrated by the Central England Temperature Record, a reasonable proxy for global temperature anomalies, was considerably greater than in any subsequent 40-year period. There were not many coal-fired power stations at the turn of the 18th century.

For good measure, the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian Old Kingdom and Minoan climate optima were all warmer than the present. And the Holocene Climate Optimum, which prevailed from 10,000 to 6000 years ago, was warmer than the present for four millennia (subject to a brief dip in the middle).

So there is nothing remarkable either about the rate of global warming (except that it is slowing when the climate extremists had predicted it should be accelerating) or about the absolute global temperature (except that it is remarkable only for being unremarkable).

Offit then says “prominent scientists deny scientific truths” because “they are paid to do it”. He cites the unreliable Michael Mann as saying: “The war on climate science may well continue as long as there are fossil fuels to be mined and mercenaries to be hired.”

It is the other way about. Facts, Offit, facts. So much more interesting than petty prejudices of Party Lines. The big bucks are in climate extremism, not in scepticism. Offit is simply wrong when he says scientists are only “rewarded with publications and grants when they find something new.”

In climate “science”, according to research by the redoubtable Jo Nova, about 5000 times as much is spent on scientists interminably promoting and rebarbatively regurgitating climate extremism than on research by skeptical scientists.

In future, let the cobbler stick to his last or he will find himself talking cobblers. Come off it, Offit!

Advertisements

259 thoughts on “Come off it, Offit!

    • He, like the vast majority of alarmists, doesn’t need to be paid.

      Consider the case of Charles Smith, a disgraced former pathologist in Canada. His testimony sent many innocent people to jail. As far as I can tell, it went well beyond sloppiness and incompetence into the products of a fevered imagination.

      What motivated Smith? The best explanation I have seen postulates that Smith enjoyed being part of the prosecutorial team. He enjoyed and sought the approval of the police and prosecuting lawyers. He wasn’t lining his pockets or materially benefiting. Similarly, most alarmists like being on the ‘good’ side.

      What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. link

      • Notwithstanding…what about his ‘bozo’ superiors turning a blind eye when confronted…like I always say to my wife “…they’re stealing money again” (by drawing a wage from as a public sector employee)

      • That is at the heart of it. We are resident’s of Indoctrination Nation where ‘Peer” appointed collectivist experts calibrate knowledge by ones emotional attachment to the issue.

      • One needs only point out that, although human CO2 emissions have skyrockets in recent years, atmospheric CO2 has been plodding along increasing relatively linearly. We contribute little to the atmosphere, particularly as CO2 has a half-life in the the atmosphere of about five years, not the 200 or 1000 years dishonestly claimed by the IPCC and NOAA (in their propaganda), respectively. If we have little or no effect on atmospheric CO2, then we have little or no effect on the climate, whatever it is doing. Period.

    • I don’t think you’ll find anything. An issue I have come across repeatedly when I’ve pushed past the ‘scientists think so’ or the ‘it must be true because..’ mentality is, non-scientific folk generally believe that even if it’s all a load of old bollocks “at least it’ll help cut down pollution”.

      Trying to explain to them that concentrating on harmless or indeed beneficial CO2 does the opposite, while these so-called scientists are fussing about CO2 they’re not spending any time looking into NOx or SOx, nor are they realistically looking at the actual waste of resources going on. Inefficient use means increased waste.

      People read ‘free power’ from wind or solar and consider me mad for opposing it, yet when it’s explained that these things can cost more – and the cost in money realistically translates to a cost in increased labor or material consumption, then they start to comprehend.

      If you use 3x the resources to produce methanol (and the calculations on that always neglect the CO2 released during fermentation) which can be used to do less than the work capable of being produced by petroleum then it’s a net cost to both the economy AND the environment. If you build a windmill that costs more, use solar that drains more resources and introduces more heavy metals into the manufacturing /disposal cycle then the net cost will also be more in the long run.

      I remind them that ‘natural renewable’ oil was used in the past, vast stretches of Europe were covered in olives to provide the Roman empire the oil it needed for just lighting! That whale blubber was a massive industry that also provided jobs, innovation, progress – all the hallmarks of today’s enviro – dogma.. but similarly the cost was enormous – but it was renewable! We need energy even at the simplest, lowest requirement ‘lifestyle’ (such an arrogant term) and when we can’t have it cheap and easy we make it cheap and easy and resort to enslaving either animals or people. Simply put we will always enslave something and our current method of enslaving the natural environment’s resources or coal, gas and nuclear are our most efficient methods so far.

      The idea that this is all good for us ‘even if they’re wrong’ needs to be at the core of attacks on this AGW dogma. People need to understand that buying greenwashed items doesn’t help and probably hinders. They need to see examples of how it’s wrong. Scaling up helps.. I say a bottle of ammonia for cleaning costs $1, a bottle of super enviro-magic wonder cleaner as used by all the professionals can cost 10 times the price with 1/10th the ingredients .. (may contain traces of nuts) .. and that this scam nets the repackager vast profits – and the same applies to the AGW industry in subsidies, jobs and power. People need to see the bigger picture rather than having partial pressures, dissolution constants, analysis of algorithms or actual science shown to them (the philosophy of science and it’s method of logic is as valid to them as inductive reasoning, so that’s no good) . They need to comprehend how cost MEANS cost, it means more labor and more effort and more wastage, and this green crap is vastly worse than what we have.

      Otherwise we’ll continue to hear from folk like this doctor who believe the consensus, who cannot comprehend the real application of science and who just think even if it’s not right, it’ll be good for us in the long run.

      • In one respect you agree with the other Karl, and earn lower Marx. The construction “enslaving animals or people” obliterates the essential denotation and connotation of slavery, which is treating people as animals. This unintended propaganda nugget is coined into “we will always enslave something” [emphasis mine], which further denatures the one concept toxic to liberty and essential to tyranny.

        Slavery” is a button which should not be pushed for trivial purposes, especially since you are so powerfully right in everything else you say.

      • Bill my comment was also alluding to the reality that in collapsed economies people do resort to slavery – we see this in India this very day where indebted labourers end up dragging their entire families into indentured servitude. Exported Chinese labor, often promised a nice fat wage – they come from rural settings, move to company camps overseas and end up with vastly bigger, life-long debts – the mortgage cycle here in Australia has people taking on multi-million dollar loans which will see these folk reduced to debt slaves if the edifice of fake money ever wobbles. I get your point, but people are treated as a herd and a ‘resource’ by authoritarians and corporatists alike .. it only takes a nudge for seemingly free people to end up true slaves in the most barbaric sense – and it all depends on whether they have the wealth to avoid it. If an ox had a fat bank account, there would be a lawyer stepping in pretty quick to prevent that ox ever being pushed into plowing land. A man without money however .. my use wasn’t alluding to harmlessness, more a brutal and close reality.

      • That all arrogant brainwashing is based on an idea of so called “intellectual aristocracy” put into zombi-live by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi – the father of European Union and globalism in general. This psycho sad, that we deplorables can’t decide what to do with products of our labor because we are not enough intelectually pure and noble. No wonder that his books were not translated into other languages – this could be harmful to the Cause. I nearly lost my hears reading that crap, here is one of his pseudo-intellectual achievements in original: https://ia802608.us.archive.org/10/items/PraktischerIdealismus1925/PraktischerIdealismus.pdf

        I like to compare it to a cook pissing in a soup. If you know that a given cook has that habit, you do not elaborate about nutritious content or taste of his soup. The soup do not fulfill the entry criteria to be considered as food.

        AGW do not fulfill entry criteria to be discussed as science because people pushing it are known Sons of Alinsky – cheaters and liars.

    • That comment has a lot of mileage. Is there anyone who is not corrupt that can answer the charge vis a vis Soros, evil man.

    • “””””….. Next, Offit snarls, in that tone of perpetual malice: “Although climate change is undeniable, the current administration has managed to deny it.” …..”””””

      Well it is January 18 2017. @ 1800 PST

      And the current administration has been in control of the ship of State for the last eight years.

      So if they are denying climate change; then we are glad to be rid of them in about another 48 hours.

      G

  1. Oddly.. “He is the author of Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong ”

    Make that EIGHT, Offit !! Your rant is another very good example.

    • and from the cries to ban DDT for the sake of the environment to an epidemic-level rise in world malaria

      So how come he can’t see the parallels with a multi-trillion dollar waste to decarbonise the economy?

  2. Pediatrician Offit is no match for Lord Monckton. I can bemoan Offit’s ignorance and celebrate Monckton’s wisdom. Not bad! Not bad at all!!!

  3. I’ll trade activities with him for 6 months. He can study the entire “climate” stuff, while I visit with and offer treatment to his patients. I expect to get his pay and he gets mine. Hope he has a big bank account. I likely know more about medicine than he knows about climate. I’ve never studied medicine but that should not be an issue. I can read about it on the plane.

  4. “CO2 causes warming” … but there is no evidence for that.

    Oh, there’s theory. But when sterile theory meets the real world .. it’s just not working out like the leftist Chicken Littles said it would. On all timescales we are finding no causal correlation between CO2 and climate warming. On the grand scale of hundreds of millions of years: nothing. Hundreds of thousands of years via ice core data: nothing (temperatures leads CO2 with an ~ 800 year lag). And in recent times CO2 has been going through the roof, and temperatures .. are flat as a pancake.

    There’s no evidence CO2 causes warming, and I don’t even think it’s warming.

    Clearly, the USA was warmer the 1930s than now. In 1999 NASA’s James Hansen agreed: “It is clear that [in the USA] 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934.” But the fact is, BY FAR, the US had the most extensive set of thermometer stations in the 1930s and ’40s:

    It would be reasonable to assume that the US temperatures in the 1930s are most representative of world temperatures because of the overwhelming preponderance of US stations at the time. And with all the one way data manipulations, the urban heat island effect, and the vanishing rural stations, one could infer that worldwide the 1930s were likely hotter than today! What that conclusion would do is put a massive harpoon in the global warming leviathan.

    • The other day, I posted a comment which made similar points. There is no solid and reliable data on the Southern Hemisphere since it is so inadequately sparially sampled, and hence there is no reliable data on global temperature, only on Northern Hemisphere temperatures. As you suggest, the best evidence is that from the USA since it is the best sampled, but of course Greenland temperatures also show the late 1930s/1940s to be the warmest period and only matched by temperatures in 2010 Subsequent years it has been cooler than 2010).

      Here is the accepted view of Northern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the endless adjustments made these past 20/25 years to the temperature record, which endless adjustments have rendered the modern version of the land thermometer record not fit for scientific purpose:

      AND

      Hansen accepted the above portrayal of temperature. as being correct, and this is what Hansen himself said, in 1981 (in his seminal paper published in SCIENCE issue 213) about the temperature: Hansen et al, when introducing the temperature data plot, commented:

      Northern latitudes warmed ~ 0.8 degC between the 1880s and 1940, then cooled 0.5degC between 1940 and 1970, in agreement with other analyses.

      And then the remarkable, but interesting comment (also on page 960)

      A remarkable conclusion from Fig 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based upon Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970. (my emphasis)

      What Hansen is saying about temperature is three things:

      First, as at 1980, globally 1940 is a little warmer than late 1970s/1980.

      Second, as at 1980, the late 1970s/1980 Northern Hemisphere temperature is quite a bit cooler than the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the 1940s.

      Third, people are mis-presenting the position when claiming that globally the world is cooling when this claim is based upon Northern Hemisphere data. Northern Hemisphere data is not global data, and is limited to describing only the position in the Northern Hemisphere.

      Incidentally, if one looks at rural (non coastal) data, and tree ring data (from rural non coastal sites), a similar observation is told, namely that temperatures today are about the same as those observed in the late 1930s/early 1940s.

    • Eric you are correct. Lord Monckton is a lukewarmist and is ignorant of the difference between heat and thermal energy. He also fails to understand the laws of thermodynamics.

      • There is nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that shows that CO2 cannot cause the atmosphere to warm.

      • johnmarshall Regarding your accusation without evidence, perhaps you can enlighten us regarding Monckton’s post and his question: Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?:

        I showed the energy and environment committee a graph showing the mean of the temperature anomalies from the three terrestrial and two satellite datasets. The graph showed that in the first eight years of the 21st century the Earth had cooled: . . .
        Karl’s paper appears to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.

        Suppose, ad argumentum, that he is right. In that event, in the past 15 years global warming at the Earth’s surface has continued at the not particularly alarming rate of 0.116 K per decade. In 1990 the IPCC’s central business-as-usual prediction for the medium term was equivalent to 0.28 K per decade, so, on any view, Karl’s paper is an admission that the models have been exaggerating by well over double.

        But let us look at what happened either side of the surface over the same period. . . .
        ARGO is the least bad we have. And what the buoys show is that the rate of global ocean warming in those 11 full years of data is equivalent to less than a fortieth of a degree per decade – 0.023 degrees per decade, to be more precise: . . . .
        Karl’s paper says that from 2000-2014, the 15-year period that includes the 11 years for which we have ARGO data, the surface warming rate was equivalent to 0.116 degrees per decade – more or less exactly five times the measured ocean warming rate. . . .
        Where is Karl’s surface warming coming from?
        It is not coming from above, for in the lower troposphere there was no warming over the 11-year period 2004-2014 (or, for that matter, over the 15-year period 2000-2014).
        Four-fifths of it is not coming from below, . . .
        Not much is coming from the land, for Karl’s paper makes few adjustments to the rate of warming of the air above the land, which in any event accounts for only 29% of the Earth’s surface.
        Where is the missing heat coming from?

        Further more the global climate models predict the greatest warming in the tropical troposphere – contrary to evidence. Where is Monckton wrong on raising the issue of thermodynamics? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/has-noaa-ncdcs-tom-karl-repealed-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/

      • Sorry to burst your bubble, No warmers ; ) but it is every bit as true that there is no observational evidence that CO2 is causing no warming at all (over what would have happened absent our emissions), that it is true that there is no observational evidence that a small amount is occurring. You have to demonstrate it’s not causing any warming at all, somehow, you don’t get to just declare it’s not, and act like the alternative view is somehow under a burden of proof which you’re not also under . . not if you want objective folks to take you seriously anyway, it seems to me.

      • Now, if one side of this inconsequential sub-debate over little or nothing ; ) starts asking for trillions of dollars and global powers as a result of there conclusion, well, then we have a distinct burden of proof imbalance on our hands ; )

      • “there is no observational evidence that CO2 is causing no warming at all”

        Monckton is far too literate to countenance such a double negative claim. The burden of proof falls on the accuser. “There is no observational evidence that I did not shoot the sheriff”, pretty much suggests you shot the sheriff.

        What you are trying to do (besides set up a straw man), is to say there is a terrible dearth of physical evidence to work with. Bravo that.

        If I were a judge in a court of law, I would not send you to the chair because there was no evidence you did not shoot the sheriff.

      • MarkW, I did not claim that. The laws of thermodynamics prohibit the back radiation from a cold atmosphere heating a warm surface, as claimed by alarmists.

        Monckton still believes that the GHE is a true process.

      • gymnosperm,

        “Monckton is far too literate to countenance such a double negative claim.”

        NO warming is a positive assertion in this case. It ain’t my fault someone made a negative positive assertion ; )

      • *Sorry to burst your bubble, zero warmers ; ) but it is every bit as true that there is no observational evidence that CO2 is causing zero warming at all (over what would have happened absent our emissions), that it is true that there is no observational evidence that a small amount is occurring. You have to demonstrate it’s not causing any warming at all, somehow, you don’t get to just declare it’s not, and act like the alternative view is somehow under a burden of proof which you’re not also under . . not if you want objective folks to take you seriously anyway, it seems to me.*

        Hope that rings your bell, teach ; )

    • article: “CO2 causes warming”

      Eric: “… but there is no evidence for that. Oh, there’s theory. But when sterile theory meets the real world .. it’s just not working out like the leftist Chicken Littles said it would. On all timescales we are finding no causal correlation between CO2 and climate warming.”

      That’s the bottom line. There is no evidence CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change.

    • Eric Simpson on January 17, 2017 at 9:50 pm / richard verney on January 18, 2017 at 2:14 am

      1. It would be reasonable to assume that the US temperatures in the 1930s are most representative of world temperatures because of the overwhelming preponderance of US stations at the time.

      The contrary is imho the case. You should have written:

      It would be reasonable to assume that the world temperatures in the 1930s were quite similar to the US temperatures because of the overwhelming preponderance of US stations at the time.

      Moreover, it is very strange that skeptics
      – on the one hand claim that there are by far too few GHCN stations when compared their data with satellite data
      but
      – on the other hand suddenly think a handful stations in Greenland would give representative material for a comparison with the USA.

      Anyway, a correct evaluation of these old charts dated 1975 and even before can only be done by generating for example a temperature series ot of exactly those GHCN stations which existed at that time.

      2. And with all the one way data manipulations, the urban heat island effect, and the vanishing rural stations…

      Nearly all skeptics pretend that the GHCN adusted record contains lots of manipulations wrt the unadjusted record.

      But it is easy to calculate the linear trends for all 7,280 GHCN stations using both records, and to buid the trend differences; and you see that there are nearly as many stations showing a lower adjusted trend than stations showing a higher one.

      Since about 20 years, GISS and NOAA adapt UHI station output by homogenizing the data with that of their rural neighbours.

      But even without these adjustments, you see upon a comparison of e.g. CONUS GHCN stations separated in rural and nonrural stations (by using their nightlight level in the metadata) that there is only a tiny difference between the two subsets.

      • No I’m not ignorant at all (that is what people like you mostly guess in a kind of pavlowian reflex).

        The stations are as good as the proxies, and we need them to compare the with those of CONUS.

        Maybe you aren’t ignorant, but…

      • @Bindidon January 18, 2017 at 7:29 am

        Even today, we have little idea what the temperatures are in the Southern Hemisphere, and hence Globally, since there is so little sampling of the Southern Hemisphere. Going back in time, the position is even worse.

        We have some indication of what temperatures are in the Northern Hemisphere. We can therefore only reasonably examine Northern Hemisphere temperature data.

        You suggest that we should have stated:

        It would be reasonable to assume that the world temperatures in the 1930s were quite similar to the US temperatures because of the overwhelming preponderance of US stations at the time

        I have no issue with your statement provided it is restricted to Northern Hemisphere temperatures and not world temperatures (since as noted there is insufficient temperature sampling in the Southern Hemisphere to make a statement that is global). Since the highs of the 1930s/early 1940s and the early 1970s, the Northern Hemisphere cooled by about 0.6 to 0.8 degC, and since the early 1970s the Northern hemisphere has probably warmed by about 0.4 to 0.7 degC, ie, approximately by about the same amount such that today, the Northern hemisphere is about the same temperature as it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s.

        But do not forget that NCAR used to be of this view:

        And so did the National Academy of Science:

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/0B8C71B1-21CB-709A-4E7E-A7FCDFF8CDCD.jpg.

        <b.AND so was Hansen in his paper published in issue 213 of Science in 1981

        Fig3 in the Hansen 1981 paper is very similar to the NCAR and NAS temperature plots. It is interesting to remember what Hansen had to say in 1981 regarding temperatures He said when introducing Fig3:

        “Northern latitudes warmed ~ 0.8 degC between the 1880s and 1940, then cooled 0.5degC between 1940 and 1970, in agreement with other analyses.”

        And

        A remarkable conclusion from Fig 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based upon Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970.

        So Hansen was of the view that in 1981, the temperatures globally were lower than they were in the 1940s, and in the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature in 1991 was quite a bit cooler than in the 1940s. His Fig 3 shows Northern Hemisphere temperatures in 1980/91 to be about 0.3degC cooler than Northern Hemisphere temperatures in 1940.

        If Northern Hemisphere temperatures have warmed by about 0.3 degC since 1980 to date, then the conclusion is that temperatures today in the Northern Hemisphere are about the same as they were in 1940.

        That is quite important since during this period man has emitted about 95% of his total CO2 emissions and yet it would appear that this has had no measurable impact upon Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

      • richard verney on January 18, 2017 at 9:43 am

        Even today, we have little idea what the temperatures are in the Southern Hemisphere, and hence Globally, since there is so little sampling of the Southern Hemisphere.

        Are you sure? I am not.

        Look for example at the two charts below, in which satellite-based measurements are compared with those made at the surface, for the Northern Hemisphere (NH)

        and the Southern Hemisphere (SH)

        You see that while the NH shows, for 1979-2015, highly different trends at surface and in the troposphere
        – Surf: 0.242 °C / decade
        – Trop: 0.135 °C / decade
        the SH looks quite different:
        – Surf: 0.085 °C / decade
        – Trop: 0.089 °C / decade

        This certainly will be due to the ocean surfaces showing much slower warming than the land surfaces. SH is by far more dominated by oceans than is NH.

        So if we now look at surface beginning with 1880, why shall we not trust to this data?

        How can you trust to data plotted 40 years ago just because it fits to your subjective opinion?

    • Agreed 100%. I’m sick of anyone giving credence to the notion that there has ever been any scientific PROOF that CO2 causes the ATMOSPHERE (not the interior of a BOTTLE, and even that is probably poorly controlled in other ways, e.g., pressure) to warm.

      The Earth’s climate history should tell any real scientist that CO2 has nothing to do with “driving” temperature – if there is a relationship it runs in reverse – temperature (of the ocean surface, in particular) drives CO2 levels.

      To repeat my favorite new tagline, “Observation TRUMPS theory.” ;-D

    • Hello Eric Simpson,

      I have been looking for a world map of weather station coverage that is more recent (ideally for 2016 or 2017) than the one for 1945 posted in your e-mail. However, I have not been able to find one. Please could you post a link if have one? Many thanks.

      Regards,
      John.

  5. ““deny the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the environment have trapped heat, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature … and consequent climate disruption”.”

    probably because the data do not show that warming is related to emissions.
    the evidence presented by climate science (and the IPCC) to attribute warming to emissions is here
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html
    the correlation presented contains a fatal statistical flaw as explained here
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2853163

    to look at the correlation between warming and emissions properly you need a time table. Ricke and Caldeira 2014 say the time scale is a decade. However, no correlation could be found at a dacadal or even at a generational (three decades) time scale.
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972

    to still press on with the assumption that emissions cause warming is a form of data denial.

      • Warming SHOULDN”T be directly related to emissions. In theory, any warming should be proportional to
        the fourth root of (wattage new/wattage old) and the wattage change should be proportional to the logaritm of the change in CO2- that would give small temperature changes quite difficult to measure through the background noise.

      • There is no first order correlation between CO2 driving temperature in the Satellite data set.

        If there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2, to date we have been unable to eek out the signal to CO2 induced warming from the noise of natural variation notwithstanding the use of our best and most sophisticated measuring devices and the inherent shortcomings of our measurement systems and error bounds.

        There are multiple lines of evidence that suggest that temperatures (at any rate in the Northern Hemisphere) are no warmer today than they were back in the late 1930s/early 1940s, notwithstanding that during this period some 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place.

        IF,/b> this is the case, and as I note there are multiple lines of evidence supporting this view (including tree ring data from trees situated in rural non coastal locations compared to raw temperature data from rural non coastal location), then that would suggest that Climate Sensitivity to CO2, if any at all, is rather low; in fact so low that we cannot measure it/observe it (within the limitations of our equipment and the data produced therefrom).

      • Brutal. Approximately a 20% increase in CO2 over fully 40 years and its unique, provable impact on temperatures is…..what, exactly?

      • If there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2, to date we have been unable to eek out the signal to CO2 induced warming from the noise of natural variation notwithstanding the use of our best and most sophisticated measuring devices and the inherent shortcomings of our measurement systems and error bounds.

        And that is because one can not “eek out” such a signal in an “open system”.

        But why is it that everyone persists in hashing, re-hashing and re-re-re-RE-HASHING the same ole, same ole “Climate Sensitivity to atmospheric CO2” question?

        Why is it that no one wants to perform a physical experiment to prove or disprove said “sensitivity” claim?

        It wouldn’t take much money, maybe a couple thousand dollars, max.

        Simply build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. out of 1/2″ white PVC plastic pipe, ……. with the dimensions of 20 x 10 x 8 feet square, ……. outside in an area where each will be subjected to the same environmental conditions (sunshine, darkness, rain, wind), ……. place temperature sensing thermocouples inside of them which are connected to an external located recording device, ……… then cover them “air tight” (top, bottom and sides) with 4 mill clear plastic sheeting …… and when the night time temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. say at 3 AM, …. inject enough CO2 in one of the structures to increase its 400+- ppm of CO2 to say 800 ppm.

        Then record the temperatures in each structure …… and again record said temperatures every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or every ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours.

        And if CO2 is the “global warming” gas that all the proponents of AGW claims it is, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 800 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting in the afternoon, the temperature inside the structure with 800 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.

        And if it doesn’t, …… then the CO2 causing AGW claims are totally FUBAR …… and the re-hashing of the “sensitivity” thingy should cease among learned individuals,

      • Eric Simpson on January 17, 2017 at 10:20 pm

        One more person publishing information without real knowledge about it.

        1. If it makes sense to think about a possible correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature increase, then one should do it properly:

        ΔT = 5.35 x ln (CO2 / CO2initial)

        2. In a graph, plots of series having different value ranges should be normalized by appropriate scaling and shift (imagine you would compare this CO2 stuff with absolute temperatures at around 288 K):

        3. I don’t think that it makes much sense to choose such small time intervals like the satellite era for the comparison, but we could try, why not?

      • Tree ring data has little to do with ‘temperature’ and everything to do with WATER. That that from a person who owns a forest and harvests wood. Indeed, hot summers here on my mountain usually has less rain than cool summers which tend to be much wetter (thus, obviously, it is cooler).

      • Eric Simpson on January 17, 2017 at 10:20 pm (second answer)

        You can’t compare CO2 concentration with temperature anomalies.
        You must use the concentration’s logarithm of the ratio between actual balue and a base value, as in the well known formula

        ΔT = 5.85 * ln (CO2_2016 / CO2_1850)

      • That doesn’t wonder me at all, Bob Boder: you love to doubt. Here is some data.

        Year Conc Ln

        1850 286.34 0.00
        1851 286.56 0.00
        1852 286.77 0.01
        1853 286.97 0.01
        1854 287.16 0.02
        1855 287.34 0.02
        1856 287.51 0.02
        1857 287.68 0.02
        1858 287.84 0.03
        1859 288.00 0.03
        1860 288.15 0.03
        1861 288.30 0.04
        1862 288.43 0.04
        1863 288.55 0.04
        1864 288.67 0.04
        1865 288.79 0.05
        1866 288.90 0.05
        1867 289.01 0.05
        1868 289.12 0.05
        1869 289.23 0.05
        1870 289.33 0.06
        1871 289.44 0.06
        1872 289.57 0.06
        1873 289.71 0.06
        1874 289.86 0.07
        1875 290.01 0.07
        1876 290.15 0.07
        1877 290.30 0.07
        1878 290.44 0.08
        1879 290.59 0.08
        1880 290.74 0.08
        1881 290.91 0.08
        1882 291.08 0.09
        1883 291.24 0.09
        1884 291.40 0.09
        1885 291.56 0.10
        1886 291.73 0.10
        1887 291.89 0.10
        1888 292.06 0.11
        1889 292.23 0.11
        1890 292.40 0.11
        1891 292.58 0.12
        1892 292.76 0.12
        1893 292.94 0.12
        1894 293.12 0.13
        1895 293.31 0.13
        1896 293.51 0.13
        1897 293.70 0.14
        1898 293.91 0.14
        1899 294.12 0.14
        1900 294.35 0.15
        1901 294.59 0.15
        1902 294.84 0.16
        1903 295.11 0.16
        1904 295.40 0.17
        1905 295.70 0.17
        1906 296.01 0.18
        1907 296.35 0.18
        1908 296.70 0.19
        1909 297.04 0.20
        1910 297.39 0.20
        1911 297.73 0.21
        1912 298.05 0.21
        1913 298.37 0.22
        1914 298.69 0.23
        1915 298.98 0.23
        1916 299.26 0.24
        1917 299.53 0.24
        1918 299.78 0.25
        1919 300.03 0.25
        1920 300.29 0.25
        1921 300.58 0.26
        1922 300.84 0.26
        1923 301.13 0.27
        1924 301.45 0.28
        1925 301.77 0.28
        1926 302.09 0.29
        1927 302.42 0.29
        1928 302.78 0.30
        1929 303.16 0.31
        1930 303.55 0.31
        1931 303.91 0.32
        1932 304.20 0.32
        1933 304.44 0.33
        1934 304.72 0.33
        1935 305.01 0.34
        1936 305.34 0.34
        1937 305.70 0.35
        1938 306.06 0.36
        1939 306.40 0.36
        1940 306.77 0.37
        1941 307.17 0.38
        1942 307.57 0.38
        1943 307.97 0.39
        1944 308.38 0.40
        1945 308.74 0.40
        1946 309.07 0.41
        1947 309.50 0.42
        1948 309.99 0.42
        1949 310.48 0.43
        1950 310.99 0.44
        1951 311.60 0.45
        1952 312.29 0.46
        1953 312.98 0.48
        1954 313.69 0.49
        1955 314.43 0.50
        1956 315.25 0.51
        1957 316.11 0.53
        1958 316.99 0.54
        1959 317.86 0.56
        1960 318.74 0.57
        1961 319.64 0.59
        1962 320.55 0.60
        1963 321.50 0.62
        1964 322.49 0.64
        1965 323.53 0.65
        1966 324.60 0.67
        1967 325.70 0.69
        1968 326.83 0.71
        1969 328.00 0.73
        1970 329.22 0.75
        1971 330.45 0.77
        1972 331.67 0.79
        1973 332.95 0.81
        1974 334.24 0.83
        1975 335.50 0.85
        1976 336.79 0.87
        1977 338.17 0.89
        1978 339.58 0.91
        1979 341.04 0.94
        1980 342.48 0.96
        1981 343.85 0.98
        1982 345.19 1.00
        1983 346.58 1.02
        1984 348.01 1.04
        1985 349.51 1.07
        1986 351.05 1.09
        1987 352.61 1.11
        1988 354.24 1.14
        1989 355.92 1.16
        1990 357.58 1.19
        1991 359.20 1.21
        1992 360.74 1.24
        1993 362.21 1.26
        1994 363.69 1.28
        1995 365.17 1.30
        1996 366.68 1.32
        1997 368.22 1.35
        1998 369.72 1.37
        1999 371.18 1.39
        2000 372.67 1.41
        2001 374.21 1.43
        2002 375.79 1.45
        2003 377.48 1.48
        2004 379.29 1.50
        2005 381.21 1.53
        2006 383.14 1.56
        2007 385.12 1.59
        2008 387.14 1.61
        2009 389.22 1.64
        2010 391.34 1.67
        2011 393.53 1.70
        2012 395.79 1.73
        2013 398.13 1.76
        2014 400.56 1.80
        2015 403.05 1.83

        Column 3 in each year line i is the output of

        5.35 * ln (Conc[i] / Conc[1])

        Any further, hopefully more intelligent remark, Bob Boder?

      • bindidon

        Seriously, pick ten random dates from your graph and see if your curves match. You just fit a curve to a begining and end piont on a data set.

        Thanks for proving that you are just a kid playing number games.

      • Seriously, pick ten random dates from your graph…

        Sorry Bob Boder: you seem to be simply unable to reproduce a plot out of my data as I did:

        Don’t pick anything.

        Copy the whole table I published below into Excel or any equivalent tool, and plot (if you are able to: I’m beginning to seriously doubt about that).

      • Bob boder on January 18, 2017 at 4:36 pm

        Thanks for proving that you are just a kid playing number games.

        Thanks in turn for you qualified impression. I’m over 65, and spent – among other life periods – 25 years in design and development of highly complex software products.

        But in the context we discuss I’m no more than a little layman :-)

        One day you certainly will manage to see that the chart (https://i1.wp.com/fs5.directupload.net/images/170118/owvugwit.jpg) very well corresponds to the CO2 plot published in a subsequent comment.

        The fit between ln(CO2) and temperatures does imho not at all imply that CO2 is the cause of the temperature increase! That is a quite different matter… about which we all here know nothing.

      • Bindidon

        No matter how you say it or try spin it all you have done is fit a curve to the beginning and end points of a number set, looks cute but it is meaningless. Your still a kid just playing with numbers no matter how old you are.

      • IRT Samuel C Coger’s experiment (hate that many posts have no “reply” option), you’ve missed something. You would have to monitor both CO2 level and the PRESSURE in each vessel, since ADDING CO2 to one adds pressure, which will ALSO increase temperature.

        Of course, this doesn’t mean that much, since the “closed” system will not be open to the vacuum of space, and is not subject to other atmospheric processes like convection and to cloud and precipitation feedbacks, all of which render the experiment fairly meaningless. Bottom line is, we can’t divine what CO2 does in the atmosphere by what occurs in a bottle or a tube that is sealed. We can, however, look at historical CO2 vs. temperature and see that the effect of CO2 on temperature is essentially…NIL.

    • Warming SHOULDN”T be directly related to emissions. In theory, any warming should be proportional to
      the fourth root of (wattage new/wattage old) and the wattage change should be proportional to the logaritm of the change in CO2- that would give small temperature changes quite difficult to measure through the background noise.

      • Does it not seem a little ironic that while WUWT has on more than a few occasions criticised the other side for sending unsavoury emails to skeptics, the mods have left this request up, indicating they are (just quietly) happy for the bullets to fly the other way.

      • Maybe the email address is just to send useful information that might help Offit understand the error of his ways.

      • Simon,

        “Does it not seem a little ironic that while WUWT has on more than a few occasions criticised the other side for sending unsavoury emails to skeptics, the mods have left this request up, indicating they are (just quietly) happy for the bullets to fly the other way.”

        Not really . . I have no idea what was in the criticized e-mails, and severely doubt it was just a blanket criticism for sending any response at all to someone who already said very harsh things about anyone with a differing view than themselves . . Frankly, it looks to me like you worked at constructing that accusation based on nothing more than e-mail being involved . . regardless of the contents . . Do you get paid for posting this weak-ass “outrage” crap?

  6. Methinks the good doctor has spent too much time in the company of juveniles for his is a story only a child could believe. Like all fairy tales penned to scare children it is filled with myth and fancy with a hero who wears his underwear too tight over his pantihose. That’s enough about pediatrics.

    The main lesson here is that the medium of communication permits the author to tell it’s audience what other people think, rather than risking a presentation ‘from the horse’s mouth’. A “debate” on such a channel consists of a Trump hater expressing his view to another Trump hater who explains what Trump probably thinks. This is not particularly about Trump though it certainly applies. It is about living inside a mental bubble where contact with those outside is anathema.

    The good doctor has his head so far up his bubble that “what others think” must be inferred because he has no grasp of the facts, let alone how others analyze them. Trump is uncouth but he can think and read facts, two skills apparently in short supply in Bubblehead Land.

    I am not sure I want this guy out of the bubble. He is less dangerous knowing nothing instead of a little. Eloquence and ignorance are a dangerous combination. Better to let sleeping docs lie, if you get my drift.

  7. This lack of curiosity is inferentially attributable to an awareness on the part of the dopes

    Dopes? DOPES?
    I eagerly await every new missive from Monckton in eager anticipation of some obscure but germane word not previously in my vocabulary, and hence sent scurrying for a new browser window from which to divine its meaning. Dopes seams so… you OK Christopher? ;-)

    • davidmhoffer
      I too eagerly await Monchton’s posts. I thoroughly enjoy his lexicon , wit and knowlege. I was baffled by your search of his use of “dope”. I looked it up too out of curiosity, although, it was a colloquial expression my family has used for two generations. Curiously, the definition of our use, was not to be found. My intellectual grandfather would use that term -dope- when I would ask a question or perform an action that did not comport to common sense. When my children or associates do silly things I refer to them as dopes. Doubt if that helps you in you quest, but I would feel like a dope if I didn’t respond to your comments. I’ll call Webster in the morning and see if I can abridge the next dictionary, with what I thought a common word!!
      I love this website, in large part because of people like you!

      • That’s right- it was the climate dwarves Dopey, Sleazy, Venal, Greedy, Idle, Bully, and Retard. Monckton also reminds us of the lesser known but smarter Rebarbative. It’s a big family (well known to the Gnome tribe).

      • Cannabis is called Dope in certain countries for that very reason. With most users it makes them Dopy, and others that are naturally Dopey, it makes them Dopier. Those that use it consistantly become Dopeheads.

  8. “Science is not done by consensus”
    Agree.
    What I have to continue to ask alarmists is why 97% carries weight when it comes to numbers of scientists, but not when 97%/yr CO2 emissions are natural.

    • Even as a skeptic, I can answer that: the 97% naturally occurring CO2 is cycled in and out (with a slight loss of CO2, currently, even with the slight input from volcanic action). The 3% we add accumulates in the sinks (Land, Oceans, Atmosphere). ~0,5% CO2 is added to the atmosphere annually.

      Now, I don’t think that is harmful. I think it is beneficial, net. But we are the reason CO2 is increasing, not any reasonable doubt about that.

      • I think there’s plenty of “reasonable doubt” about that. The only CO2 emissions we actually measure (and even that may be more inferred from energy consumption than actually measured) is our fossil fuel related emissions. Natural sources of CO2 emission are not measured, nor is absorption by sinks – it’s all “estimates.” So how can we say, scientifically, that rising CO2 is down to human activities? In my view, we can’t – it’s just more assumptions by those trying to push the “program,” that are too easily accepted as supposed “facts.”

        Remember the ice core records that show CO2 following temperature by about 800 years? Go back 800 years and you find yourself…in the Medieval Warm Period. THAT might be the reason for today’s climbing CO2 levels – just a echo of previous warm climate cycling through the oceans. I’ll believe that long before the blather of today’s “Climastrologists.”

      • “The 3% we add accumulates in the sinks (Land, Oceans, Atmosphere).”
        I don’t think nature differentiates between ours and “hers” – (just sayin’ :) – I do get your point)

        Seriously, though, when alarmists assume that it’s us causing the warming because we’re burning fossil fuels, they are making a serious error. Man has always burned things for energy and always released CO2 as a result. Switching to fossil fuels really didn’t change much.

      • Fair enough – now to that I say “So ?”

        Well, that’s what I say, too. I actually think the added CO2 has had, so far, considerable net benefit for both man and beast.

        Natural sources of CO2 emission are not measured, nor is absorption by sinks – it’s all “estimates.”

        Well, yes. But anthropogenic CO2 does contain a telltale chemical signature. So our estimates are not merely shooting in the dark.

        Seriously, though, when alarmists assume that it’s us causing the warming because we’re burning fossil fuels, they are making a serious error. Man has always burned things for energy and always released CO2 as a result. Switching to fossil fuels really didn’t change much.

        Well, population is a lot bigger and a lot more energy is used per capita, nowadays, thanks to modern technology. And it really doesn’t take a whole lot to increase CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm.

        OTOH, the added CO2 and the mild warming accompanying it is regarded as the cause of the “Great Greening”, as per Dr. Goklany’s work. And the warming effects of CO2 are, according to Arrhenius, a sharply diminishing return, anyway. In any event, the dreaded Positive Feedbacks are simply not showing up in the data (and that’s what they do — if they exist). So the warming is mild and will top out at (probably) well under +2C going forward.

        So, yeah, I think we have affected things a bit via added CO2. But, on the whole, for the better.

    • It is probably easier to understand if we thought of it as a “turnover rate”

      For example, water vapor has a turnover rate of 40 times per year. There is 1 inch of water vapor in the atmosphere and the average rainfall rate is 40 inches. 40 times per year or each 9 days.

      For CO2, it is more like 27% or once every 3.5 years. Natural absorption/emission rate is about 237 Gts Carbon per year while the amount in the atmosphere is currently 850 Gts Carbon.

      So, the turnover rate for CO2 is 27% per year or every 3.5 years.

      • Yes. One can, of course, get some pretty nifty diagrams of the various turnovers of the CO2 cycle(s).

  9. Less than twenty days ago, the Sahara Desert had …. snow.
    So did Saudi Arabia,
    Turkey …
    … and Greece.

    Warming?
    What warming?

  10. Anyone who says “the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the environment have trapped heat” is a scientific charlatan and there is no need to read any further.

  11. No one denies that Man is now capable of exerting some influence on climate.”

    Hate to put the mockers on you Monckers but that can’t be right. If I needed to I could go quickly go and find 5 quotes here that say just that and a few more that go all the way:
    Eric (in this thread)
    “I don’t even think it’s warming”

    Come off it Monckers.

    • “I don’t even think it’s warming.”

      Not in the US. It was hotter in the 1930s, even Hansen agrees, so through 80 years it’s not warming in the US. And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences showed the Northern Hemisphere (64% of land) as dramatically cooler than 1940, and since ’75 there’s only been mild warming.

      But what about the Southern Hemisphere? Hmm:

      Isn’t Australia part of the Southern Hemisphere?

      • Eric Simpson on January 17, 2017 at 11:27 pm

        1. And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences showed the Northern Hemisphere (64% of land) as dramatically cooler than 1940…

        Yes. But
        – how many stations did not exist worldwide in 1975?
        – how many stations did exist worldwide in 1975 but weren’t integrated in the GHCN at that time yet?

        2. … and since ’75 there’s only been mild warming.

        Oh yes. Exactly as mild as between 1910 and 1940.

        You seem to have forgotten that this is exactly the reason why so many people (me included) can’t understand why CO2 alone should be the warming’s driver, as far less CO2 was emitted at that time.

        3. Isn’t Australia part of the Southern Hemisphere?

        – Why do you choose here Tmax instead of Tavg? Maybe because the latter doesn’t show what you want?
        – How can you compare Australia’s 8 mio km² land with the water dominated hemisphere around it?

        Even in the troposphere they differ by a lot since 1979:
        – UAH AUS: 0.16 °C / decade;
        – UAH SH: 0.09 °C/decade.

      • Bindidon It’s not surprising that you give the fully discredited (because of data manipulations and the urban heat island effects) GISS Surface Temperature to support your fallacious point about it being hotter now than in the ’30s.

      • Eric Simpson on January 18, 2017 at 3:56 pm

        Bindidon It’s not surprising that you give the fully discredited (because of data manipulations and the urban heat island effects) GISS Surface Temperature to support your fallacious point about it being hotter now than in the ’30s.

        Eric Simpson, I suspect you to know simply nothing about what you pretend.

        1. Did you ever read anything on this page?
        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

        There you could read (my emphasis)

        GISS homogenization (urban adjustment)

        One of the improvements — introduced in 1998 — was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations.

        Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

        This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.

        But maybe you prefer to speak about “data manipulations” and “fallacious points”.

        2. Here is a chart comparing, for the CONUS from 1880 till today, very rural places with the rest:

        The data was obtained by selecting, out of all US GHCN stations, those showing in their metadata both rural mode and least nightlight.

        Where is the fallacious point, Mr Simpson?

    • That is your rebutal? Do you not understand, that the word”any” influence on climate is not qualified at all is it? So that includes minscule warming, cooling, local increase or decrease in rain, UHI, etc…

      However a reasonable person presumes Monckton is referring to published scientists.

    • Bzzzzt! Reading comprehension FAIL. Saying that man is capable of exerting influence doesn’t mean that a manmade warming signal has been shown, simply that it COULD be there, somewhere. Furthermore, even a millionth of a degree of manmade warming qualifies as “some influence”.
      So you come off it, troll.

    • “Come off it Monckers.”

      Mcleod, you’re always wittering about other posters being disrespectful.

      Funny how you seem to except yourself from that stricture, isn’t it?

      Tell me, are you predominantly a Guardian reader, by chance?

  12. “How much “climate disruption” global warming causes, however, is a matter of legitimate scientific debate …”.
    =======================
    It’s puzzling how someone who recognises that banning DDT for the sake of the environment led to an epidemic-level rise in world malaria (Pandora’s Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong) has such a crude (mis)understanding of the issues in the climate debate, for instance cannot see the cost/benefit argument concerning fossil fuels.

    • Touche! Again, those who screech the loudest about “action on climate change” both fail to realize how futile the proposed “solutions” are EVEN IF THE GARBAGE SCIENCE WAS RIGHT, and also completely take for granted everything they have and the life they enjoy BECAUSE OF fossil fuels. And can’t see “climate change” (TM) as the junk science that it is even when they do recognize the results of following other such junk science, such as the unnecessary and ultimately extremely harmful banning of DDT.

  13. Bravo My Lord !!!
    I am going to copy this into my Mac, and keep it among my treasures, and will send it to my “alarmist friends”, whenever I feel I need help.
    Thank you, thank you , thank you

  14. This is mere hate speech – and it is precisely this shrieking tone of quivering, anti-scientific, pseudo-moralistic, unreasoning hatred that has driven voters away from the Left on both sides of the Atlantic and has led to the timely collapse of the mainstream news media’s influence on public opinion.

    CoB does have a way with words. Very nicely put.

  15. Next, Offit snarls, in that tone of perpetual malice: “Although climate change is undeniable, the current administration has managed to deny it.”

    Oh what ? Obama is a climate deenerz too?!

  16. On the other hand Trump has thrown his lot in with the Ant-Vaxxers despite the link between Autism and Inoculations being disproved time and time again. When one person wanders away from science it is not usually too damaging. When a US President does it, it’s a potential disaster.

  17. First and foremost (pr)Offit is collecting money from his share in Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine, which no one actually wants, but everyone must speak in favour of. As with all vaccines, regardless of the death and misery some of them cause, you do not say a bad word about vaccines and expect continuation of your scientific career.

    Same goes with climate. For every mentioning of climate other than imminent scorching total annihilation, your name and fame is ruined. Climate “science” comes convoluted, skewed, distorted, and missing, yet you are expected to enthusiastically call it science. You do not question climate. Or else.

    I know many people here will jump in to vaccines’ defence, although there are no defenceless vaccines ever to be found. Even when some of them get retracted because of terrible side effects, somehow even those are somehow good for you. The vast majority of the medical establishment (and pretentious “scientific” public… and their dogs) will jump in at the first notion of vaccines described in any but the stellar manner. Vaccine “science” comes convoluted, skewed, distorted, and missing, and yet you are expected to enthusiastically call it science. You do not question vaccines. Or else.

    In (pr)Offits case climate scare is sailing the known waters. Just a bit more of the same. He knows what he is doing. Mark my words, he’ll make a deep impression in climate.

    • The difference between Pro-Vaccers and Anti-vaccers is Pro-vaccers use science to support their argument , anti-vaccers use argument to manufacture their science. No Autistic charity supports the idea that vaccines cause autism.
      Ok, Ok, it may all be a conspiracy by Big Pharma, but I suspect the alternate therapy industry being worth $35 billion a year in the US alone, may have some bearing on the idea.
      The National Autistic society state that:
      “The National Autistic Society is clear that there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine”.
      http://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/position-statements/mmr-vaccine.aspx

      • Gareth, thanks for proving my point.
        You’ll find enormous number of quacks in every walk of life, including science. More so in the field of vaccines, and here is why…
        Your stance that Pro-vaxxers are somehow more sciency is ridiculous on the basis that opinions are not science, and your links show that. Neither is MMR the only vaccine out there, nor is autism the only issue.
        A problematic idea pushed by the Pro-vaxxers lot – all vaccines being good for you – defies logic, so contrary to your belief I’d say Pro-vaxxers are science-challenged by definition. I’m not saying things are any better with Anti-vaxxers. I’m only pointing that as a Pro-vaxxer you are not inclined to observe your opponents arguments rationally.

  18. ummm… Monckton isn’t a climate scientist and yet he happily wanders off to pronounce on global warming…

    I don’t se there’s any bar on non-experts writing on the subject… that’s what this site is about, isn’t it?

    • Give him a break Griff. When I first joined this site many years ago I was a committed sceptic. It was reading numerous posts by Monckton that made me question my beliefs, then realise I was profoundly mistaken. I now support mainstream climate science and everything Monckton writes assures me I was not mistaken in my conclusion. Monckton is one of the most important Aces warmists have in convincing sceptics that they are mistaken. Long may he continue writing!

      • Gareth

        So you now believe that the world is going to catastrophically end do to Co2 emissions? You believe that we are going to have run away warming and become Venus? You believe that all the ice in the world is going to melt and drown everyone in the next 30 to 50 tears?

        Yes you have become much more reasonable.

      • Gareth

        Maybe you should also reconsider agree with Griff since has been caught time and time again make totally basis accusations about almost every scientist that he disagrees with to the point of totally knowingly lying about them. Why Anthony still allows this creep on his site I will never know.

      • @ Bob Boder

        “Gareth
        So you now believe that the world is going to catastrophically end do to Co2 emissions? You believe that we are going to have run away warming and become Venus? You believe that all the ice in the world is going to melt and drown everyone in the next 30 to 50 tears?
        Yes you have become much more reasonable.”

        No, I don’t actually believe that any more than I believe Humans have absolutely no effect on climate. sadly false news does not only apply to politics and is rife on all sides of the climate debate.
        However, you are correct in that I am pretty reasonable, always have been ;)

      • Griff seems touch a lot of raw nerves that others cannot reach. Its puzzling, he/she seems to be on the more curteous end of things here on WUWT. Perhaps seeing alternate interpretations makes some posters really angry for one reason or another? When undertaking my political awareness courses, one of my lecturers pointed out that in online debates, that if someone is becoming irrationally angry, you must be making some powerful points and observations.

      • It should be easy for you to:
        1) Demonstrate where Lord Monckton is wrong.
        2) A few links to support your claim that you were once a skeptic. Your writings have been hard core warmista for as long as I have reading your posts.

      • Paul, it’s amazing how many people have to lie about what they used to believe in an effort to get us to agree with them now.

      • Gareth

        “No, I don’t actually believe that any more than I believe Humans have absolutely no effect on climate. sadly false news does not only apply to politics and is rife on all sides of the climate debate.”

        Who here ever said that man doesn’t have an effect on the environment.
        What I have said and most here say is that there is no C in AGW and to reorder the entire world for the sake of a effect that is by and large positive and who’s negative effects are easily mitigated is ridiculous.

        “Griff seems touch a lot of raw nerves that others cannot reach. Its puzzling, he/she seems to be on the more curteous end of things here on WUWT. Perhaps seeing alternate interpretations makes some posters really angry for one reason or another? When undertaking my political awareness courses, one of my lecturers pointed out that in online debates, that if someone is becoming irrationally angry, you must be making some powerful points and observations.”

        Or it could also be that he/she/it is a blatant liar and makes statements about honest people that are total attempts at character assassination and has been caught many times, hence my constant Polar Bear comments to him/her/it, and the need to point it out to anyone dumb enough to fall for his/her/it’s garbage.

        “However, you are correct in that I am pretty reasonable”

        Than you should try using your reasonableness to actual reason.

      • @ Paul Penrose

        I was never a sceptic ? Ah my dear chap, you have to back into the depths of misty history on WUWT. I was one of the very early posters and a confirmed sceptic who argued my case here and on other sites. However, as I mentioned, a few things Monckton got fundamentally wrong as well as a few dodgy posts by Willis led me to look a bit more closely, and as the saying goes, when the evidence changes, so do I.
        I must admit though, I still enjoy reading Willis’ posts due to his skill as a writer.

      • @ Bob

        “Who here ever said that man doesn’t have an effect on the environment:

        Actually Bob, there are lots of people on this site who claim that very thing, in you’ll find them on this thread.
        Come on Lads , who’ll be the first to give Bob the news !

      • Apparently just you. ALL creatures have an impact on their environment, not just man. It is the degree of the impact that is in question.

        Your claim appears to follow a pattern. You were against it before you were for it (Is this really Kerry?), you see things that do not exist.

        You are becoming a troll. Stick to the science and leave the projecting to the movies.

      • Gareth

        There are people here that say co2 has very little measurable affect, there are some that co2 has cooling affect, but I have been reading post here for a very long time and have never seen anyone say that man has no affect on the environment. By the way CMoB thinks that mans Co2 emmisions have warmed the atmosphere, same for Anthony Watts, Willis E, Bob Tisdale and the vast majority of major contributors here at WUWT.

      • @MarkW
        “Paul, it’s amazing how many people have to lie about what they used to believe in an effort to get us to agree with them now”.

        You are welcome to explore my posts from as far back as you can find. I would imagine that once you discover I was in fact truthful in my assertions, you will wish to apologise for you allegations of lying.
        Then again, I won’t hold my breath.
        I wonder if you could ever admit you were wrong if presented with reliable evidence that contradicted your presumed beliefs ?

      • Gareth sounds like the he had the same kind of “road to Damascus” conversion from skeptic to warmist as Richard Muller of Berkley Earth. In other words, Gareth’s conversion story just reeks of BS. Monckton and Willis are just two vocal contributors among many in the skeptic pantheon. But Gareth asserts that just these two of many skeptics convinced him that the warmists had the truth of the matter. What a crock!

      • @ Robert Austin January 18, 2017 at 2:17 pm

        Gareth sounds like the he had the same kind of “road to Damascus” conversion

        No Robert, it was incremental, there was no morning when I awoke and thought ” Wow, I was wrong”
        There are some areas where I am still sceptical, like most people I am not 100 % convinced by any argument, there will always be questions.
        One thing that did inform my decisions were the sceptics who consistently insulted and abused anyone who they disagreed with. Those people rarely backed their argument with reasonable debate. Such people are in the main on the sceptic side. You are an elegant example of that principle. I am grateful. Please keep up the good work.

      • Gareth says:

        One thing that did inform my decisions were the sceptics who consistently insulted and abused anyone who they disagreed with.

        So you extend the attribution of your conversion to warmism to some additional rude skeptics that you have encountered. Still the same ridiculous argument. Skeptics do not have a monopoly on rudeness and dismissal. A visit by Gareth to many of the warmist blogs would surly reveal venom towards skeptics equal to or surpassing that of skeptics. And the climategate revelations about “esteemed” climate scientists were of little importance to Gareth in comparison to the surly attitudes of skeptics in the weighing of the so called evidence. You could have ignored the deplorable lay skeptics and focused on the papers and opinions of skeptical scientists such as Roy Spencer, William Happer or Richard Lintzen. But no, it was the skeptic rabble that, by their “uninformed” skepticism, convinced you of the the warnist cause. Gareth, you may have experienced a conversion from skepticism to warmism, but your explanation is juvenile and unconvincing. In fact, it smacks of a subtle kind of concern trollism.

    • ” Monckton isn’t a climate scientist and yet he happily wanders off to pronounce on global warming”

      You don’t have to be a climate scientist to be able to read and digest data that over the years has proven, without a shadow of doubt, that global warming is just not happening. It’s scientists.who don’t accept the data that are the problem.

    • I love it when you trolls scream that only the high priests of your religion are permitted to comment on global warming.

      • Mark, I think one of the issues the article is about is the fact that this chap Offit is not a climate scientist. As Monckton says :

        “When a medical doctor with no prior record of publication in the learned journals of climate science wanders off the reservation and writes for a collectivist website about the totalitarians’ favorite Trojan horse, global warming, one expects nonsense”

        So I suspect your comment would be better directed at Monckton for the purposes of this thread as it is him who raised the issue.

    • Robert Austin

      I have a pretty long memory and really don’t remember Gareth being a regular on WUWT for more than the last year or so and I don’t remember him ever being a skeptic, but he say its so, so it must be so, like the rest of the things that he said where so in this stream, oh wait most of them weren’t. In the end it doesn’t really matter much because whether he change his views or not does make him any more knowledgeable or credible. His arguments hold little water as far as I can tell but who knows maybe he will surprise us.

      As for being civil

      “On the other hand Trump has thrown his lot in with the Ant-Vaxxers despite the link between Autism and Inoculations being disproved time and time again. When one person wanders away from science it is not usually too damaging. When a US President does it, it’s a potential disaster.”
      Factually incorrect accusation as proven by a link that Gareth himself provided

      “Monckton is one of the most important Aces warmists have in convincing sceptics that they are mistaken. Long may he continue writing!”
      sounds civil to me

      “I wonder if you could ever admit you were wrong if presented with reliable evidence that contradicted your presumed beliefs ?”
      A quick shot at Mark W

      Three quick examples from this thread of Gareth’s passive aggressive incivility, but maybe these are isolated examples and he will show us all how to behave tomorrow.

    • If the current high priests declare you are a scientist, then you are a scientist.
      If you fail to get their blessing, then you aren’t a scientist.
      That’s how post-modern science works.

  19. From “How much “climate disruption” global warming causes, however, is a matter of legitimate scientific debate” to “totalitarians Trojan horse”.

    Make your mind up.

  20. Not many coal fired power stations 1694-1733 but Dud Dudley had proven that you could make cheaper iron from sea coale than from charcoal. He had a catalogue and his Martellum Martis of 1665 was not so much a paper on fining techniques as a plea that Parliament should stop the Luddite charcoal burners from destroying his furnaces. I don’t think he changed the climate but his cheap, plentiful iron changed the world and he needs to be remembered.

  21. In accordance with the new laws enacted in the UK , this gentleman should be charged with a hate crime, inciting hatred by use of the word “denier”and equivocating such as Holocaust Deniers.
    Take him down Mr Plod!

  22. Ok. So it’s yet another piece of garbage from the alarmist perpetual motion machine. Why out of the multitude of garbage produced on this day did this piece come to the attention of Lord Monckton?

  23. Griff your expert climate scientists have had 30 plus years and billions if not trillions to spend on the subject and remind me of anything that passes for evidence that they have come up with !

    • Indeed. The Climate Fascists love to talk as if they’ve already proven their case and that it’s the burden of the non-believers to “prove” THEM wrong. Truly laughable.

  24. Whilst I agree that the magnitude and certainty surrounding the greenhouse effect have probably been greatly overstated I take exception to a couple of things in this article. Calling someone a denier of something is reasonable (although apparently not true in this case.) it is a normal English word free for anyone to use. It is silly to say that someone who uses the word denier is likening the said denier to a denier of the holocaust unless that was clearly the intent (which I profess no knowledge of having not read offits original blog-if that was his meaning then everyone is quite right to be outraged). It isn’t a nice phrase but that’s the end of it. We wouldn’t be able to use any words if every word was automatically imbued with the meaning of the worst association it had ever had! Oh wait I am a doctor I shouldn’t make a comment about language. What’s with the medical doctor bashing? I thought one of the sceptic points was that argument from authority was meaningless. Logic and fairness needs to go both ways.

    • I agree. Being “in denial” comes from Freud or his followers and was used before Holocaust denial became an issue. It’s the perfect shorthand term for what warmists are trying (mistakenly) to convey.

    • @Perkins, @Roger
      While on the face of it a reasonable position, the fact is that two journalists (Pollard [2006], Goodman [2007]) made a deliberate comparison with the Holocaust and very much intended that linkage to permeate the public discourse. The usual suspects have been more than happy to pile on. Motives matter.

      • Agreed 100%. Add to the “denier” epithet the calling for a “climate Nuremburg” to punish the non-believers. Considering the nonsense they tout as “settled science,” such characterizations and calls for “justice” are disgusting.

  25. Take away line,
    “Totalitarian politics is done by consensus (or, rather, by the pretense of it). Those who argue from consensus, then, demonstrate two things: that they are scientifically illiterate and politically collectivist.”

  26. Medical doctors are quite entitled to comment on science in an area they have studied formally or informally……anybody is, indeed hugely important work is done by non qualified scientists such as Steyn and Delingpole. ( The former’s first volume on Mannscience, which had me sobbing with laughter, is a case in point.)

    The issue here is that Dr Offit is dealing with politics, pseudo-science and religion, not science, so his medical qualifications are irrelevant. His unutterable nonsense deservedly gets the ermine encased baseball battery treatment with which his Lordship regularly entertains us non believing, denying deplorables.( I’ll just get back in the basket.)

  27. I think estimated warming,

    all african temps are estimated, all urban areas are given Zero points for quality by the WMO

  28. Dr. Paul Offit? The same Dr. Offit that said you could give a child 10,000 vaccines at one time with no harm? Let’s see, vaccines provoke an immune response, and an overwhelming immune response from 10,000 vaccines at once is no problem! Kid’s gonna be alright. Got it.

  29. You would think that pediatric medicine in America could provide parents of young children with a definitive answer as to what our nations children should be given to drink. Yet, there is NO CONSENSUS among pediatric physicians on this “what to drink” question. Half say “milk” is “good”, but the other half say milk is “bad”. The same goes for water and fruit juice; no consensus. Perhaps the good Dr. could tell us what is what and more importantly, why. And perhaps the gov’t could avoid legislating on matters when they don’t actually know what they’re doing and just let consumers decide. “I’ll see your apple juice and raise you one solar panel.”

  30. WMO- “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface
    air temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyear regional assessment for Africa could not
    be based on any of the three standard global
    surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4 Instead, the
    combination of the Global Historical Climatology
    Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring
    System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System
    Research Laboratory was used to estimate
    s

  31. it is sad that a Doctor has to lower him self. i was taught that you must respect a Doctor but that has changed in the world we live in now they soon be selling cars on the side

  32. The “betrayal” article is a most loathsome and vile heap of typical green-piss wreckage.

    One suspects that the “betrayal” writer is using his third class ticket on the Great Global Warming Gravy Train.

    Come Friday, he will surely be … off it !

  33. According to the IPCC the worldtemperature was influenced by CO2 only after 1950. If you look at the temperature data then there was no rising until 1983 if you omit the pacific decadel shift through which the mean worldtemperature rose by 0,18°C. The pacific decadel shift has nothing to do with CO2.

    • Oh but they always try quite purposefully to conflate ANY warming with CO2, because once you start making deductions for the (known, only – there are undoubtedly others) natural climate forces that have warmed temperatures over whatever period, there’s precious little left to be “blamed” on CO2 – and therefore precious little reason to panic about it. Hardly the result the Climate Fascists are after.

  34. As a pediatrician, ask him about the consensus of how an infant should sleep. On its stomach? Back? Side? At one time the “consensus” was on the stomach! Then along came SIDS. And now the consensus is side.

    I will pray for his patients. Apparently he thinks medicine never changes and that if there is a consensus, then it will always be that way.

  35. I think humans can an do have an effect, or rather multiple different effects, on the climate, but that CO2 is not the only or even the biggest driver. They focus on it and not more important things, and I actually believe that most if not all human effects are not global but local and regional…cut all the forests down around Mt. Kilimanjaro, and lo and behold the microclimate at the peak changes and becomes dryer. I also think you integrate over enough local/regional climate changes you can get an effect over a large area, but not global in reach and not due to a trace gas in the atmosphere. But it’s hard to remake the entire global economy and political systems based on that.

    I also hate the attitude of this “doctor.” I don’t know nuthin bout no climate science, but you should listen to me anyway because unlike you knuckle dragging bohunks I believe what “smart” people tell me. How completely screwed up is that kind of mindset?

  36. ‘he considers himself qualified to state’

    As do you, Lord Monckton. You are the last person I would expect to dismiss someone’s comments due to their lack of approved credentials.

    • But M’lud has studied the subject 100 times more intensely than Offitt, who is just recycling the “blah of the times.” (Mencken)

      • Gamecock: “Attack the blah, not the man who said it.”

        Monckton and others here have already attacked Offitt’s blah. I correctly criticized your attempt to equate Offitt’s level of climate expertise with Monckton’s. I went on to point out that Offitt had no thinking of his own to offer, but was “just recycling the ‘blah of the times.'”

        I believe that at this point criticizing the man is in order, given that he’s deliberately employed an often-refuted strawman. This amounts to deliberate misrepresentation, designed to mislead:

        Monckton: “he considers himself qualified to state that the “climate denialists” President Trump and his appointees to EPA and Energy, Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry, “deny the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the environment have trapped heat, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature … ”.”

      • Gamecock whines that I have no credentials. But I have a longish list of reviewed papers in the learned journals. Then it whines, from behind its cowardly cloak of anonymity, that I should attack Offit’s arguments rather than Offit himself. It should read the head posting, which is devoted to a point-by-point refutation of Offitt’s drivel.

      • “But I have a longish list of reviewed papers in the learned journals. ”

        OK.
        Then you must have a ready Word doc of them that you can post on here. Yes?

        Oh, and you said “reviewed” – that would be peer-reviewed, and “learned”, as in reputable peer-reviewed journals?

        I await the list.

      • BTW: If you reply at all, I am expecting this type of response to the poster above ….

        “Then it whines, from behind its cowardly cloak of anonymity, ”

        One day you may realise that it is not all about you. And treating criticism of any kind that way, displays, at the very least, poor manners.
        Fit for a Lord?

        As someone said in this thread.
        Best ammo the consensus science has.
        Keep up up please.

      • “Mr Banton is his usual unpleasant self. He cowers and snivels behind a failed attempt at anonymity, like so many of his ilk. Let him look for my papers online..

        Christopher:
        I take that reply – in your usual classy style, as befit a (hereditary and non HoL’s member) Lord of the realm, as an evasion of having to reveal that indeed you have no “longish list” of reviewed papers at all. Just the odd self published one that managed to get printed.

        And my identity is freely available on both CE, where you no doubt got it from.
        Not big and not cleaver my Lord.
        The reason I am anonymous here (as is the vast majority at BTW ) is because I was once physically threaten by a particularly deranged denizen, and I value my like. Ta.
        BTW: Anthony intervened.

        This is your last resort to ply you special brand of lies, evasion and nastiness and bunkum.
        As our American friends say.
        Have a good day.

        Oh, and as someone who has a degree in the “Classics” (making you uniquely qualified to pontificate on climate science of course), then you should understand that the verb “to deny” is not permanently welded to the noun “……..” and an adverb in front of that verb qualifies it, which “climate” obviously does.
        So it is particularly telling of your persecuted mind-set, that you allude to WW2, when plainly none was intended.

        Those really wanting to know the truth of our Lord – then just Google “Monckton’s Bunkum”.

        From:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

        “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”. Forum on Physics and Society, American Physical Society. July 2008.

        “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.””
        The Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Monckton is policy director, has published nine non peer-reviewed articles by Monckton on climate-change science.[80]

  37. Who cares what Paul Offit says, for crying out loud.

    Does this blog sponsor a post to debunk every stupid warmist? If so, just start a new blog that provides red meat for every “skeptic” who’s compelled to say the same things day after day. The same graphs; the same narrative.

    This is the sort of thing that killed Dot Earth.

    We don’t need a post every day. Let’s give it a rest if there’s nothing more interesting to talk about.

    • “The same graphs; the same narrative.”

      This post actually has a new graph. The one of Australia. The one that shows Australia was hotter in the 1930’s than it is today, conforming to unaltered temperature charts of the NH. The heat of the 1930’s was global. That’s why the alamists decided to engage in an international conspir@cy “Climategate” to change all the records.

      If we wanted accurate climate information, we would be better off getting our data out of old newspaper and scientific articles, than depending on GISS and other manipulated surface temperature records.

      Same old narrative? No, the same old narrative is claiming the surface temperature records are accurate. The new narrative pokes holes in that claim. Like that Australian chart does. Thanks, Eric.

    • “This is the sort of thing that killed Dot Earth.”

      I didn’t even know she was dead. Was she ill long?

  38. As a physician and scientist, I apologize for my profession’s embarrassing credulity in matters of climate. It is a credulity that we would never tolerate in the literature within our own specialties.

    The medical literature went through its own dark times decades ago, when cancer researchers would report the benefits of a new treatment for “responders” while ignoring the majority of “non-responders” who were made sicker. The leading medical journals long stopped accepting statistically illegitimate methods. But, this type of cherry picking and data peeking is still standard practice in the climate journals, largely because of the explosion of over-funded, but under-trained junior faculty who are riding the alarmist boom times. McIntyre & McKittrick exposed Mann’s illegitimate practice of picking trees that were “responders” for constricting his hockey stick over 10 years ago, yet this type of practice continues in the climate literature.

    Perhaps the fault lies in the reader’s assumption that climate journals subject their authors to the same rigorous review that cancer researchers face in The New England Journal of Medicine. What is particularly galling to me is when my colleagues predict all sorts of adverse health consequences from a small amount of warming and greening of the planet, when the reverse is far more likely, and when health and life expectancy always rise hand-in-hand with the deployment of reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy.

  39. The warming rate over the 40 years 1694-1733, demonstrated by the Central England Temperature Record, a reasonable proxy for global temperature anomalies, was considerably greater than in any subsequent 40-year period.

    Perhaps because it was so cold outside that they started measuring the temperatures indoors!

    • Perhaps because it was so cold outside that they started measuring the temperatures indoors!

      It’s suspected that that’s what happened in Siberia in recent decades.

  40. Hand in your Doctor card – you just violated your own law you vowed to uphold – Primum non nocere

    • Law? What law? if you’re thinking of the Hippocratic Oath, it has no legal standing and died with Hippocrates. I doubt if you could find more than a handful of doctors that ever even read it.

      • The Hippocratic Oath was near-universally assented to by graduating doctors until baby-butchering was legalised, when it was suddenly dropped, for it contains a specific prohibition against abortion.

        For a concrete witness, the Oath is inscribed in Greek and English on a fine stele that stands outside the entrance to the Toronto University Medical School.

  41. The good Dr. Offit suffers from the same malady as many do when discussing these controversial subjects: they don’t like to admit the limits of their (and collectively our) knowledge. Sure we understand the basics of weather and climate, just as we understand the basics of nutrition, the human immune system, and how the brain works. But we remain ignorant on many of the details, and as they say, the devil is in the details. So I am immediately on guard when someone talks with great confidence and authority about something which is still largely unknown. The over reliance on statistics or unverified computer models to “prove” their “facts” is also a big red flag. Too often guesses or estimates are presented as facts once one digs into the claims.

    So excuse me if I doubt what Dr. Offit, and many other “climate scientists” have to say, but I’m an old man and have been fooled to many times in the past by people who were so sure of their “facts” which turned out be completely wrong.

    • The good Dr. Offit suffers from the same malady as many do when discussing these controversial subjects…

      You mean proctocraniosis?

  42. Many Physicians suffer from confusing their great medical education and ability to save people medically with omniscience. Dr. Offit seems to suffer from this in spades.
    His choice in dismissing skeptics as “deniers” is just a sciencey way of calling us “ni99ers”. His tone and style are not really any different from the rabid sort of racist who infested too much of the country for too many years. This Dr. has nothing but jingoistic reactionary bigotry to offer. He is a neverwuzzer, not even a wannabe.

  43. accept what experiment has established and theory demonstrated – that there is a [CO2] greenhouse effect, and that some warming is to be expected.

    Sorry, Chris. Neither clause is true. As for the rest, exactly right.

  44. Further to comments above:

    Even today, we have little idea what the temperatures are in the Southern Hemisphere, and hence Globally, since there is so little sampling of the Southern Hemisphere. Going back in time, the position is even worse.

    We have some indication of what temperatures are in the Northern Hemisphere. We can therefore only reasonably examine Northern Hemisphere temperature data.

    It has been suggested that I should have stated:

    It would be reasonable to assume that the world temperatures in the 1930s were quite similar to the US temperatures because of the overwhelming preponderance of US stations at the time

    I have no issue with that statement provided it is restricted to Northern Hemisphere temperatures and not world temperatures (since as noted there is insufficient temperature sampling in the Southern Hemisphere to make a statement that is global). Since the highs of the 1930s/early 1940s and the early 1970s, the Northern Hemisphere cooled by about 0.6 to 0.8 degC, and since the early 1970s the Northern hemisphere has probably warmed by about 0.4 to 0.7 degC, ie, approximately by about the same amount such that today, the Northern hemisphere is about the same temperature as it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s.

    But do not forget that NCAR used to be of this view:

    And so did the National Academy of Science:

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/0B8C71B1-21CB-709A-4E7E-A7FCDFF8CDCD.jpg.

    <b.AND so was Hansen in his paper published in issue 213 of Science in 1981

    Fig3 in the Hansen 1981 paper is very similar to the NCAR and NAS temperature plots. It is interesting to remember what Hansen had to say in 1981 regarding temperatures He said when introducing Fig3:

    “Northern latitudes warmed ~ 0.8 degC between the 1880s and 1940, then cooled 0.5degC between 1940 and 1970, in agreement with other analyses.”

    And

    A remarkable conclusion from Fig 3 is that the global temperature is almost as high today as it was in 1940. The common misconception that the world is cooling is based upon Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970.

    So Hansen was of the view that in 1981, the temperatures globally were lower than they were in the 1940s, and in the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature in 1991 was quite a bit cooler than in the 1940s. His Fig 3 shows Northern Hemisphere temperatures in 1980/91 to be about 0.3degC cooler than Northern Hemisphere temperatures in 1940.

    If Northern Hemisphere temperatures have warmed by about 0.3 degC since 1980 to date, then the conclusion is that temperatures today in the Northern Hemisphere are about the same as they were in 1940.

    That is quite important since during this period man has emitted about 95% of his total CO2 emissions and yet it would appear that this has had no measurable impact upon Northern Hemisphere temperatures.

    • richard verney on January 18, 2017 at 9:45 am

      1. Even today, we have little idea what the temperatures are in the Southern Hemisphere, and hence Globally, since there is so little sampling of the Southern Hemisphere.

      I replied to this elsewhere in the thread but unfortunately the comment was not published.

      You might agree with me that for satellite-based temperature readings in the troposphere the “little sampling” will not exist.

      Let us therefore compare satellite data (UAH6.0) with surface data (GISTEMP Land/Ocean) measured for the Southern Hemisphere (SH), from 1979 till 2015:

      You hopefully see like me a good correlation between the two, shown by both linear estimates and 60 month running means.

      Linear trends for 1979-2015 in °C / decade (all 2σ below 0.025)
      – SH UAH6.0: 0.089
      – SH GISS: 0.085

      This correlation imho is due to the SH being dominated by oceans. If we compare there “land only”, the situation does not differ much:
      – SH land UAH6.0: 0.142
      – SH land GISS: 0.104
      because here too, UAH’s trend is higher than GISS (as opposed to the Northern Hemisphere, where GISS trends are way higher than UAH’s, for both land+ocean and land-only).

      Thus having surface trends even lower than those in the troposphere hardly could be a hint on „little sampling“ problems in the Southern Hemisphere.

      2. Going back in time, the position is even worse.

      On what do you rely here, richard verney? On 45 years old charts?
      I would rather want to rely on modern data :-)

  45. As always a good read and frankly easy take down of a fatuous argument. Hopefully the doctor is better educated on babies than climate science.

  46. That materials come into radiative balance with the power spectra impinging on them ( APL at http://CoSy.com ) is not disputed — tho the computations for arbitrary spectra for even this most computation are astoundingly poorly taught or widely groked .

    That no cascade of of such spectra can “trap” heat internally in excess of that spectrum as seen from outside is not only computationally demonstrable but would violate the undergraduate mathematical Divergence Theorem .

    Thus any claim the bottom of a planet’s atmosphere is hotter than than its top due to spectral “trapping” is simply false — which is why neither equation nor experiment enabling or exhibiting the purported phenomenon has ever been presented .

    As Cork Hayden says : alarmists will do anything — except take a physics class .

    • Bob,
      What you say is true. Of course, the earth is never in radiative balance, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is always moving towards that balance. This is a consequence of conservation of energy (unless you don’t think that applies on a planetary scale, which would be a radical idea). The total energy in for any time period will be equal to the total energy out. It seems to me the only thing the atmosphere can do is add some delay between the input and output. It is a bit like a heatsink in that regard, however it is more complex because it is a fluid and moves energy both through radiation and convection. Still, the total amount of energy in the atmosphere at any time is a function of the energy input (sun), the total size of the atmosphere, and its composition. Of those, it seems to me that the first one is the major driver of the system. The total size does not change much on human time scales, and our contribution to changes in the composition is tiny (less than 0.1%). That makes our effect on global energy level of the atmosphere (global temperature, if you will) small and probably undetectable alongside the natural variations in total energy input.

      • Actually , I believe that there is a theorem which states that over a cycle of a conservative quantity , like energy , there is an equilibrium .

        Certainly a rotating planet ranging from peri- to ap-helion during its yearly revolution is always just chasing its equilibrium . But over complete cycles equilibrium obtains . While the peri- to ap-helion variation for the Earth , about 4.6K , 1.6% , is much larger than the ~ 0.4% variation this whole brouhaha is about , it’s still much less than our 3% , ~10K , warmer surface than our ~278.6 mean orbital gray body temperature . The high emissivity of CO2 in the IR actually contributes to our radiative equilibrium temperature being another 20K or more lower than that but I’ll wait until somebody is interested in implementing the computations in CoSy or puts a table , not a graph , of an actual measured mean spectrum in my lap .

        Further , of course , it is basic optics that the net effect of a stack of filters is just the product across the spectrums of each filter . ( */ in APL ) so their effect can be lumped into a single filter . There is no “trapping” of energy as , eg , Pierrehumbert asserts without equation in his textbook .

        One has to look to the other macroscopic force which is conspicuously absent from the GHG assertions ( can’t call the “equations” because such don’t exist ) , gravity , to explain the 3% , in the case of Earth , and 125% , in the case of Venus , greater surface than orbital temperatures ( take those figures to the 4th power for equivalent energy densities ) seen in all planetary atmospheres , and indeed all gravitational wells .

      • Bob,
        Your point about gravity is quite right, which is why at the surface, the temperature is higher than the stratosphere. A denser fluid will show down energy transfer and can accommodate more kinetic energy than a less dense fluid of the same composition. However, the total amount of energy in the system is still bounded by the things I listed. Venus has much more kinetic energy in it’s atmosphere because it has a lot more of it, and it is closer to the sun. Compositional differences between the two atmospheres are negligible.

      • I misspoke. I meant to say “Compositional differences between the two atmospheres has a negligible effect.

    • Physics is very inconvenient for those of a totalitarian mind-set. Lord Monckton is prone to follow logic instead of convenient and comfortable pathways to ideological answers that leap over facts to arrive at a per-conceived, and usually profitable, political vantage point. It seems to me that Lord Monckton represents an very inconvenient truth but displays wonderful insight into reality. That must be very scary for the alarmists.

    • Bob, the mechanism is that CO2 converts 15 micron radiation into kinetic energy. It’s just energy transfer. In terms of radiation, IR is converted into black-body. Nothing is really trapped. It’s just that the more CO2, the more IR energy is converted into kinetic energy.

      A static dry atmosphere would warm up with more CO2, without any irradiance increase. But water completely dominates the atmospheric thermal balance on Earth. Spontaneous adjustments in the rates of evaporation/condensation could render the injection of extra kinetic energy from CO2 emissions thermally invisible.

  47. Dear moderators,
    My post of January 18, 2017 at 8:42 am was, yes, plain spoken but I believe did not violate the posting rules of WUWT. If I am mistaken, please go ahead and delete it. Respectfully yours, hunter

  48. The whole notion that the Tobacco industry somehow pulled the wool over the eyes of the public strikes me as laughable. I’m an old man now dealing with the consequences of a lifetime smoking habit but I can assure you that my grandmother warned me about the evils of smoking for good health and the expression “coffin nails” predates the 50’s. Hell, there is even testimony in some of Ernest Hemingway’s short stories and books during the interim of the first and second world wars about smoking tobacco destroying lung capacity and ability to smell. Big tobacco was not influencing the public’s understanding of smoking effects. However, cigarettes were given away free on airlines and distributed with every can of combat rations so the tobacco companies were likely trying to influence government to continue to allow that inducement to new customers. They were selling to the huge market of Congressionally paid for military supplies. Think Hershey and Mars (to be included in c-rations was a market worth fighting for) and a life time of customers looking to your product as refuge in a hostile environment. It is congressmen from tobacco producing states that needed the lies to keep congress from defunding inclusion of the product in military issue.

  49. Dear Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

    Now you need to tell Stephen Hawking to “come off it” too, along with other respected scientists, who insist on (hard to wrap my mind around) … IGNORING the relevant science upon which climate doom is based (or should I say, glorifying the relevant mythology derived from debased science ?)

  50. I have long puzzled why AGW believers think the way they do and why they believe and act with such passionate certitude. Scientists can be passionate and should use discussion and argument to both test and promulgate new ideas, but they must be reasonable and listen to opposing viewpoints with courtesy and manners. And they must always use sound logic when developing their arguments. So why don’t the AGW people follow these long established principles if they are scientists and logicians?
    We know their understanding of statistics and their computer modelling is weak, and they confuse correlation with causation, but I believe they are using a deeply flawed logical fallacy to assert their conclusions. This fallacy is called affirming the consequent. Unfortunately, it is a hallmark of the social sciences which has lead to such abominations as post-modernism. It works as follows using the logically valid argument: If Napoleon was German then he was a European, since all Germans are Europeans. Now if the conditional is true (all Germans are Europeans), and the consequent is true (Napoleon was European) then can we not assert that the antecedent (Napoleon was German) is also true. NO, you can’t. You have made the logical error of affirming the truth of a consequent of an argument that, though logically sound, cannot be used to discover the truth (or otherwise) of the antecedent because we know that the argument’s components are F T and T or at best ?TT. Logic tests the soundness of arguments, not the truth of the components of the argument.
    In the AGW case the argument is that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change (antecedent), CO2 is increasing (conditional), therefore there is global warming (consequent). By affirming the conditional and the consequent to establish the truth of the antecedent we get the attractive and simple but wrong conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 production is responsible for climate change. That CO2 is increasing is true, and it is also true (sort of) that global temperatures are increasing, so the original argument is ?TT which is logically OK. But the antecedent is scientifically and logically unproven.
    Classically trained scientists would never make this elementary mistake, but social scientists use such fallacies much of the time. For an example of their kind of reasoning the following is from social anthropology. The OK statement is as follows: the lost Tribe X has equally valid beliefs (antecedent), other tribes have beliefs (conditional) , therefore all tribes have beliefs (consequent). This argument is (logically) ?TT. But postmodernists assert that all beliefs of all tribes are equally valid on the basis of this false argument. They are wrong: we cannot say whether or not Tribe X’s beliefs are valid and we certainly cannot conclude that they are equally valid with all other tribes and civilizations.
    I think most AGW experts came through the social science route – they were probably geographers rather than physicists. Geographers do not use experiments and they are used to making broad sweeping conclusions based on data sets without ever testing their conclusions using the established methods of science, logic and philosophy. And they base their work on a discredited but dangerous philosophy – postmodernism. But what they do do well is to develop persuasive arguments that have sucked in the powerful and gullible of the world. Bad news sells ideas. And people who believe in false philosophies are almost impossible to convince of their errors since you seem to be attacking their very being. It is like telling mother that her baby is ugly.

    • Long posts are easier to read, if you break them up into paragraphs with some horizontal space in between.

      A full computer screen of continuous text lines (with NO white space between any of those lines) is almost as scary as climate doom. (^_^)

    • @Kelvin Duncan

      What you say is just a list of unsupported assertions with no basis in reality.

      “… their understanding of statistics and their computer modelling is weak …” – That is just unjustified.

      “… they confuse correlation with causation …” – Er, no they don’t.

      “… trained scientists would never make this elementary mistake” – Exactly. You blow away your own argument.

      “I think most AGW experts came through the social science route …” – No they do not.

      “they were probably geographers rather than physicists.” – Unlikely. cf Tim Ball. LOL

      “And they base their work on a discredited but dangerous philosophy – postmodernism.” – No they do not.

      A quick and random investigation of climate scientists obtained from the climate literature would show how wide of the mark you are. You are just constructing a mythical fantasy that suits your world outlook.

  51. “The war on climate science may well continue as long as there are fossil fuels to be mined and mercenaries to be hired.”

    Read as: “The war on climate skepticism may well continue as long as there are wind turbines and solar panels to destroy the land while netting huge corporations (often oil companies) even bigger incomes, and all of these actions make the rich feel sooooo good about themselves while mercilessly destroying the poor and the planet.”

  52. Medically qualified climate dunces abound in Australia, too. Lord Monckton no doubt will recall his comprehensive submission in 2015 ahead of the Australian Medical Association’s (AMA) proposed position statement on climate change. His hope was that practitioners would be brought up to speed on climate 101. In vain, of course. Silliness on stilts we got from the AMA. Take its president, Brian Owler’s howler:

    ‘AMA president Brian Owler said doctors were already seeing the effects of climate change.

    “The heatwaves that we’ve experienced, particularly in some of the more southern climates such as Melbourne … we have already seen deaths occurring in our public hospitals from people, particularly those who are vulnerable in our community,” Mr Owler said.
    “[That’s] the elderly, the young, those that are sick, those that don’t speak English as their first language.”‘

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/australian-medical-association-survey-on-climate-change/

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-30/human-health-to-be-impacted-by-climate-change-experts/6433308

    • ‘particularly those who are vulnerable in our community,” Mr Owler said.
      “[That’s] the elderly, the young, those that are sick, those that don’t speak English as their first language.”‘

      Global Warming kills off people whose first language is other than English! This will make communication simpler in the future.

  53. “Police on three continents are investigating. Prosecutions will follow.”

    I would like to believe that. Can you provide any support for the claim?

      • Toneb … you do realize that “something” had to “heat” that CO2 for it to show up on an infrared camera. CO2 generates no heat of itself.

        Amazing that you would fall for such trickery. …. but then … maybe not.

      • Dr. Deanster:
        CO2 “generates no heat” in the atmosphere either my friend.
        It does what is shown in the first video.
        The second shows it emitting heat that IT HAS ABSORBED, via use of an IR camera.
        Same as IR satellite pics of clouds revealing their temps and therefore heights for meteorologists.

        Amazing that you display such ignorance . …. but then … maybe not.

  54. Yes of course, …. but what is being concluded from the videos, and stated in the videos is questionable.

    It’s all a matter of “wording”. According to CAGW theory, and physics, CO2 does not “prevent heat from escaping”, it merely slows it [in a vaccum]. Such does not account for the circulating nature of the atmosphere. The adiabatic theory would hold that CO2 actually acts as a coolant to the atmosphere, by trapping heat and carrying up to TOA to be released, … just as the other well known GHG, water vapor, does.

    CO2’s impact on climate is clearly demonstrated in Antarctica, where there is little to no water vapor. Trend is flat to decreasing. If CO2 was a strong as CAGW advocates pretend, Antarctica would be warming in the interior. It’s not.

    Then there is the other question … concentration?? I like the disappearing flame video, but he says nothing about concentration. As such, the video is video trickery to imply that what is happening in the tube is also happening in the atmosphere. As we both know, CO2 only absorbs and emits at certain wavelengths. That all or even the majority of the LW would disappear, even the wave lengths where CO2 is transparent in his video is rather puzzling … don’t you think??

    Another question … if the CO2 is trapping the heat, the surrounding “blue” would change color as it changes temperature ….. maybe it was too small of a change to notice, but I would think that the IR camera would detect the changing heat of the tube …. as well as the change in heat of the candle. Granted the majority of the heat is outside of the tube, and thus only small amounts of IR would be expected to pass through the walls of the tube, so don’t know how much impact it would have on internal tube temp … but then again, makes me question the just how much of the flames IR is actually penetrating through the tube and reaching the camera. IR is not the same as SW, which readily passes through clear surfaces. …… I don’t know toneb …. given the tendency of advocates for CAGW to lie and deceive, photoshop polar bears onto ice cubes, flood homes on mountains and everything else …… this looks a lot like video trickery to me dude.

  55. How does a habit cause cancer that’s not already there:

    “The tobacco industry also found scientists willing to deny that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer.”

    No pain from a lung as long it’s not chemically or mechanically stressed.

    Nature was always there, chemical compounds dito. In plants as in the natural atmosphere. Nature is a harsh Mistress.

    And Nature is the stressor to mutations by natural radioactivity. So there’s a statistical propabilty you’re hosting cancer.

    Freedom be with you, Offit, السلام عليكم.

  56. Not recommended is chewing of dried nicotine – containing plant components.

    Regardless cancer, real problem is poison.

    • Be assured TobaccoIndustry didn’t know better. Just guessing, easiest guess is when cancer is already there.

Comments are closed.