Time to defund the weather-forecasting rent-seekers

Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

For Totalitarianism Day (formerly Earth Day), over three dozen weather forecasting organizations have issued a joint (or, in their revealing word, “Collective”) “Global Climate Statement”. It has not exactly made headlines: even the Mainstream media are tired of yet another pietistic, self-serving demand that more taxpayers’ money should be sent in the direction of yet another generously-proportioned trough in which the rent-seekers keep their snouts.

Let’s take this drivelling international-socialist agitprop apart, line by line, beginning with the tediously earnest title:

“Climate developments demand enhanced evidence-based action”.

The problem with followers of any Party Line, and, in particular, of a totalitarian-extremist Party Line such as watermelon environmentalism, is that the Party Line is all, and that any mere evidence, however definitive, is automatically and utterly disregarded to the extent that it does not conform to the Party Line – or, as it is now excitingly rebranded, the “Consensus”.

The first paragraph of the Collectivists’ statement says:

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.”

Yet it is these very same Collectivists who demand that we seek for “the scientific evidence” in the peer-reviewed learned journals. Four years ago a clutch of Collectivists so wedded to the totalitarian Party Line that their leader has been known to wear an SS-style uniform examined 11,944 reviewed papers published during the 21 years 1991-2011.

They themselves, though they declared and still declare themselves to be supporters of the Party Line to the effect that recent warming was mostly manmade, were only able to record 64 out of the 11,944 papers as explicitly having stated that recent warming was mostly manmade.

Legates et al. (2013), whose co-authors are other-worldly enough not to subscribe to any Party Line on scientific questions, decided to read the 64 papers and found that only 41 of them had actually stated that recent warming was mostly manmade. So the Collectivists’ statement is flat-out inaccurate. The overwhelming evidence from the peer-reviewed journals is to the effect that nearly all scientists do not know and, therefore, do not presume to say whether recent warming was mostly manmade.

Next, the Collectivists say that

“in 2016 a new record for global average temperature was set (approximately 1.1°C above the pre-industrial level)”.

But it is the Collectivists themselves who are always telling us that one cannot take a single year out of context. So let us look at the temperature record since IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 made a prediction (“We predict …”) that there would be 1 C° global warming by 2025, equivalent to 0.75 C° by now. In fact, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the global mean surface or lower-troposphere anomalies from two terrestrial and two satellite datasets, there has been just 0.4 C° warming since 1990, or little more than half IPCC’s central prediction, and below even its least prediction.

clip_image002

Fig. 1 Global warming from 1990-2016 at about half the predicted mid-range rate

The Collectivists continue with their usual tired litany of non-events: sea ice extent allegedly at “record lows” (but we only have 40 years’ proper data, and indications are that there was less sea ice in the 1920s than today, and a lot less in the Middle Ages); sea level “increased to a new record” (but sea level has been rising for 10,000 years, and the “new record” is bare millimeters above the previous year); and that “a wide range of extreme climatic events displaced hundreds of thousands of people across the world” (except that on all measures extreme-weather events show no noticeable increase and many have declined, as even IPCC has been compelled to concede).

Next, the Collectivists tell us

“The Paris Agreement needs to be implemented urgently,”

and that governments, Canute-like, should stretch forth their trembling, liver-spotted hands and command global warming to rise no more than 0.5-1 C° above today’s agreeable global mean surface temperature. However, since the world is warming at only half the originally-predicted rate, there is really no urgency at all. Economically speaking, since the rate of warming is very substantially below prediction, and since the absolute value of global temperature is a lot less than predicted, at any realistic intertemporal discount rate (the U.S. Treasury uses 7% p.a.) there is no case for “climate action” at all. Our wealthier grandsons can well afford to clean up after us, if they are not thanking us for the warmer climate and greener planet that we shall have bequeathed to them.

Then comes the nakedly rent-seeking bit:

“Meteorological and climate services are an essential element of the response to climate change. They provide early-warning information and understanding of present-day climate variability, projections of future changes, and they inform mitigation and adaptation options, …”

…yada, yada.

On the evidence of this Collectivists’ Statement, “meteorological and climate services” are no longer to be trusted to give independent and impartial advice. The correct response of the Trump administration to their latest intervention in politics would be to defund them altogether and make them live by the accuracy of their forecasts. On that basis, IPCC is doomed.

Advertisements

172 thoughts on “Time to defund the weather-forecasting rent-seekers

  1. Lord Monckton: I do hope you can find the time to offer your considered opinion and experience to President Trump. He faces a lot of counter-pressure, aimed at keeping Paris alive.

    • I call it dirt day; it commemorates the fact that everything we have comes out of the dirt, which we have to disturb to get anything more.

      G

      • How about “rare earth day” to remember that the metals we waste on windmills instead of computers is more limited than fossil fuels.

      • Well Pop, I can’t really comment intelligently on that because I don’t have any idea where they would [use] so-called rare earths in windmills.
        Far as I know, there is no need for any kind of permanent magnet in any kind of alternator. It would be nice to have low loss ferromagnetic materials for alternator stator and rotor cores, but I don’t think rare earths are involved.
        But I come here to learn, so I’m all ears, if somebody knows which rare earths go into where in a bird smasher windmill.

        G

      • Actually, george, they do use permanent magnet in wind generators. They are easier to control and do not have slip rings and brushes to conduct the excitation current to the rotor.

      • I’ll take your word for it Oeman. I haven’t studied three phase alternators since my third year in high school, and that was mid last century. I do know that ” Rare Earths ” were not quite rare enough back then to be left off the periodic table; but back then good permanent magnets were ALNICO which is simply Aluminium-Nickel-Cobalt, so no rare earth’s there.
        And my Goodmans Axiom 80 loud speaker in my stereo had a 17, 500 gauss magnet without any rare earths in it.
        But as I said; I’m hear to lurn.

        G

    • It would be ideal if the World Bank would give consideration to Lord Monckton’s calculations of climate mitigation vs. adaptation.

    • Can you please show some respect to the man? He does not call himself Lord anymore for a long time (see top of this article, or any other of recent years) – so you should not either.

      • Matt:

        I will give you benefit of the doubt by assuming your post is a statement of your ignorance and not deliberately disingenuous abuse.

        Lord Monckton DOES use his title and he has NOT asked Her Majesty to revoke it.

        As you say, “see top of this article”. It says there

        Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

        “Christopher Monckton of Brenchley” is a shortened form of “Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley”.

        God alone knows what you are pretending “of Brenchley” means but it indicates he is a Peer of the Realm; i.e. he is a noble Lord.

        Richard

      • And Richard, you might add that Christopher (he is tolerant of us being a bit familiar) is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, and it is worth readers researching what his famous grandfather did to earn his hereditary title, in the first place.
        Christopher IS carrying on the family tradition with full credit due.
        I accept that Americans for example don’t cotton to the idea of titular figures, that are common in European traditions.
        But do you want to try and explain from whence the likes of lady gagga and ‘prince’ or lenni da capria obtained their titles.
        There are orders of magnitude more titled ‘elites’ in American culture, than the Europeans ever conjured up.
        I used to not pay any attention to MY British heritage; I was just one of those Colonials; and far flung too. But over the years, I learned to respect traditions; it’s on the road we have travelled.
        Now I am an unhyphenated American Immigrant, but still proud of my British colonial heritage too.

        And I respect Lord MofB for what he does.

        G & g

      • When I was in Barcelona a few years back, I got a chance to visit the cathedral in the Old Town area.
        The placard on it said that it was finished in (if I remember correctly) 942AD.
        As an American, where we consider anything over 50 to be down right ancient, to contemplate that this building was alreqdy 500 years old when Columbus sailed was mind blowing.

      • “Duke Wellington”

        The Duke of Wellington’s title was real, I suspect you mean Duke Ellington.

    • He was quite forceful in his speech last night. He called Paris a horrible deal that takes advantage of the USA and that he would be making a decision on it in the next two weeks.

      It is possible he is softening us up for him to stay in but that isn’t what it sounded like. However I agree with you that he is under a lot of pressure to stay in.

    • I completely agree!

      Yet, this is a reactive post.

      Where is there a definitive campaign to unwind the foolishness?

      Skeptics react and whine about the foolishness yet fail to deliver a definitive communication concept with appropriate tag lines for the “Average Joe” to “Bank”.

      “The Pen is Mighter than the Sword”.

  2. The collectivists are their own worse enemy. Let them blather on, as it now works against them. The world Is moving on without them…

  3. “In fact, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the global mean surface or lower-troposphere anomalies from two terrestrial and two satellite datasets”
    The usual tiresome trick of plotting a prediction against some rearranged data which was definitely not what they were predicting. They were predicting surface temperature.

    • IE, data. How dare they compare the models against data.
      PS: I could have sworn that “two terrestrial” referred to surface temperatures?
      Maybe your dictionary differs.

      • MarkW
        “IE, data. How dare they compare the models against data.”
        Any old data? GNP? Dow Jones? You compare predictions against what was predicted.

      • Now I’m confused.

        I thought a “prediction” was a statement of something that would happen at some future time.

        I thought that “what was predicted”, would be the SUBJECT of that PREDICTION.

        How does one compare those two completely different concepts.

        It’s like comparing your “new shoes” with the “hurt” that you feel in your feet.

        You have stumped us all again Nick.

        G

      • BTW: I notice that Nick has nothing to say regarding his earlier whine about not comparing against surface temperatures.

      • Nick’s point is that the prediction of surface temperatures was compared to a blend of surface temperature and satellite data, i.e. the “mean” of two different metrics. The IPCC has separate predictions for surface temperature and atmospheric temperatures, so a fair comparison would have had two graphs, one comparing predicted versus actual surface temperature data and a second comparing predicted versus actual atmospheric temperature data.

        Nick’s got a point here.

      • George Smith
        “Now I’m confused.”
        Well, that took some doing. It’s pretty simple. If you want to test someone’s prediction of surface temperature, you plot it against measured surface temperature (where it works out pretty well). If there is something else observed that disagrees with measured surface, and you think it shouldn’t, you can wonder why that might be so. But it’s not relevant to the success of the prediction.

      • Nick; these are YOUR written words: “”””””….. You compare predictions against what was predicted. …..”””””

        I can find just two nouns in there.

        ” predictions ” and ” what was predicted ” The latter being in the German tradition of making up big long sentences to describe something, and stringing them all together. Of course they then capitalize that strung sentence as is common in many grammars.
        So that would be : ” Whatwaspredicted. ”

        I predict ‘this’ . Ooops ‘This’ didn’t happen. Ergo I have nothing to compare to.

        “””””….. It’s pretty simple. If you want to test someone’s prediction of surface temperature, you plot it against measured surface temperature (where it works out pretty well). …..”””””

        Well nobody is actually measuring SURFACE Temperatures, so why ANYBODY would waste time and effort predicting something that is NEVER ever going to be measured and thus verified (or not).

        I’m not aware of (but they may exist) thermometers stuck in the ground; and at sea, ships used to measure (on deck) the Temperature of the water in a bucket obtained from some completely uncontrolled depth (not surface); and later on the temperature of some water obtained from some non-standardized depth, through a pipe, and maybe measured in a hot engine room.
        And no such Nyquist compliant sampling network exists as far as I am aware.

        We are constantly told that despite evidence to the contrary, gases do not absorb or emit THERMAL spectrum radiation; that ONLY solids (dirt/ rocks/grass/whatever) or liquids (sea water/lakes/rivers/whatever) can emit such radiation that is bound by an envelope defined by the Planck Radiation Spectrum formula, of so-called “Black Body Radiation.”
        Such surface emissions would seem to be of paramount importance in following the exitance of electro-magnetic radiation energy from planet earth to outer space, and everything that happens to it on the way out.

        PS. I DO have actual peer reviewed papers on Thermal Radiation from ordinary (non-GHG) gases.
        NO ! Not necessarily DIPOLE radiation. One paper that comes to mind describes Quadrupolar and HexaDecapolar radiation.
        And no I do not plan to give a dissertation on Antenna Radiation theory. Look it up for yourselves.
        Hint: Ordinary gases, at a Temperature greater than zero kelvin do actually engage in continuous random collisions with each other. Isolated atoms/molecules in free flight may have symmetrical charge distributions centered on the nucleus, but those charges are attached to quite asymmetrical mass distributions between nucleus and electron ‘cloud’. Ergo, in collisions, they become distorted, and no longer charge symmetrical; in which case they then DO have a non zero Electric Dipole Moment.
        Well you know all about that stuff Nick; I’m just mentioning it here for those unfamiliar with the Hertz Maxwell Field theory of EM radiation, and antenna design.

        G

    • Nick,
      Since the Earth is mainly a water world, and since the sea surface temperature rise (close to but above the surface) is lower than land based increases, and since building cities, clearing forests, etc, change land surface temperature independent from greenhouse effects, your argument is full of hot air. The best indicators of real temperature rise are near (but above) surface at sea, and lower atmosphere but above the near surface. Any claim to the contrary is without any rational support. Storage and release effects such as ENSO have to be long term averaged, which makes the recent peak not a valid issue yet.

    • Nick I do agree about the tiresome trick part. It is a tiresome trick that they decided to try and predict something that cannot be reliably measured. Such as surface temperature.

      • Well surface Temperature can be quite precisely measured, at a point on the surface.

        But unless one has a Nyquist valid set of samples for the entire earth surface, and all at precisely the same instant of time; one does not have a valid data set to determine anything from; it is just rubbish.

        G

      • George,
        Send me the money and I’ll build you a fleet of satellites that will get your data. ;-)
        (How’s that for a shameless grub at the trough?)

      • OK Rocket, I’ll drop a couple of Bob for you in the plate next time I’m inside a church; my funeral excluded.
        Now contrary to conclusion to jumpers; I’m not agin satellite scanning of ingeniously determined atmospherical layer Temperatures via proxy (some sort of Oxygen radio). I’m happy to give Prof John, and man Friday Dr. Roy all the satellites they can accommodate. I’m sorry to report that I do not know how to make a satellite that passively orbits always pole to pole ad infinitum and beyond, so I’ll settle for what part of the globe they can see. That’s probably harder than putting the energy of the sun in a bottle. (note that even the sun itself could not figure out how to contain itself in a bottle); so it keeps evaporating.)

        But that’s air Temperatures, and not quite the same thing as touching the dirt itself.

        G

    • “hey were predicting surface temperature.”

      That are known to be, at best unreliable, aren’t they?

      • …Me thinks Nicks heavily “Green” stock portfolio is starting to fail, thus, the absurd desperation lately !

      • “They” are the people referred to by Monckton in the post.

        “They said they were predicting surface temperature in …”
        Don’t know what you mean. The future? Degrees centigrade? Farenheit? Fact is it des not matter.

        “They said surface temperature meant …”
        They said the surface temperature meant what they defined surface temperature as at the time. It s all in the documents.

        What is absolutely clear is that they did not mean surface temperature was what Monckton plotted, which included satellite measurements that did not exist at the time.

    • Nick, who is “they”, where did they say that they were predicting “surface temperature” and what did they mean by “surface temperature”?

      Shouldn’t be hard to back up what you say!

      • Oh and a further question Nick, what did “they” have to say by way of prediction of atmospheric temperatures and sea temperatures (assuming the seas are not part of “surface temperatures”)?

      • Forrest,
        “Shouldn’t be hard to back up what you say!”
        It’s not me saying it. It’s Lord M
        “So let us look at the temperature record since IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 made a prediction (“We predict …”) “
        You could ask him.

      • No Nick, those are YOUR words I am quoting “The usual tiresome trick of plotting a prediction against some rearranged data which was definitely not what they were predicting.”

        Now just for once, stand behind YOUR words or RETRACT your smear. Or accept that you have just tarnished YOUR reputation by attempting to smear others.

      • Forrest,
        “Shouldn’t be hard to back up what you say!”
        It’s not me saying it. It’s Lord M
        “So let us look at the temperature record since IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 made a prediction (“We predict …”) “

        No, this is Lord M’s task. He posted the graph, saying it was a prediction from FAR (1990). If you want to raise doubt about what he plotted, he is the one to resolve it.

        But it certainly won’t be a 1990 prediction of an equal combination of TLT and land/ocean indices. Neither existed then. The first Christy/Spencer paper came out in 1990, and Mears did not join RSS until 1998. And land/ocean indices came in during the 1990’s. In the FAR they simply refer to Global Mean Temperature. They didn’t have any kind but surface.

      • No Nick. You are not wriggling out of this one like you wriggle out of so many of your disingenuous word games.

        Here are YOUR words again: “The usual tiresome trick of plotting a prediction against some rearranged data which was definitely not what they were predicting.”

        I repeat those are YOUR words.

        And for your convenience here again are my question: Nick, who is “they”, where did they say that they were predicting “surface temperature” and what did they mean by “surface temperature”?

        It’s time for YOU to stand behind YOUR words.

      • Forrest,
        Well, “they” is obvious – it is Lord M’s they, the writers of FAR. I think this is the prediction he is referring to:

        As you see, they refer to it simply as Global Mean Temperature. That is because in that time, there was only surface temperature available as an index. It is also the only kind of temperature for which there could possibly be a known pre-industrial value (satellites?).

        I should note that Lord M naturally has picked the hottest scenario, which is not the one that eventuated. The FAR projected 0.2 C/Dec and 0.1 for the kinds of scenario that actually happened.

      • No Nick. You are not getting away with your usual sleight of hand.

        Again, here are the questions about YOUR words :

        Nick, who is “they”, where did they say that they were predicting “surface temperature” and what did they mean by “surface temperature”?

        Answer the questions. Here. I’ll start for you:

        They are …
        They said they were predicting surface temperature in …
        They said surface temperature meant …

        No more playing the slippery eel thanks.

      • Forrest
        You are playing silly games. Do you believe that the FAR in 1990 actually predicted a 50% mix of land/ocean and satellite, so that Lord M’s comparison is a fair test?

      • Nick, playing the slippery eel just further damages your reputation. Your feeble attempt at a distraction fails.

        Nick, who is “they”, where did they say that they were predicting “surface temperature” and what did they mean by “surface temperature”?

        Answer the questions. Here. I’ll start for you:
        They are …
        They said they were predicting surface temperature in …
        They said surface temperature meant …

      • Nick, I can’t help it that you are utterly incapable of saying what you mean and then seek distractions and insults.

        Nick, who is “they”, where did they say that they were predicting “surface temperature” and what did they mean by “surface temperature”?

        Answer the questions. Here. I’ll start for you:
        They are …
        They said they were predicting surface temperature in …
        They said surface temperature meant …

      • Excellent Seaice. So why not speak for Nick and set out his answers which YOU claim he has provided. Perhaps he can then confirm whether your answers are correct. Oh and bear in mind that Nick has already den-eye-d they were his words.

        Just to annoy you further, here are Nick’s words:

        “The usual tiresome trick of plotting a prediction against some rearranged data which was definitely not what they were predicting. They were predicting surface temperature.”

        Here are the questions YOU claim he has answered:
        Nick, who is “they”, where did they say that they were predicting “surface temperature” and what did they mean by “surface temperature”?

        I’ll give you the same assistance by starting your answers for you:

        They are …
        They said they were predicting surface temperature in …
        They said surface temperature meant …

    • Mr. Stokes, if the models are accurate, why did the IPCC quietly lower the near term (ca 2030) forecast for the temperature anomaly? If the models are accurate, why are they all over the map?

    • Nick Stokes April 27, 2017 at 1:50 pm
      The usual tiresome trick of plotting a prediction against some rearranged data which was definitely not what they were predicting. They were predicting surface temperature.
      ——————————–

      Actually, the climate models also make predictions for the troposphere layer that the satellite temperatures are based on.

      Those predictions are 27% HIGHER than the surface, so the charts would look even more ridiculous if we made an apples to apples comparison.

      UAH and RSS have both shown these comparisons for the tropics only

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate

      Tropics TLT should have risen by more than +1.0C by now. March 2017 value — +0.091C.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/

      Overall, the troposphere layers are OFF by 90% given we are at ENSO neutral right now.

      • Bill, further to your point, per CAGW theory, the surface warming is in RESPONSE to the tropospheric warming.

        Therefore, per CAHW THEORY, whatsoever the cause of the surface record warming, UHI, homeginization, millions of questionable adjustments- methods etc… the majority of the warming CANNOT be from CO2!

      • Better watch out Bill; that empty territory between 57 computer GCMs and 97 computer GCM is a dangerous place to lurk.

        You never know when an avalanche of new and improved computer GCMs will strike us on the way from 57 to the final destination of 97 computer GCMs.

        I think I can see some obvious gaps in there Bill; looks sort of like the gaps in Jupiter’s rings, and just asking for someone to put a new GCM in there to compeer for concensus status.

        g

    • I think an even more honest assessment would be prediction against surface measurement using the operational definition of temperature in use at the time of the model run.

  4. My immediate reaction was to think Lysenko and the communist government support for Lysenkoism.

    A quick Google even brought up a current commentary using the march to comment on that very topic. http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/04/07/cautionary-tale-politics-science-lysenko

    To quote from that article:

    “Who was Lysenko?” and you’re permitted only a soundbite answer, the answer is not “a person who believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics,” although that’s true. But the correct soundbite answer is, “a sloppy scientist who made claims that could not be substantiated, and who got political support for it, and perverted science through politics.”

    Which manifestly is what the leftish environmentalists appear to want. And the sloppy scientist sound bit is 100% on target.

  5. It would be beneficial to have forecasts that are at least generally accurate for a year out or so. Can we expect a colder, normal or warmer winter? Will it be colder at the beginning, middle or late winter? Will we have an early spring or late frosts?

    All of this matters to the farmers, energy planners, snow plow companies, etc. Right now, the forecasting by governmental agencies is pretty (really) bad in this regard. March 10th, the CFSv2 US forecast was for much warmer temps across almost the entire US for May, and on April 24th their forecast for May was much cooler across the same area. A 100% miss on a month less than 60 days out! And we may be looking at damaging frosts in some areas where crops are already growing.

    But we our abysmal record and the chaotic nature of our Earth’s surface, will we ever get much better? We can throw all the gigaflops at it, but GIGO seems to override it all.

    And as LM points out, even if some genius put together forecasting algorithms that were fairly accurate and forecast a colder next 10 years, it would absolutely never see the light of day.

    • This was the UK Met Office contingency planners weather risk forecast in Nov 2016 for the DJF winter 2016/17.

      This was the mean temperature anomaly for winter 2016/17.

      I had a discussion with someone in the Met Office who argued this forecast was not wrong because it did not discount the warmer possibility. I will let others decide.

      That said they do admit on their website that this forecast is basically rubbish and should not be used for decision making.

      “3 month outlook

      This product provides some limited guidance on potential variance from climatology i.e. possible change from what is typical for UK weather.

      It is however an emerging and cutting edge area of science and users are encouraged to consult our shorter range and climatological guidance before committing resources or taking action.

      Watching brief only, not used to inform immediate action or for committing resources.
      Energy consumption planning
      Highlight areas to watch
      Broad indication to guide long lead time supply chain e.g. grit stock”

      from

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services/public-sector/contingency-planners

      • What the heck is that interesting long string of islands just West of Scotland, and North of Ireland ??

        I’ve never noticed those before; Izzat the Orkneys; or whatisit ??

        G

      • Thanx Seaice1, so I guess Fingal’s cave is on one of those. Can’t imagine why I never knew they were quite so large.

        G

      • Thanx Seaice1, so I guess Fingal’s Cave is on one of those.

        Dunno why I never knew they were that large, and that far offshore.

        G

  6. Frankly I would defund the weather “gurus” on a lot less evidence than Lord Monckton correctly discusses.

    Right now I am trying to lay the first course of blocks on the house I am building for my lovely wife. (There is something visceral about building ones own home).

    As the first course is basically laid on the floor slab, there is a problem that if it rains within two days of the laying, the rainwater will drain off the slab and through the mortar under the blocks and wash out the cement, leaving only sand.

    (After two days or so of curing, the mortar can look after itself.)

    So I have been in the situation where I have had to consult the Met Office reports to ensure there are at least two rain free days before I start laying.

    This process has confirmed to me that the met office here is simply mainly an observation agency.

    Rain, forecast by our met office, two days hence, changes its time, duration and intensity – disappears completely or appears/reappears , often hourly.

    As the forecast day reaches the present, sometimes there is unpredicted rain, but the met office displays this immediately as rain for the day, correctly recording the duration and intensity as if it had been predicted. – What a marvellous “prediction”.
    Rain predictions, that do not actually occur, disappear or move mysteriously.

    On the current day, rain can also suddenly appear on the forecast for later in the day and then mysteriously disappear as the afternoon approaches or progresses.

    Believe me, I can look out the window as well!

    This would be so hilarious until one realises that these turkeys are paid from our taxes!

    Anyway, the blocks are laid successfully, but only because of MY predictions – NOT the met office predictions.

    Extend this out to the next 20 years or more.

    One can conclude that weather prediction is a very difficult process, but the met office here, judging by the detail of their website, claims to be accurate within the hour where they are failing miserably until observations are substituted for their guesses.

    Will someone explain to me how met offices and weather scientists can be expected to predict the weather – therefore the climate – that far in the future?

    What a laugh!

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • Monckton knows too many words and not enough in the real world. Perhaps he means use cement in the concrete for the footings, but as Roger has already told us, his first courses are on the slab (which [almost always] sits on the footings which sit on/in the foundation). Most bricklayers do use cement in the mortar but also include lime for flexibility.

      • Unfortunately Sir Monckton, that is only true in NON moving water…Any movement and it will wash away…

      • I know this from personal experience by attempting to repair a leaking wall at a Sewage Treatment Plant. (Hey, it’s a shitty job, but somebody has to do it ! )….

      • The Romans discovered that volcanic ash (pozzolan) mixed with lime mortar (to make hydraulic lime) enabled it to set under water (pure lime mortar needs CO2 and so doesn’t set under water). They never looked back (for a few centuries at least). The Pantheon is a good example of the durability of Roman cement. ‘Roman Cement’ was the name adopted in 1796 by Rev. James Parker for the similar material produced from naturally occurring Septaria from the north coast of Kent. The first modern ‘Portland’ cement (from its supposed resemblance to Portland stone) works opened in 1846 in Northfleet, Kent UK.

      • Yes it sets, but doesn’t harden for a while longer though! As a structural engineer, would always recommend cement:lime-putty:sand in the ratios of 1:1:6 for masonry construction, unless under unusually exposed conditions!

      • Well I see you are fluent in German as well, and can create emlengthenated nouns as well as they do; and even properly capitalized. Well I see you cheated and used your own M for double duty.

        That’s very clever of you Sir.

        G

      • Monckton again seeing a simplistic solution, but failing to identify the problem. The problem is not curing under water, but being washed away.

    • Blame postmodernism: maybe for *you* there was rain. But for someone *else* there was NO rain.

      • True, perhaps I didn’t define the term “rain” accurately enough or perhaps my definition of “rain” is different from that of the met office:)

    • Roger you need the secret of everlasting mortar; a la the Great Wall of China (16 of those at least).

      You need to include 3% of Sticky Rice, in your mortar just as the Chinese did. It’s a lot stronger than just Portland Cement.

      G

  7. I’m not so sure that this ‘Consulting Class’ cares a hoot about being or not being Collectivists, as long as they get “their money”

  8. … another pietistic, self-serving demand that more taxpayers’ money …

    I think the Pietists did a lot of good.

    Merton argued for a similar positive correlation between the rise of Protestant Pietism and early experimental science. link

    Much of what we think of as uniquely American can be traced back to the Pietists. In fact, the Pietists held that it was not the governments’ duty to uphold morality.

    Calvinist Puritans believed that government was ordained by God to enforce Christian behavior upon the world; pietists see the government as a part of the world, and believers were called to voluntarily live faithful lives independent of government.

    By demanding government money, the RMetS is behaving opposite to the Pietists.

      • Pietists are very different from Deists, who don’t consider Christ the Son of God, so technically aren’t Christians, as Mrs. Lincoln said of Abe. Deism is a Christian heresy, while Pietists were devout Lutherans. Of course, Lutheranism is also heretical in Roman Catholic theology. The Inquisition would have loved to burn Luther had it been able to gets its hands on him. Even more so Calvin.

    • IMO, Merton’s thesis applies more to 17th and 18th century English Puritans than to German (Lutheran) Pietists. He also acknowledged that it didn’t explain the important 16th and early 17th century Catholic scientists, such as Copernicus, Vesalius, Galileo and convert Steno. Nor 18th century French Enlightenment figures like Buffon, who was questionably even technically Christian, let alone Catholic. Lavoisier and Cuvier were however thought to be devout.

      I agree with Cohen that, while the Merton thesis does not explain all the causes of the Scientific Revolution, it does suggest why England was one of its hotbeds, and the structure of the scientific community there, such as the Royal Society, dominated by Puritans. Newton was a Puritan, but also secretly heretical, as a Unitarian, which shades dangerously close to the Deism of so many Founding Fathers, such as Franklin (originally Puritan), Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and probably Monroe, among others.

  9. Old “scientific Socialism” in new Green bottles.

    “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.”

    was

    “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: capitalism is doomed, largely due to appropriation of workers’ surplus value.”

    Before that it was doom from original sin, the disobedience of Adam, at the behest of Eve. Therefore believe and repent or suffer eternal damnation and punishment. Send money.

  10. There is no end to people/groups/collectives jumping on the CAGW bandwagon. No doubt there’s money to be gained but also a large dose of smug in joining a consensus whether it’s accurate or not. They will be well awarded by platitudes from the current membership and avail themselves to all the accompanying glow of being a winner….. at least in the eyes of the consensus and that’s all that matters to them. They have finally found a club that accepts them.

  11. The first paragraph from the collective:

    “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.”

    Then you can stop asking for more research grant money, since you by your own words, say the science is settled.

    Go study something else………………………..

  12. (but sea level has been rising for 10,000 years, and the “new record” is bare millimeters above the previous year)

    It has been rising for 20,000 years, right?

      • So sea level rise has slowed to catastrophically low rates. Pretty soon there isn’t going to be hardly any observable rate of rise.

        g

    • Within the last 10,000 years it has been 1 to 2 meters above current levels. For 90 percent of the Holocene sea ice was considerably less then today.

  13. Please assure me that Trump is going to honor his promise to pull out of the parasite agreement. He loves drama and causes a lot of heartburn to both sides. I have an idea on how to get his attention. He watches television news from all the MSM channels. Arrange for a big interview on FOX News, or better still a debate but we know that won’t happen unless the Whitehouse insists on a Red Team/Blue Team brainstorming before making a decision on it. A public one of course. If the rent seekers won’t do it or they have an unconvincing debate, the mod panel will recommend scrapping this agreement and further funding for this, basically anti-American, anti Democratic, anti free enterprise battle. The rest of the world already has their nose ring in, but they would be rescued, too.

    • Gary,
      A real possibility is that Trump will submit it (Paris ‘Agreement’) to the the US Senate, for an ‘up or down’ vote as a bonafide ‘Treaty’. This requires a 2/3rds vote (67 ‘Ayes’) to ratify it as a Treaty…. and current estimates are less than 50 votes, mostly along Republican vs Socialist Democrats party lines. This may be the best course of action. It refutes the Presidential authority over reach that Obama exercised, when he illegally ‘committed’ the USA to this agreement. It also restores the Rule of Law as the guiding requirement for subsequent Presidents… and Supreme Courts. A Treaty must be approved by a 2/3rds affirmative vote in the US Senate or it is null and void.

      • There is a difference between requiring a 2/3 majority to pass a treaty, and voting on a Supreme Court nominee.

        The 2/3 majority requirement for passing a treaty is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the 2/3 requirement for a Supreme Court nominee is only a Senate rule that can be changed.
        Senate rules are not written in stone.

    • Well he suddenly realized that NAFTA is purposeful after all, and responsible for countless paying jobs in all three countries. Some stuff goes back and forth across the borders five or six times before becoming a final saleable product, somewhere in one of the three or totally regionally exported. OK so some tweaks are in order; but not annihilation.

      But Paris is a different kettle of spongers. Nutz to zem !

      G

      G

  14. Good of you to highlight that meterologists are on board with AGW, since in previous surveys they had a lower (but still high) level of agreement than other sciences.

    This post shows that the evidence is strong enough to convince the meterologists. Maybe time to take another look?

    • seaice, Professional meteorologists still low acceptance but, like most such orgs around the world the Totes have hijacked the management boards (APS, Royal Soc, etc.). Classic Euro marxbrothers tactics. Google: ‘not a shot was fired’ Jan Kozak.

    • seaice1…your ambiguous statement is pretty irrational. What does it mean when you say that meteorologists are ‘on board’ with AGW? I am meteorologist who believes that humans are producing a small, beneficial warming of atmospheric temperatures. There is no crisis, nor will there ever be from releasing CO2 in to the atmosphere. Does that mean I am ‘on board’? Or do I have to believe in the crisis predictions to be ‘on board’? Many of the scientists that are often included in the consensus are only consenting that some warming is likely, but are not consenting that a crisis is eminent. Using their opinions to sell draconian carbon mitigation schemes is a lie and immoral.

      Warmists keep trying to frame the argument as being between those who believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces warming and those who do not believe it produces warming. That has never been the debate. EVER! The debate has always been about how much warming can be expected and is it a bad thing.

      Secondly, the letter is from organizations dependent on the government to exist, not individual meteorologists. The letter says nothing of the opinions of the individual meteorologists in the organizations. It is very possible that more of the meteorologists in these organizations doubt a climate crisis than ever before, but that would not stop the leaders of these organizations from pandering for more money with fear tactics.

      Third, the post says “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.” That is a declaration. The letter does not provide any evidence that it is true. No one disputes that the planet is warming. It has been generally warming for 200 years, and most of that was clearly natural. In order to imply that the more recent warming is because of humans, they would have to understand how the preceding warming happened…and they don’t. They do not understand natural climate variability at all. When the planet is warming, they assume that the natural variability is zero. When it is not warming, they assume the natural variability is significant on the cooling side. That is a scheme, pure and simple.

      • “Many of the scientists that are often included in the consensus”

        All 60 odd, out of 11,000 or so. Even then, Lord Monckton identified approx. 20 as mis-allocated.

        I’m pretty sure of the remaining 40ish, few of them were Meteorologists.

      • “What does it mean when you say that meteorologists are ‘on board’ with AGW? ”

        Read the article. It means they believe “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.”

        Pretty clear message. Monckton has shown everyone here that the Meteorological societies think the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the Earth s warming largely due to greenhouse gases from human activities.

      • seaice1:

        You follow your usual practice of making assertions that have no relation to reality when you write

        “What does it mean when you say that meteorologists are ‘on board’ with AGW? ”

        Read the article. It means they believe “The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.”

        Pretty clear message. Monckton has shown everyone here that the Meteorological societies think the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the Earth s warming largely due to greenhouse gases from human activities.

        Importantly, you are pretending that a statement of the Meteorological Societies represents a view of the bulk of the Members of those societies. There is no evidence of that and there is much evidence it is not true.

        Firstly, there is scientific evidence that the Earth has been warming intermittently for the last two centuries but there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND that “our planet is warming, largely due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities”. The statement boldly asserts existence of “scientific evidence” which it does not cite because such evidence does not exist. It is a stretch to suggest the bulk of meteorologists would approve such an untrue assertion.

        Secondly, few Fellows and Members of scientific societies have any desire to be involved in the administrations of those societies. Hence, the Executives of most scientific societies have been usurped by a small number of environmentalist activists. I commend you to read this analysis by Richard Lindzen which is a shocking read which explains how the institutions were usurped and names those who did it.

        It is certain that the statement cannot be assumed to represent the views of Fellows and Members of the Meteorological Societies in the absence of any evidence that the Fellows and Members were consulted on the statement and agreed it.

        Richard

      • If the members don’t like it they will get rid of the people who mis-represent them.

        We can reasonably assume that official statements of the societies reflect the opinion of the membership.

    • Funny Seaice1. I am a professional meteorologist and once worked in two National Met Agencies and I am still a member of the Royal Met Society. However, I now work in the private sector.

      I don’t agree with the money spent or the over hyped warnings of doom from AGW, but I do agree there has been some minor warming due to GHG increases. I also use my professional judgement that the observations show more benefit from this warming than detriment so far and I look forward to you showing me any observed and quantifiable negatives to life on earth from the current warming.

      I also think you need to step back and think about the Met and climate profession. You start off in school being taut every day that AGW is bad. Then you go to university and are being lectured by experts in their field…who derive their funding from pro AGW grants. Therefore all aspiring Mets, who respect and look up to their teachers and lecturers, are being force fed the AGW message from start to finish in their studies. These lecturers often then go on and work in National Met research agencies and their message again is spread and continued there and once again if your career in Met takes you along this path you are being brainwashed. AGW is now an indoctrination movement that is self sustaining. Only when you break free of this brainwashed system can you freely think and freely comment on the many issues that AGW theory has.

      So the fact that these Met agencies and societies back the AGW message is of no surprise what so ever. However, they are all sheep following the same leaders that have been there from day one in their careers.

      • Funny that everyone else is a sheep and only you have the true insight. You could be a visionary, or you could be wrong. I cannot declare definatively, but given the relative numbers of visionaries and people that were just wrong, I know where I would put my money.

      • To PB whether

        You wrote:
        “I do agree there has been some minor warming due to GHG increases.”

        My comment:
        Well, if you agree, then it must be true?

        But … can you explain why the 1910 to 1940 warming allegedly had natural causes,
        but the similar 1975 to early 2000s warming was allegedly caused by man made CO2 … as if 4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly stopped in 1975, and man made CO2 took over as the ‘climate controller’?

        Is it not possible that both warming periods in the 20th century had identical natural causes?

        And if you “agree” that GHG causes “some minor warming”, are you basing your conclusion on simple laboratory experiments, where there are no feedbacks, and extrapolating those experiments to complex real life?

        Not to mention the surface temperature data are so inaccurate that its possible the claimed warming since 1880 is nothing more than measurement errors!

        There’s no scientific proof that any of the warming measured since 1880 is man made.

        As a scientist, you should not attribute any warming to GHG because the cause of the warming since 1880 is unknown. Sometimes the right answer to a question is “I don’t know”.

      • Indeed. As I mentioned, meteorologsists tended to be skeptical of AGW. Now they seem to have become convinced by the evidence. Perhaps if Anthony was not retired he too would have been persuaded, as the joint statement indicate most practising meterotologists have been.

      • “Indeed. As I mentioned, meteorologsists tended to be skeptical of AGW. Now they seem to have become convinced by the evidence.”

        What evidence?

    • They need to go back to studying Meteors; just as NASA needs to go back to Aeronautics, and Space.

      G

  15. a clutch of Collectivists so wedded to the totalitarian Party Line that their leader has been known to wear an SS-style uniform . . . .

    Regarding that embarrassing image of Cook in a uniform, a charitable interpretation is that:

    1. The initials of his website (SS) suggested this dress-up, as a bit of silliness.

    2. Since all the insignia on Cook’s uniform are of a peaceful logo that probably is associated with some environmental group (it looks like a weather balloon), he was trying to visually communicate that he’s a storm trooper for climate justice.

    3. I’ve read an online comment that the image was a photoshopped gag by one of the SkS regulars, although Cook hasn’t said so himself, AFAIK.

  16. Why would anyone pay weather forecasters who cannot forecast weather a few days in advance to predict climate a hundred years in advance?

    Climate is a chaotic, non-linear system: it is, a priori, non predictable. Anyone pretending they can do so is lying to you.

    • Dammit! I had planned to go on holiday in summer when it is warmer, but now I learn that it is unpredictable. Maybe I should go to the beach in winter?

      • Beause the “point” is pointless. If climate is completely unpredicable how can we say summer will be warmer than winter?

        It is trivially obvious that climate is to some extent predictable. We know that summer will be warmer than winter. Yet I still may get bad weather on my summer holidays.

        Greg is saying that because the system is chaotic we cannot predict anything. That is clearly wrong, beause we can predict that summer is warmer than winter. Yet even so I might get bad weather on my holidays.

        Equally, given a chaotic system, we can still predict that the next decade will be warmer than the last. Yet each of us could still get bad weather on our holidays.

  17. OFF TOPIC folks,

    but this guy could use some support. He’s a sceptic, but on the inside of the EU. Which may not seem important to Americans, until you read what the American greens are up to in Europe in order to influence American politics.

    We naive Europeans are being used as cannon fodder to influence American politicians using methods honed at home over a generation. Your green countrymen have moved the battlefield whilst you thought you had won the war.

    Some comments, and a watching brief may encourage him. It can”t do any harm, and the farming community amongst WUWT will most certainly be interested in what he has to say.

    https://risk-monger.com

  18. “Time to defund the weather-forecasting rent-seekers”

    How about we pay / fund “weather forecasters” based on accuracy of their overall Predictions?

    Examples:
    90% right – 10% wrong = 80% of pay / funding
    50% right – 50% wrong = 00% of pay / funding
    20% right – 80% wrong = -60% of pay / funding refunded back to Taxpayers

    {Let the gnashing of teeth and hand wring begin}

  19. I’ve got a Weather-Rock-on-a-Rope I’d be willing to donate to their cause. (seems their chicken bones have lost their mojo)

    • My weather-rock has been hanging sideways for 2 days and I am sick of watching it.
      Maybe it will make a loop. That would be entertaining, at least.

  20. So when does this discussion come into the public forum though government scruitiny via independent and visible investigation?

    I along with many others have tired of the rhetoric and find it time for truth come through a thorough vetting process. The consensus should have no issue consenting to such!

    Bring it, and be scrutinized, or shut up!

    Just sayin…….

  21. Simply,
    The UNFCCC and theIPCC need to die. A quick painless death by removal of funding.

    The end of the CO2 climate hustle is nigh.

  22. Well done Lord Christopher Monckton

    Here is a paper written by an Australian electrician
    Electrician says No! to Earth Hour
    22/3/2007
    At the age of eleven I decided to become an electrician. That was when I first fully appreciated that my treasured toy train was powered by a wonderful invisible force, the same wonderful invisible force which worked the lights and operated the family refrigerator and toasted the bread and powered the radiator which meant we did not have to collect sticks for the fireplace.
    When my family came to Australia the big bonus for me was being accepted as an apprentice electrician. All my working life I have been proud of my trade. I am proud to be a member of a splendid worldwide band of great contributors to the modern era, still mostly men but with a welcome burgeoning number of women, the people who turn on the lights for the world. I reckon the easiest way to measure the happiness and prosperity of nations is by the Electricians Index. More electricians equals more prosperity and more happiness. Australia is high on the Electricians Index; North Korea is near the bottom. Also close to the bottom of the Electricians Index is Myanmar, mostly known as Burma. In 2013 Myanmar had a population of 53 million with total electricity consumption according to the International Energy Agency of less than nine million megawatt hours. In the same year Australia with a population of 23 million enjoyed total electricity consumption according to Australian Energy Statistics of 254 million megawatt hours. That is one sixth of a megawatt hour per head per year in Myanmar and eleven megawatt hours per head per year in Australia. To put it another way, each Australian has the benefit of sixty-six times as much electricity as a resident of Myanmar.
    The Asia Biomass Energy Office reports that 97% of energy used in the Myanmar residential sector is produced by biomass, which means that almost everyone cooks with wood, contributing to the observed decrease in forests. The same organisation reports that 74.7% of electricity is generated by hydro and 20.5% by gas. That is a total of 95.2% which means that oil and coal are insignificant in electricity generation. That should make the opponents of coal and oil very happy indeed.
    But here is something truly amazing. The Worldwide Fund for Nature Australia is a registered charity with the ABN number 57001594074. WWF Australia and has a cute little panda as a logo. WWF Australia is currently conducting an advertising campaign aimed at stopping drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight. And what is WWF Australia doing in Myanmar? A genuine charity would be working to help the Burmese get access to energy so they can keep their food fresh and educate their children and extend their lifespans and stop cutting down forests to cook their food. Not WWF Australia. WWF activists are in Myanmar now, organising the Burmese participation in Earth Hour. WWF is trying to convince the Burmese that they each don’t deserve even the one sixty-sixth fraction of the electricity which we Australians enjoy.
    The naked hypocrisy of WWF and its anti-energy allies is on display. These people do not really hate coal. These people do not really hate oil. What they hate is all energy, which means they hate human progress and they hate humanity. WWF Australia is a fake charity which extracts money under false pretences from gullible Australians, and uses that money to depress living standards and harm the environment in one of the poorest countries in the world.
    What Myanmar needs is fewer saboteurs and more electricians.

    This proud electrician is unimpressed by plans being made for so called “Earth Hour” on Saturday 25 March – that is the coming weekend. Thousands of misled people across Australia will be lighting candles instead of flicking light switches and some of them will accidentally start fires and threaten the lives of their loved ones.
    Dangerous organisations, some like WWF Australia pretending to be charities, will be trying to convince Australians that electricity is a bad thing and should be switched off for an hour. “Switch off to the future” is the theme.
    The proponents of Earth Hour want us to have a future like North Korea, which when viewed at night from space shows barely a glimmer in contrast to all the happy glow of prosperity visible from South Korea and increasingly from China.
    The proponents of Earth Hour are out to control the minds of our children. This is not a game. Earth Hour is a deadly serious plan intended to recruit innocent youngsters to the wicked cause of bringing down the modern era and dragging us back three centuries. Without coal and without electricity modern medicine is impossible and human lifespans will be halved.
    Perhaps worst of all, the proponents of Earth Hour are determined to crush the hopes of the poor and disadvantaged of the world, who unanimously yearn for the inexpensive energy which most of us in Australia take for granted. Until recently almost all Australians could depend upon reliable baseload power. Sadly, the saboteurs are making the decisions in South Australia and Victoria is not far behind.
    Do not let the saboteurs get away with it. Not for an hour, not even or a minute. So if your six year old or your ten year old comes home with the intention of turning off the family’s power on Saturday, draw a line in the sand and rescue your child from recruitment into the evil ranks of the appalling enemies of civilisation. Make no mistake, they have declared war on the modern era and they are determined to recruit your children as child foot soldiers in that war.
    When Earth Hour strikes, I’ll proudly have all my lights turned on. Join me.

    • And with Bill Nye videos being screen in Australian schools the brainwashing runs long and deep.

    • So we have an Australian electrician vs 33 Meteorological professional societies and institutions. Who should we listen to, do you think?

      • Straw man, Seaice. That very articulate Australian electrician was arguing against the corruption of greens led by fake charities. He wasn’t arguing against your 33 rent-a-quote scientivists. I’d rather listen to him than you and Nye any day of the week. But then, there’s not a sentence in his comment that you could gainsay. Which is why you used a straw man.

      • Just for once Seaice1, try and put aside your bias on AGW and read Michael Darby wrote. There is a lot of truth in what he has said. Don’t let your blinkered bias blind you from seeing the rest of a very big picture. Please tell me what you disagree with in his post.

      • Which one is the parasitic bureaucratic entity (professional societies)? Which features political types that gravitate to senior executive positions (professional societies)?

      • “Societies” leadership which fail to submit their statements to their membership make MEANINGLESS statements.

      • Yet another in the endless, increasingly tiresome and silly Appeal to Authority arguments, this time coming from seaice1.

        Those using scientific institutions or the IPCC as their authority figure in their argument fail to recognize two things: (1) Science is not infallible and CAN get this wrong initially, and (2) that scientists and science institutions are perfectly capable of being corrupted by the politics surrounding fossil fuels and the money flowing to them from government. If seaice1 doesn’t think the health of their bank accounts and the bank accounts of their institutions is not a prime driver of the behavior of these institutions and their meteorologists, then I own a famous bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell to him at a great price.

        And if seaice1 is gullible enough, I will even throw in a bunch of swampland in South Florida absolutely FREE!.

      • seaice says “who should we listen to?”

        Blame the Seaicess of this world for the dictators and tyrannies oppressing us. For without people following blind arguments from authority, dictators would have a much tougher time. The Seaicess of this world telling people not to think or consider arguments for themselves but rather listen to the authority have done the most harm to mankind in all history.

        Shame Shame and more Shame Seaice for you are making the world worse not better. You encourage ignorance rather than encourage free thought.

        These arguments to listen to authority are an abomination. They have no place here or anywhere.

      • It is interesting that nobody here seems to have kept up with the fallacy arguments. Appeal to Authority fallacy.

        “Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.”

        “It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.”

        Are you cliaming that the meteorolical societies are not authorities on this subject? It is importt to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts or scientific concensus.

        It is clearly not a fallacy to prefer the statement of an expert body with clear expertise and experience that qualifies them as “authorities” over an individual with no such credentials.

        That is clearly not an argumet from authority fallacy.

      • Cited from where? Wikipedia with its William Connoly “edits”? Loosely, in the course on logic I took some 40 years ago, appeal to authority was arguing that the subject was settled because X approved of it, and not using any of the actual arguments the cited “authority” used.

      • 1905: Here we have a Swiss patent clerk against all of the physics associations in the world since Newton and the Royal Society in 1687. Whom are you going to believe?

  23. I think that the continuing mantra by the warmists “the science is settled”, speaks volumes. It clearly isn’t, because if it was then all their “prophecies” would have come true, which they haven’t. The question then, is who are they trying to convince that what they say is true, themselves or us?

      • Under Obama, the armed forces were ordered to believe in CACA. They saluted and did so. Now, not so much.

        PACOM is back to preparing to defend against the Norks, rather than “climate change”.

  24. Lord Monckton:

    I do hope you can find the time to consider the implementation of Agenda 21 that is occurring in Brighton and Hove (Sussex.) The Council here are implementing a plan to reduce the materials consumed in Brighton by 2/3rds. The plan itself is called “One Planet Brighton” and it claims that Brighton today consumes material resources as if we had 3 planets, and that we should therefore reduce that to one planet’s worth – hence the name.

    As part of this plan we should also give politicians direct political control of “Happiness” and “Culture. The plan is literally “totalitarian.”

    I evidence this in my blog article :- http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/sustainable-happiness-is-no-laughing.html

    The Government have also already decided to do this to all of Wales in one go:- try googling “One Planet Wales”

    I would be honoured if you also read my article:-

    http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/ipcc-reports-are-poltics-not-science.html and develop it to make clear that the pronouncements of the IPCC are political not “scientific”

  25. “in 2016 a new record for global average temperature was set (approximately 1.1°C above the pre-industrial level)”.

    I prefer teh text “in 2016 a new record since the little ice age for global average temperature was set (approximately 1.1°C above the the post glacial minimum of the little ice age)”.

  26. Bingo!!!
    Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/congress-should-investigate-the-claim-of-scientific-consensus/
    EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Take the Gloves Off; Turn the Crippling EPA Regs on Wind and Solar
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-should-take-the-gloves-off-turn-the-crippling-epa-regs-on-wind-and-solar/
    EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Counter-sue The Climate Loons
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-should-countersue-the-climate-loons/
    Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/ceteris-paribus-less-is-more-use-only-data-sets-that-dont-require-adjustments/

    • Yogi Berra NEVER Ever said what you just wrote in quotations YOU made that up; it’s fake news.

      Yogi Berra did say something like that; but he did NOT say what you claim he said.

      You should delete your quotes; or why don’t you look up EXACTLY what Yogi Berra DID say, because he didn’t say what you said he did.

      G

Comments are closed.