# Reporting the fraudulent practices behind global warming science

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The prison gate is about to slam thunderously shut on the global warming fraudsters. It is time to report their profitable but murderous deception to the public investigating and prosecuting authorities.

To prove a fraud, though, is harder than to prove a murder. One has to demonstrate – beyond reasonable doubt – not one but two criminal intents.

The first is the intent to deceive by way of a false and dishonest representation. A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or may be, untrue or misleading. A representation is dishonest if what was done would be regarded as dishonest by the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus, and if the perpetrator must have realized that the reasonable man would regard the deception as dishonest.

The second is the intent to cause a gain or loss in money or money’s worth by means of the deception – an intent either to gain by fraudulently getting what one does not have or by fraudulently keeping what one already has, or both, or an intent to cause a loss by depriving the victims of what they already possess, or by preventing them from gaining what they would otherwise have gotten, or both.

I recently visited a country house somewhere in Scotland to consult an eminent lawyer with close ties to the police. I described to him certain specific matters that appeared, prima facie, to be frauds. I told him exactly how the fraudulent claim of “97% consensus” had been fabricated. He got the point at once.

I went on to tell him how certain parties have wilfully and, as we see it, fraudulently thwarted our attempts to get one of the leading learned journals of climatology to publish our paper demonstrating that a single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics is the sole cause of the absurdly overblown predictions of warmer weather on the basis of which scientifically-illiterate governments have been panicked by downright evil lobby groups and profiteers of doom into causing untold death, disease, educational disadvantage, industrial destruction and financial ruin worldwide.

His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.

The journal’s management then got in touch to invite us to submit further papers in future and to say they hoped we were happy with the review process. I wrote back to say that, unless we were given the opportunity to appeal against the editor’s decision, we proposed to report him as a participant in what Professor Mörner has justifiably described as “the biggest fraud in human history”.

Thereupon, the editor agreed to send out the paper for review again. For our part, we offered to expand the argument considerably, so as to forestall the usual attempts by politically and financially motivated academics to weasel out of allowing the paper to be published.

But when we submitted the much-extended paper, the editor did not reply. When we wrote a reminder email, again he did not reply.

We wrote to the IPCC, not once but twice, to activate the error-reporting protocol that the IPCC had been obliged to adopt after a series of acutely embarrassing errors, such as the laughable notion that all the ice in the Himalayas would melt by 2050. The IPCC, however, had failed even to acknowledge our report, let alone to activate the mandatory protocol that the Inter-Academy Council had obliged it to put in place.

The eminent lawyer’s eyebrows lifted. He pondered for a few moments, and then gave us the following advice:

First, he said, we should write to the Serious Fraud Office, with a copy to my local Chief Constable and a further copy to him, putting the authorities on notice that a fraud was suspected, providing the evidence of the “97% consensus” fraud (some of the perpetrators were in Britain) and providing the evidence of how we had been mistreated by the journal. At this stage, we should not request an investigation, but we should outline the widespread death, disease, damage and destruction caused by the suspected fraud.

Next, he advised us to submit our paper, in the normal way, to a second journal, this time within the jurisdiction of the British investigating authorities. We should keep meticulous records of the correspondence between us and the journal. If that second journal failed either to publish our paper or to provide a legitimate and robust scientific refutation of our argument, then we should copy that correspondence to the Serious Fraud Office and to the Chief Constable, again not requesting an investigation but merely putting them on notice that the fraud appeared to be continuing, and appeared to involve more than one journal.

Then, he said, assuming that no genuine fault had been found with our scientific argument, we should submit the paper to a third journal, again in the normal way, keeping a careful track of the correspondence. If the third journal did not handle the paper scientifically, we should write to the police again, this time to request investigation and prosecution of the connected frauds of the authors of the “97% consensus” claim, of the journal that had published that claim and had failed to publish a correction when requested, of the board of management of that journal, of the three journals that had refused to handle our paper scientifically, and of the IPCC secretariat that had fraudulently failed to activate its error-reporting protocol.

By that time, he said, the police would begin to be curious. They would check out certain easily-verifiable points, such as the fact that the list of almost 12,000 papers allegedly reviewed by the perpetrators of the “97% consensus” deception showed that the authors had themselves marked only 0.5% of the papers as explicitly stating their support for the “consensus” position as they had defined it. Once the police realized that we were telling the truth, they would begin to investigate, and he would support them in doing so.

So that is what we are going to do. And this is where you come in. There follows a condensed version (warning: it’s not for wimps) of our scientific argument to the effect that climatologists had forgotten, at a vital point in their “how-much-warming” calculations, to take due account of the fact that the Sun is shining. Is our argument sound? Is it definitive? Or is it erroneous or in some respects deficient? And should we follow the eminent lawyer’s advice? I shall read your comments with interest.

### An error in defining temperature feedback explains overstatements of global warming

Abstract: Climatology borrows feedback method from control theory1-6, but errs by defining feedback as responsive only to perturbations of the input signal, emission temperature. If so, impossibly, the feedback fraction due to warming from noncondensing greenhouse gases would exceed that due to emission temperature by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Then feedback response would be up to 90% of Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 after feedback has acted)7 and of the uncertainty therein8. In reality, feedback also responds to the entire reference signal9,10. In climate, that signal (the signal before feedback acts) is reference temperature, the sum of all natural as well as anthropogenic perturbations and, above all, of emission temperature. It is here demonstrated that the system-gain factor, the ratio not only (as now) of equilibrium to reference sensitivities but also of entire temperatures, is insensitive even to large uncertainties therein: in 1850 and 2011 it was 1.1. Though models7 project 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K Charney sensitivity, the revised value – the product of the system-gain factor 1.1 and the 1.05 K reference sensitivity7 to doubled CO2 – falls on 1.15 [1.10, 1.25] K, confirming evidence11 that feedback barely alters temperature and that, even without mitigation, net-harmful warming is unlikely. Mitigation entails a heavy net global welfare loss disproportionately afflicting 1.3 billion people to whom access to electricity is denied.

Projected midrange global warming outstrips observation threefold (Fig. 1) due to an erroneous definition of temperature feedback in climatology. All transport across the climate-system boundary is radiative; and, in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, flux density at an emitting surface is a function of absolute temperature, which is accordingly the proper metric for sensitivity studies. Yet climatology defines feedback response as the difference not between entire reference and equilibrium temperatures (respectively before and after feedback has acted) but between sensitivities, concluding that feedback response comprises up to 90%7 of equilibrium sensitivity, and of the uncertainty that arises therein8 chiefly because feedbacks are unquantifiable by measurement and act at resolutions below models’ (GCMs’) grid-scale. Reference sensitivity7 to doubled CO2 is only 1, p. 676, cf. 12: but in GCMs the large imagined feedback response and its large attendant uncertainty elevates Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2) to 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K 7. IPCC, whose [1.5, 4.5] K interval1,13 is as in 197914, mentions “feedback” more than 1000 times1.

Figure 1. | Projections1,7 of global warming from 1850-2011 (inner scale), in response to doubled CO2 (middle scale) and the sum of these two (outer scale) greatly exceeds warming consistent with the 0.75 K observed from 1850-2011 (green needle). Midrange Charney sensitivity7 3.35 K (red needle) implies 2.4 K equilibrium warming by 2011, thrice observation. The revised interval derived herein is consistent with observation.

Control theory, developed for telephone circuits9,10 but applicable to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, defines feedback as responsive to the entire reference signal as well as to perturbations. However, climatology1-6 considers only perturbationse.g. 1, p. 1450:

Climate feedback: An interaction in which a perturbation in one climate quantity causes a change in a second, and the change in the second quantity ultimately leads to an additional change in the first. A negative feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is weakened by the changes it causes; a positive feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is enhanced … the climate quantity that is perturbed is the global mean surface temperature, which in turn causes changes in the global radiation budget. In either case, the initial perturbation can either be externally forced or arise as part of internal variability. [Authors’ emphases]

Due to this definitional error, projected Charney sensitivity has hitherto been imagined to exceed reference sensitivity up to tenfold7-8, 15-20. A corrected definition follows (with climate-related terms in parentheses):

Feedback (in of surface equilibrium temperature ) induces a feedback response (, in Kelvin at time ) to the entire reference signal (reference temperature ), the sum of the input signal (emission temperature ) and all perturbations (natural and anthropogenic reference sensitivities ). The feedback loop (Fig. 2) modifies the output signal () by returning some fraction of it, the feedback fraction (), to the input/output node. The ratio of output to input signals is the system-gain factor (. Negative feedback attenuates output; positive feedback amplifies it.

Figure 2. | The feedback loop (a) simplifies to the system-gain schematic (b)

Given that and , , the sum of the infinite convergent geometric series under the convergence criterion . Visibly (Fig. 2), the feedback block modifies all of , not merely .

Sensitivities and absolute temperatures: Climatology obtains equilibrium sensitivities using (1), derived from the energy-balance equation via a Taylor-series expansion4,21. In (1), is climatology’s system-gain factor, a forcing; a near-invariant sensitivity parameter22, p.354; 23, 24. In (2), the corrected definition of feedback is used.

 . (1) (2)

Though (1, 2) are both valid, (1) cannot constrain , because small uncertainties in , yield large uncertainty in ; but in (2), where , exceed , by two orders of magnitude, even large uncertainties in , entail small uncertainty in . The use of (2) remedies climatology’s restrictive definition, obviates quantification of individual feedbacks and diagnoses of equilibrium sensitivities using GCMs and, above all, facilitates reliable constraint of equilibrium sensitivities.

System gain: ; due to pre-industrial GHGs6 in 1850 was . In 1850, ; 25. The Planck parameter . Net anthropogenic forcing1, fig. SPM.5 to 2011, so that .

In 2011, . Given radiative imbalance26 by 2010, from 1850-2011 (of which was observed25). Since , , as in 1850. Thus, proves stable over time: for instance, the uncertainty25 in barely perturbs , so that, where the curve of the response function is linear .

That curve passes through two points . Since , the first point is . The second is the well-constrained in 1850. If is an exponential-growth curve, the exponent . For 7, . Then , and , near-identical to the linear case.

If were derived not from but from and current estimates of , temperature in 1850 would exceed observation and would barely exceed . For the midrange 7, GCMs’ system-gain factor implies that ; but then , so that in 1850 would have been , exceeding observation by , and, in any event, , close to the linear case.

If per impossibile the response curve bypassed , it must still visit in 1850. If the second point were (, current ), the ratio of the feedback fractions due to and due to becomes impossibly excessive: e.g., ; ; (Fig. 3). Yet the same feedbacks respond to sensitivities as to emission temperature, so that in (1) is near-invariant, implying .

Figure 3. | Ratio of the feedback fractions due to and due to , for on . Beyond the plausible regions, elevated feedback-fraction ratios and equilibrium sensitivities are impossible.

For a non-exponential-growth curve of that was near-linear, would barely exceed . For a significantly nonlinear or even stochastic non-exponential-growth curve, variability in the successive feedback fractions would at some point exceed that in an exponential-growth curve, contrary a fortiori to the near-invariance of . Therefore, regardless of the shape of , Charney sensitivities cannot much exceed .

Predicted and observed feedback have diverged (Fig. 4). Feedbacks other than water vapour self-cancel1, table 9.5. By Clausius-Clapeyron, the atmosphere may carry 7% K–1 more water vapour27, but specific humidity is thus rising28 only in the lower troposphere, where water vapour’s spectral lines are near-saturated: as humidity increases, only the far wings add to infrared absorption29, which varies logarithmically +with humidity. Though GCMs predict 90% of water vapour feedback in the tropical mid-troposphere, specific humidity is falling there, so that predicted warming30 at twice the surface rate is not seen11,31. Thus, feedback response varies near-linearly with temperature, so that the water-vapour feedback is small.

Figure 4. | The tropical mid-troposphere hot spot (a) is not observed (b).

Monte Carlo processes (Fig. 5) compared the revised 2 σ Charney-sensitivity interval 1.16 [1.09, 1.23] K with the current 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K (inset); and, in an empirical campaign, authoritative estimates of anthropogenic forcing over ten periods all yielded 1.15 K.

Figure 5. | (a) Monte Carlo distribution of Charney sensitivities revised after defining feedback correctly (bin widths 0.005 K); (b) Scaled comparison of distributions of revised vs. current Charney sensitivities (bin widths 0.025 K).

No consensus: Only 0.3% of 11,944 climate papers from 1991-2011 found of post 1950-warming anthropogenic32. If some warming were natural, equilibrium sensitivities might be less than found here.

Discussion: The Stern climate-economics review33 took a mid-range estimate of warming by 2100 as driving a welfare loss of of global GDP (cf. )1. The 11 K upper bound33 drove a 20%-of-GDP extinction-level loss assuming a pure rate-of-time discount rate, giving “roughly a chance of the planet not seeing out this century”34. Adding per-capita consumption growth without climate change gave a mean social discount rate (cf. 35), against a 36-37 minimum market discount rate. Since the present result shows the probability of extinction is nil, submarket rates are unjustifiable. Even without allowing for the present result, at the mean discount rate a -of-GDP welfare loss33 would become (or assuming no net welfare loss until preindustrial temperature is exceeded by ), while a -of-GDP loss33 would become only ().

Conclusion: The World Bank cites global warming in refusing to fund coal, oil and gas projects in developing countries, where denying electricity to 1.3 billion people curtails IQ and shortens lifespans by ~20 years. Once temperature feedback is correctly defined, anthropogenic warming will be small, slow and net-beneficial. A policy rethink is advisable.

References

1. IPCC. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., et al. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013).

2. Hansen, J. et al. Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. Hansen J, Takahashi T (eds.). American Geophysical Union, 130–163 (1984).

3. Schlesinger, M.E. Feedback analysis of results from energy balance and radiative-convective models. In: The potential climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide. MacCracken, M.C., Luther, F.M. (eds,). US Dept. of Energy, Washington DC, 280–319 (1985).

4. Roe, G. Feedbacks, timescales, and seeing red. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 93–115 (2009).

5. Schmidt, G.A., Ruedy, R.A., Miller, R.L. & Lacis, A.A. Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res. (Atmos.) 115, D20106, https://doi.org/ 10.1029/2010JD014287 (2010).

6. Lacis, A.A., Schmidt, G.A., Rind, D., Ruedy, R.A. Atmospheric CO2: principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science 330, 356–359 (2010).

7. Andrews. T., Gregory, J.M., Webb, M.J. & Taylor, K.E. Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607 (2012).

8. Vial, J., Dufresne, J.-L., Bony, S. On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates. Clim. Dyn. 41, 3339-3362, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9 (2013).

9. Black, H.S. Stabilized feedback amplifiers. Bell System Tech. J., New York (January 1934).

10. Bode, H.W. Network analysis and feedback amplifier design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1945).

11. Karl, T.R., Hassol, S.J., Miller, C.D., Murray, W.L. (Eds.). Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere: steps for understanding and reconciling differences. U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1, Washington DC, 164 pp, (2006).

12. Cess, R.D. et al. Uncertainties in carbon dioxide radiative forcing in atmospheric general-circulation models. Science 262 (5137), 1252-1255 (1993).

13. IPCC. Climate change – The IPCC Assessment (1990): Report prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change by Working Group I. Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J., Ephraums, J.J. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990).

14. Charney, J.G., et al. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Report of an Ad-Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, Woods Hole, Massachusetts (1979).

15. Armour, K.C. Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 331-335, https://doi.org/10.1038/ NCLIMATE3278 (2017).

16. Friedrich, T., Timmermann, A., Tigchelaar, M. & Ganopolski, A. Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Sci. Adv. 2 (11), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501923 (2016).

17. Johansson, D.J.A., O’Neill, N.C., Tebaldi, C., Häggström, O. Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 449-453 (2015)

18. Murphy, D.M. et al. An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D17107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009D012105 (2009).

19. Forest, C.E., Stone, P.H. & Sokolov, A.P. Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L01705 (2006).

20. Andronova, N.G. & Schlesinger, M.E. Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. (Atmos). 106, 22605-22611 (2001).

21. Bony, S. et al. How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim. 19, 3445–3482, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3819.1 (2006).

22. IPCC. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, J.T. et al. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001).

23. Ramanathan, V., Cicerone, R.J., Singh, H.B. Kiehl, J.T. Trace gas trends and their potential role in climate change. JGR (Atmospheres) 7:90(D3), https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD03p-5547 (1985)

24. WMO. Atmospheric ozone: 1985 global ozone research and monitoring project, ch. 15, Geneva (1986).

25. Morice, C.P., Kennedy, J.J., Rayner, N., Jones, P.D. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08101 (2012), http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.5.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt, accessed 10 September 2018.

26. Smith, D.M. et al. Earth’s energy imbalance since 1960 in observations and CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42 (4), https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062669 (2015).

27. Wentz, F.J., Ricciardulli, L., Hilburn, K. & Mears, C. How much more rain will global warming bring? Science 317, 233–235 (2007).

28. Kalnay E. et al. The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis 40-year Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77, 437-471 (1996).

29. Harde, H. Radiation transfer calculations and assessment of global warming by CO2. Int. J. Atmos. Sci., https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9251034 (2017).

30. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon S. et al. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007).

31. McKitrick, R., Christy, J. A test of the tropical 200- to 300-hPa warming rate in climate models. Earth & Space Science, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000401 (2018).

32. Legates, D.R., Soon, W.W.-H., Briggs, W.M., Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. Climate consensus and misinformation: a rejoinder to “Agnotology Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change”, Sci. Educ., doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 (2015).

33. Stern, N. The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006).

34. Dietz, S., Hope, C., Stern, N., Zenghelis, D. Reflections on the Stern Review (1): a robust case for strong action to reduce the risks of climate change. World Econ. 8(1), 121–168 (2007).

35. Garnaut, R. The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report. Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Australia, ISBN 9780521744447 (2008).

36. Murphy, J. Some Simple Economics of Climate Changes. Paper presented to the MPS General Meeting, Tokyo (2008 September 8).

37. Nordhaus, W.D. A question of balance: weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press (2008).

38. Jouzel, J. et al. Orbital and millennial Antarctic climate variability over the past 800,000 years. Science 317, 793–796 (2007).

39. Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. The temperature feedback problem. Energy Envir. 26 (5), 829–840 (2015).

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
June 3, 2019 2:14 am

“I wrote back to say that, unless we were given the opportunity to appeal against the editor’s decision, we proposed to report him as a participant in what Professor Mörner has justifiably described as “the biggest fraud in human history”.”

A great way to establish scientific truth. Call the police!

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 3, 2019 3:27 am

How eminently predictable you are.

Vuk
June 3, 2019 6:14 am

Government’s policy on the climate change is not about science, it is not even about facts, it is about the force of persuasion, and there is no more powerful persuasion for any government, than the incessant dynamic pressure on the people in power to collect additional taxes on account of the cause that can’t be verified.
The fact that fraction of the money is returned in form of research grants, commercial subsides etc. etc to those exerting the pressure, creates ever stronger positive feed back loop, that the sceptics regretfully have failed to break.

June 3, 2019 11:13 am

Still, though, do we really want the police settling scientific questions?

J Wurts
June 3, 2019 12:55 pm

We want the police to intervene and stop fraud.

Greg
June 4, 2019 12:05 pm

Exactly.

A great way to establish scientific truth. Call the police!

Well the normal way to establish scientific truth would be to publish a paper and let academics thrash it out. However, we see that there are some very non scientific forces at play to prevent that happening.

There is no doubt that the 97% claim is a politically motivated fraud.

Christina Figuras has openly declared that the ultimate aim is redistribution of wealth irrespective of whether they are are “right ” about AGW. The intent to “redistubute wealth” is one of the parts of the fraud.

Of course anyone who is an “official of the UN” is immune from prosecution in every jurisdiction on the planet.

Greg Cavanagh
June 3, 2019 2:20 pm

They aren’t answering the “scientific question”. Read the first 18 paragraphs again. This is about silencing of opposing views for dubious reasons (or no reason as per the second reviewer, other than they don’t want it to be true).

RW
June 3, 2019 2:37 pm

We want the police to investigate and prosecute fraud. M claims he was advised in a way which at the face of it is emintently reasonable.

Javert Chip
June 3, 2019 4:01 pm

Well, Tim, are you going to step in and mediate the situation?

When reasonable avenues of civil discussion are shut down, and the damage alleged by Monkton continues, eventually you end up pursuing a legal remedy, which sometimes does involve the police.

I’m supportive as long as this qualifies as a “last resort” (as opposed to “first resort”) approach.

ATheoK
June 3, 2019 5:28 pm

Which part of the 97% fraudulent claim or journals refusing to treat papers equally involve scientific questions?

Fraud is well defined as a legal issue.

Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2019 6:50 pm

There has been massive fraud in the surface temperature data and the fraud was admitted even in the climategate emails.

Stu
June 4, 2019 9:34 am

But we do want them to investigate crimes.

pbweather
June 3, 2019 3:28 am

You could point out where his paper is wrong here and show why it should not be published….if you can?

June 3, 2019 5:06 am

I pointed out, extensively, in previous threads. One refutation that has never been answered, is here. You can get exactly the same answer as Lord M does with his feedback nonsense by just the very primitive (and obviously inadequate) calculation of sensitivity by dividing the observed temperature rise over a period by the forcing change, ignoring any dynamics. The feedback hoopla adds nothing.

Editor
June 3, 2019 6:12 am

Ha ha,

But YOU don’t want others to have a chance to post official “refutations” on a published paper.

Again, you make no sense here since you are advocating a way to deprive others to give it proper assement AFTER it is published.

What are you afraid of?

CB
June 3, 2019 6:16 am

That’s not accurate, Nick. Your “refutation” was answered and shown to be invalid.

June 3, 2019 12:44 pm

ATheoK
June 3, 2019 5:31 pm

Specious distraction.

Andrew Kerber
June 3, 2019 8:12 am

I dont see your point here. I read both your comment here, and your ‘refutation’. But you dont refute anything. You just point out what anyone could tell you, and what is a direct result of the calculation being linear rather logarithmic. That it can be calculated without calculus. In fact your statement is blinding obvious just from reading the article above. Why exactly do you consider it to be a refutation?

June 3, 2019 12:49 pm

It’s nothing to do with linear/logarithmic. Lord M claims that CS is omitting a basic feedback. So he does a calculation of sensitivity with lots of extra feedback terms. And he gets an answer which, to umpteen decimals, is exactly the same as the most primitive calculation you can do. All his feedback stuff, right or wrong, just cancels out.

Jan E Christoffersen
June 3, 2019 9:05 am

Nick,

But, doing that sensitivity calculation. one would have to believe “the observed temperature rise over a period”. What UHI effect would one choose for a downward temperature adjustment – Phil Jones’ estimated 0.05-0.06C per century or 0.20C+ per century as measured by other investigators?

whiten
June 3, 2019 11:38 am

Nick, me still biting my fingers in the long expecting of your feverish the soon to come “step up warming” claim…
Where do you think we are or happen to be with that one, at this point in time, with this so proclaimed “scientific” stand of yours, at this point in time!?
Any time soon???….
that you may consider to answer this one Nick!!!

Yes, no, maybe, likely, very likely or even unlikely, or not any more possible…
guessing not possible at all, quite impossible Nick…
What would or could you say!
What could you say…possibly, or not possibly, that is the question Nick!
You not akin to get to answer it yet…for some weird reason.
what keeps you from just do in it Nick???

Try it, give it a go, take the chance, if you got the guts to stand by your claims, Nick.
Don’t hold back, be brave!!!

cheers

June 4, 2019 12:55 am

In other words, you can determine the actual sensitivity by using actual observed data – and it happens to match the number obtained by Lord M.

While at the same time, you cannot determine the actual observed data by applying the sensitivity assumed in the “models.”

We are to believe in you and climate “scientists” – not in our own lying eyes, right? Reminds me of the “Professor Hill Method for Musical Education.” Unfortunately, you are unlikely to receive a miracle like Robert Preston’s character – the con will unravel in the end.

John Endicott
June 3, 2019 5:54 am

If he could he would, but he didn’t. speaks volumes.

June 3, 2019 11:15 am

Here is just one statement from the current post that makes no sense:
“Control theory, developed for telephone circuits9,10 but applicable to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, defines feedback as responsive to the entire reference signal as well as to perturbations. However, climatology1-6 considers only perturbations e.g. 1, p. 1450:”
But a signal is a perturbation. If there isn’t a perturbation, there isn’t a signal. Climatology didn’t invent that. Says Wiki:
“In its most common usage, in electronics and telecommunication, this is a time varying voltage, current or electromagnetic wave used to carry information. A signal may also be defined as an “observable change in a quantifiable entity”.[2] “

This stuff is basic.

Paul Penrose
June 3, 2019 12:34 pm

Bollocks. Just because a signal is a perturbation, it doesn’t mean any particular perturbation is the entire signal.

June 3, 2019 12:42 pm

The “signal” that Lord M is claiming CS omits isn’t a perturbation at all. It is a “reference temperature”. It hasn’t changed.

D. J. Hawkins
June 3, 2019 1:39 pm

Nick, the signal is NOT only the time varying portion. If I have a DC input of 50 volts with a 60 Hz AC ripple of 0.5 volts on top, the signal is the steady input PLUS the ripple, not just the ripple. Where the heck did you learn control theory???

June 3, 2019 1:55 pm

” If I have a DC input of 50 volts with a 60 Hz AC ripple of 0.5 volts on top”
So if you then broadcast the signal, do you broadcast the 50 volts? How?

RW
June 3, 2019 2:57 pm

The signal can be the thing controlled. A thing that depends on other things, like perturbations. Calling a signal at time t+i a perturbation due to it having been perturbed at t+i-j is counterproductive. A feedback can be a function of all purturbations along with the reference signal. It can also be a subset of them. I don’t find anything odd with M’s statement.

June 3, 2019 4:14 pm

“The signal can be the thing controlled.”
Then it has to be at least perturbable. But The reference temperature, as defined by Lord M, is the pre-existing temperature. It by definition can’t be controlled.

RW
June 3, 2019 7:38 pm

If the thing you want to control was not purturbable, then you would not need feedback.

The ‘reference’ temp is the initial temp (input) and the ‘controlled’ temp is the resultant temps at each iteration (output). Controlled temps can be functions of the reference temp subjected to feedback control. So I still don’t see a problem with M’s statement.

Kurt
June 3, 2019 8:21 pm

“Nick, the signal is NOT only the time varying portion. If I have a DC input of 50 volts with a 60 Hz AC ripple of 0.5 volts on top, the signal is the steady input PLUS the ripple, not just the ripple. ”

I think you’re missing the point. Using your analogy, Monkton is trying to argue that the 50V bias voltage around your 60Hz AC signal has some amount of that voltage attributable to “feedback” as well as the 60Hz AC input around the bias voltage, while “climate science” incorrectly only applies feedback to the time-varying signal.

Monckton has it wrong. Feedback is only relevant to whatever change is instantaneously applied to an input – the feedback amplifies or dampens that change. That’s why feedback analysis is most easily performed in the frequency domain. Feedback systems care nothing about what historical changes were made at an input to get to the current state, from which instantaneous change is amplified or dampened, and know nothing about what future changes may be in store at the input. All that matters is the instantaneous state of change at the input.

I’ve agreed with a lot of things Monckton has said, but not this paper. He’s off on a wild goose chase here.

Roy
June 3, 2019 3:34 am

If it’s fraud then you bring in the police, Nick. Simple.

boffin77
June 3, 2019 7:28 pm

Nick, I think the above reference to telephone circuits may have thrown you off. In modern telephone circuits (and in most digital signals), the DC offset is irrelevant – the only thing that matters is the AC component (typically digitally multiplexed.)
Perhaps Lord Monckton should reference something other than telephony… for example I was taught control theory with reference to a toilet tank, where the float and valve ensure that the final height of the water does not depend on water pressure or water flow rates. Thus in a toilet tank the “signal” is the height of the water, not the height of ripples in the water. Monckton is pointing out that climate feedback mechanisms do not track the rate of change of CO2, nor the deviation of the CO2 from its 1850 level (how the global climate remember that reference value?) but rather the current quantity of CO2. It’s an important point. Hard to imagine why a scientist would not want to review his paper, just for the chance of giving a scientific answer.

June 3, 2019 9:08 pm

“Thus in a toilet tank the “signal” is the height of the water”
It’s the height above (or rather below) the equilibrium level, and so a perturbation. Lord M’s version is like feeding back height above floor level. Or maybe sea level.

Toilet is not a very good analogy, because it is highly non-linear. Once the level is a little below equilibrium, the tap is open and flow is not dependent on how much below. But used here is linear feedback theory. Responses and feedback are proportional to perturbation. And or states these reference levels matter. RW said what about the 50V DC component. Well, what exactly gets fed back? A fraction of 50V? Really? But what means 50V? It is voltage relative to a conventional point, the negative rail of the power supply. That isn’t anything physical. What if you said it was -40V relative to the positive rail. So do you feed back -40V? None of this makes sense.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 9:31 pm

All of this has nothing to do with atmospheric feedbacks, Nick. If you can tease out the various theoretical feedback responses to any assumed perturbation of any given climatic parameter, we’ll give you a Nobel.

UN IPCC climate models are bunk. They are full of unproven feedback assumptions. Prove me wrong, Nick. [And let’s not even get into modeled aerosol assumptions.]

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Johor
June 4, 2019 5:49 pm

All of the above, right up to the first comment by Nick, fails to hit the nail on the head.

GHG’s increase the near surface air temperature and increase the potential to cool the atmosphere by radiation. These go together. The equilibrated temperature near the surface in 1850 consists of contributions from radiative heating by the sun, back-radiative heating by the surface, convective heat transfer from the surface, and feedbacks.

The IPCC agrees with this list of contributions, but only for increases in GHG concentration after 1850. They claim, incorrectly, that there is no feedback component in the 1850 temperature – claiming it is the result of GHG’s only. Monckton is correcting their omission.

What the IPCC has done is to calculate an ECS based on the presumed warming “caused by GHG’s” and derived some number for temperature increase that will apply going forward, should the GHG concentration increase, which of course it did. To this anticipated warming from GHg’s they add “feedbacks”, ignoring the fact that the 1850 temperature included feedbacks as well as GHG effects.

Obviously if one pretends that the warming to 1850 was solely created by GHG’s, then the projection of an increase in concentration plus additional warming from feedbacks will over-estimate future values, something consistently observed when comparing IPCC predictions with observations.

Nick’s statement that the same answer as Monckton’s can be obtained using empirical observations of temperature is a distraction. That is exactly what the IPCC has failed to do – use observations. They prefer using derivation from first principles while making a fatal omission of fact: that the temperature in 1850 included feedbacks that apply both before and after that year. All increases in GHG concentration (signal) provoke feedbacks, should any feedback mechanism exist. The IPCC says they exist. So be it.

When Monckton correctly derives from first principles the temperature in 1850 and the current temperature in 2019 is show the math is sound. Similarly it exposes the error of the IPCC calculation which persistently over-anticipates temperature rise for a given GHG concentration increase.

The implications are significant. A rising CO2 concentration brings well-known environmental benefits, and quantifiable anticipated warming which is only one third of that projected by the IPCC. Global warming cannot be the existential terror proposed by the UNEP, NASA, the Potsdam Institute and others.

Publication of Monckton’s paper showing the conceptual error in the IPCC’s approach will be fatal to the climate catastrophe narrative.

If the article is correctly formatted and referenced, it should be accepted. If the publishers are corrupt or mendacious they will refuse to allow Monckton to join the conversation (which is what journal articles are) thus failing in their primary purpose which is to facilitate such exchanges of themes in Science.

As numerous contributors to the IPCC reviews have demonstrated, articles and claims do not have to be true to be published. Thus, editors do not have standing to publish what they prefer to be true, only to see that the framing of the argument made meets their criteria. No reviewer has pointed to an error in the analysis, only their preference that the public not be made aware of the inevitable conclusion.

June 4, 2019 6:57 pm

“That is exactly what the IPCC has failed to do – use observations. Th”
There are no observations in Monckton’s current math at all. His ECS now comes down to
E=(288/265)*1.05
288 is present surface temperature. OK, it’s a kind of observation, but the answer would be much different if it was 285 or 290. 265 is his entirely theoretical reference temperature, mainly derived from GCMs. Again that could differ by several degrees with no real effect on the answer. And the 1.05 is the long-standing figure for sensitivity with no feedbacks. Also theoretical, with input from GCMs.

And of course it is based on the absolute nonsense of trying to feed state variables through an amplification/feedback process.

Leonard Weinstein
June 3, 2019 4:00 am

How would you correct the criminal activity by those stopping reasonable discussion from being seen. Beg?

June 3, 2019 4:09 am

So declining to publish a paper which makes no sense is criminal activity?

Man Bearpig
June 3, 2019 5:21 am

If its too confusing, could you pass on to someone that can understand, and either refute it or concur with it?

Marcus
June 3, 2019 5:25 am

YOU couldn’t understand it, so it makes no sense ? ROTFLMAO…..What a cop out…..

June 3, 2019 10:21 am

It made no sense to the journal, so they declined to publish it. That is normal for journals.

Editor
June 3, 2019 12:44 pm

Nick Stokes

It made no sense to the journal, so they declined to publish it. That is normal for journals.

That is normal practice for a “journal” whose politically-corrupt editor only seeks to print what the editor desires to be seen by others.

June 3, 2019 5:28 am

Why, pray tell, does the “paper makes no sense”? Get specific, Mr Stokes.

Roy
June 3, 2019 5:55 am

So tell us where the paper makes no sense. Where are the errors?

Editor
June 3, 2019 6:17 am

Mr. obtuse is back!

Gee Nick did you forget to read the idiotic run around Monckton was getting over the paper review process? It is right here at the top of this blog page.

It has the appearance of a DELIBERATE censorship all over it. The appearance of trying to keep it bottled up over bogus review excuses, you didn’t miss this part in Monckton’s article here?

You are now into censorship against HIM because you don’t like him?

June 3, 2019 10:24 am

No-one has the right to demand that their paper be published. Journals reject papers quite frequently. They have standards. Trying to call in the police when your paper gets rejected just makes you look nutty.

Editor
June 3, 2019 12:09 pm

I didn’t say they MUST publish it, I was talking about the run around they gave him as their way to avoid publishing it. It shows indication of bottling it up in the possible INTENT of not publishing it, knowing their reason for not publishing is invalid.

Here is what you must have forgotten, since it was in the article you allegedly read:

I went on to tell him how certain parties have wilfully and, as we see it, fraudulently thwarted our attempts to get one of the leading learned journals of climatology to publish our paper demonstrating that a single, elementary, catastrophic error of physics is the sole cause of the absurdly overblown predictions of warmer weather on the basis of which scientifically-illiterate governments have been panicked by downright evil lobby groups and profiteers of doom into causing untold death, disease, educational disadvantage, industrial destruction and financial ruin worldwide.

His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.

There is more, if you want to convince us that YOU are an honest person…….

You hypocritically talk about standards, huh? What about the “Hockey Stick” paper that was published very rapidly, with no data and code available behind it? That was later exposed as garbage, that honest competent reviewers could not have missed from the start. That McIntire had a hard time publishing in the SAME journal that HS paper was so quickly published in, to point out problems with the paper…..

Did you actually read the article at all?

RW
June 3, 2019 3:26 pm

Submssions deserve a fair shake tho. Who demands the paper be published? M is asking for a fair shake. A fair shake entails reviewers who are experts in the question addressed in the submission and in how the authors addressed it; and an editor who should have a good deal of familiarity in these tbings too, to be in the best position to adjudicate. To be an editor. Nothing more ridiculois than an editor relying entirely on the reviewers, because the reviewers can make brutal errors, innocent or otherwise. So they need at least one reviewer, possibly two, who are have demonstrable expertise in control systems theory.

MarkW
June 3, 2019 6:39 am

As always, the standard of scientific proof is, does it support the CAGW myth.

June 3, 2019 9:51 pm

+1

Bellman
June 3, 2019 7:46 am

“So declining to publish a paper which makes no sense is criminal activity?”

It shouldn’t be criminal to decline any paper, even if it does make sense.

Gerald Machnee
June 3, 2019 8:07 am

They are afraid that the papers they already approved make less sense than Moncton’s.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 10:37 am

Then-current consensus experts should have prevented Einstein from publishing any of his papers because they made no sense, Nick?

It seems the science here is not at issue; it is the conclusion. In other words, ideology trumps science in CliSci.

June 3, 2019 12:58 pm

Einstein’s papers made sense and were published.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 3:47 pm

In hindsight, Nick, every evolution of science makes sense; it is only in then-time that the evolution makes no sense. Think the “100 Scientists Letter.”

Anyway, why should editors be allowed gatekeeping based on ideology? The various CliSci garbage that gets through is allowed because of ideology.

June 3, 2019 4:19 pm

Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 at 12:58 pm

“Einstein’s papers made sense and were published.”

Not at the time (also they were not peer reviewed in a formal sense), and Einstein’s papers did not meet with the approval of many scientists of the day.
Around the time of Einstein’s publish papers —

Some criticized Special Relativity for many reasons, such as lack of evidence, rejection of mathematical physics, philosophical reasons. Examples people who criticized him are: Max Abraham, Friedrich Adler, Henri Bergson, Herbert Dingle, Harald Nordenson, Hugo Dingler, Louis Essen, Herbert E. Ives, Emanuel Lasker, Hjalmar Mellin, Albert Abraham Michelson, Menyhért Palágyi, Walter Ritz, Georges Sagnac.

https://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/einsteis-theory-special-relavtivity
Many other scientist disagreed with him (Einstein), and other voiced the opinion that he made little sense and was wrong.
However he was published and his ideas in some quarters are still disputed. But that is how the scientific method works.
Darwin’s detractors at the time of his publication were legion, and yet despite his unconventional views (at the time) he was published.

The Scientific method fails when controversial papers and theories are not published, then they can not be properly considered or judged. They can not be shown to be failures by the logic and reason of others, by the judgment of their scientific peers.
IMO by not allowing proper scientific peer review and by using this method of suppression (aka soft censorship) scientific endeavors in this field are cheapened and impoverished.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 6:53 pm

The raw deal is that the UN IPCC will not consider scientific work that is not peer reviewed and published in “approved” journals. That is, unless you are one of them; then they take late, unreviewed papers. Look it up.

Paul Penrose
June 3, 2019 12:38 pm

More lies from Nick. The journals never claimed the paper it made no sense. One reviewer referenced a page that didn’t exist, another didn’t even bother to read past the conclusion to see if it made sense. A third supposed reviewer provided no written feedback at all. That is not any kind of honest attempt to review the paper. If I tried that at my job, I’d be sacked. Have you no same, Nick?

June 3, 2019 12:57 pm

“The journals never claimed the paper it made no sense. “

A few reviewer quotes, via Lord M, from here:

“Simply inserting emission temperature in place of anthropogenic surface warming in the equations, and proceeding as before, is a massive violation of energy conservation.”

“Instead of feeding in the perturbation temperature and asking what the perturbation in the top-of-atmosphere energy budget is, they shove the whole temperature difference from absolute zero into the equation by fiat and without physical justification. It’s plain rubbish.”

“The analysis given is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed and I cannot recommend publication by a reputable journal.”

I think they are not finding much sense there.

RW
June 3, 2019 3:05 pm

Depends on the reviewers’ qualifications. If their claims are invalid and M has shown this then the reviewers and the editors have failed to do their job. If this failure persists and persists for three journals then an investigation lf frqud might be in the cards. What is the problem with this? If M cannot show the critiques to be invalid then the claim of fraud is rejected before it gets off the ground.

Greg Cavanagh
June 3, 2019 2:28 pm

We’ve seen a lot of papers that make no sense. Feminist glaciology for one, as well as several hoax papers shown on WUWT.

June 3, 2019 4:20 am

Nick,
Maybe it has not been wise to close off or make too difficult, customary methods of showing a dissenting opinion.
The run-around that Lord Monckton has described is different in scale, but similar in principle, to my interactions with our BOM, who for 15 months have declined to state the error terms applicable to their customary daily temperature observations. Some hard scientists might take a refusal to state error, by a public authority, as a form of fraud.
So I, for one, am with the LM thinking and the widespread future investigation of fraud. Geoff

TIm Groves
June 3, 2019 6:55 pm

All in all it would be much better for the suspects to be investigated and potentially prosecuted, convicted, fined and/or jailed, and lose their pensions, than for them to be hung from lampposts, which is what may well happen when the public everywhere, increasingly angered and embittered by having to pay through the nose for intermittent electricity, finally catches on to the magnitude of the fraud—a fraud beyond the dreams of Professor Moriarty—that this group of insiders has been perpetuating.

M Courtney
June 3, 2019 4:21 am

Well, it’s more a way of establishing that the scientific method is being followed.

If it is and the paper is rejected then we are getting closer to the truth – the paper is wrong.
But if the scientific method is not being followed and the paper is rejected we are getting further away from the truth. Because we will think we have learnt something when we haven’t.

Not sure this is a good idea. It probably isn’t.

But it might force the IPCC to defend their arguments in debate.
And that would only be good for science. Thus also bad for the IPCC with its principle of political consensus led investigation.

commieBob
June 3, 2019 4:21 am

Based just on dispassionate science, CAGW should have been dead a while ago. If there is evidence of fraud, it should be properly investigated. On the other hand, that could be remarkably difficult.

It seems to me that M&M have thoroughly debunked Dr. Mann’s hockey stick. On the other hand, Mann is able to present arguments that his hockey stick is valid. Similarly, I am sure that people will present evidence showing that the 97% figure is valid.

The courts aren’t equipped to deal with differences in scientific opinion or to evaluate scientific evidence. In that light, it would appear that you are correct. We have to keep our eyes on the ball though.

CM has asserted that there’s evidence that his paper was rejected for non-scientific reasons. As far as I can tell, the reviewers did not refute his science and, again as far as I can tell, a reasonable person could reach that conclusion based on the evidence.

It is quite possible that the courts could find fraud without having to adjudicate scientific truth.

June 3, 2019 6:24 am

CommieBob,
Nah. Come off it.
Some issues can be resolved by little more than adding up and taking away numbers. Not beyond the average Judge.
The difficulty has always been the persistent gagging to prevent these simple numbers from going public via customary scientific routes.
Geof

Greg Cavanagh
June 3, 2019 2:32 pm

Agree. If the courts can’t follow the argument here, then they have no business judging murder cases.

lee
June 3, 2019 4:22 am

It seems more about publishing than “scientific truth”. 😉

Craig
June 3, 2019 4:23 am

Actually Nick, yes, it is! Please demonstrate why the paper should not be published….

John Endicott
June 3, 2019 9:54 am

No, he brought up some “points” that were more than adequately rebutted in that link. Nothing he wrote there “demonstrate(s) why the paper should not be published”.

Anthony Banton
June 3, 2019 11:16 am

I disagree.
But anyway, I’ll play along.
Such as?

John Endicott
June 4, 2019 6:04 am

Such as all the rebuttals to all his posts that you can read in the thread that you linked to. If you think you can show that there’s any that were not rebutted then by all means repost them here. But you won’t because you can’t repost what doesn’t exist.

Anthony Banton
June 4, 2019 4:48 pm

I read many of the rebuttals – the vast majority adding up to angry hand-waving with precious few adding any semblance of science argument.
They were rebutted by Nick in turn.
No surprise then, you chose to believe any rebuttal to those.
BTW: weight of numbers “rebutting” Nick, on this, a sceptic Blog, in no way correlates to being correct. (by virtue of bias).
Though that is, I know the measure here of “winning”.
No, sorry.
This bit of snake-oil selling to the gullible, actually boils down to common-sense anyway…..
That is the concept of a feedback to be attributed to a temperature (Monckton’s “entire reference signal”).
There is not and cannot be a feedback to a temperature alone (why is this not obvious??).
Only to a change of forcing…. which will results in a change of temperature, can cause a feedback.
An equilibrium is not in dis-equilibrium.
Were that the case, then what would stop the climate wildly veering all over the place?

John Endicott
June 5, 2019 5:10 am

They were rebutted by Nick in turn.

which were in turn rebutted by others. It’s called a discussion, that’s what happens in discussions.

Though that is, I know the measure here of “winning”.

It’s not a matter of “winning”, you claimed nick did “demonstrate why the paper should not be published” without providing any evidence he did so. and the only evidence you provided was a link to a thread where every point nick brought up was rebutted (by multiple people by your own admission). That’s not a demonstration of why a paper should not be published, it’s a discussion that you choose to believe one side on while dismissing the other as ” angry hand-waving” because what they say doesn’t line up with what you want to believe. If Nick so soundly “demonstrated why the paper should not be published” then you should have had no problem reposting the specific demonstration here , but you didn’t. instead you “angily hand-waved” by posting a link to an entire thread and said “it’s in there” as if saying it makes it so and also ignoring the fact that all of his points in that thread were rebutted (as well as his rebuttals to those rebuttals).

craig
June 3, 2019 1:05 pm

Anthony,

Seriously, if you want me to look at the story, that’s fine but I’m not reading 946 replies to see what Nick did or didn’t say. Either place his quote in a seperate post and then link the story or stop wasting my time!

Editor
June 3, 2019 6:08 am

Nick Stokes,

I take it you accept censorship……, over a paper you and several others thinks is bad, yet you are terrified that it be published, which would then allow for devastating counter to a paper YOU and a few other thinks is bad.

That makes no sense to me.

Izaak Walton
June 3, 2019 7:17 pm

Sunsettommy,
rejecting a paper is not censorship. That is what all journals do. Similarly
newspapers do not have to publish your letter to the editor.

Mr. Monkton has published his paper numerous times on the web at this site
and others and anyone with a web browser and who knows how to use google can find
it. The paper is rubbish for reasons that have been stated again and again. For example in Fig one the emission temperature is defined as the input signal when there is not a signal since it can’t change as long as the sun’s energy remains constant.

TRM
June 3, 2019 7:18 am

The normal scientific process has several “rungs on the ladder” missing for those who don’t adhere to the “consensus” view. That by itself is very unscientific unless you can show me where in the scientific method it says “and then consensus was reached”. You can’t because it isn’t in there.

This is not a way to “establish scientific truth”. This is the best way to deal with fraud. If you were at all interested in “establishing a scientific truth” you would follow the scientific method.

June 3, 2019 8:12 am

Why not? Seems to be the way believers in so-called “climate change” go their targets.

Joel Snider
June 3, 2019 8:45 am

But they did it didn’t they?

I seem to remember Nuremberg trails being recommended against us.

But I don’t remember Nick complaining about that.

Rod Evans
June 3, 2019 10:41 am

What would be your way of investigating fraud then Nick, if the police are now allowed to get involved once the evidence of said fraud is overwhelming?

GCSquared
June 10, 2019 11:10 am

We have something like this in youtube, who is “policing” their content to keep out “offensive” and “fraudulent” content. It’s not working out well. Consider the C16 human rights law in Canada, administered by a politicized human rights council.

There’s no guarantee that the authorities, police & courts themselves won’t be politicized, so that a system established with the intent of maintaining honesty won’t become something else. In this case, I can easily if horrifyingly picture Michael Mann as commissioner on an expert panel set up to determine fraud.

I’d much rather go the other way, and practice as radical a version of free speech as possible. I think we need to lift controls, not make more.

Clyde Spencer
June 3, 2019 11:10 am

Stokes
In an ideal world, one would not have to involve the police in science. But, it it less than an ideal world! Had Einstein attempted to publish in an environment that is currently as hostile to non-consensus ideas, his work probably would never have seen the light of day. As he famously said, “Why 100? It only takes one to prove me wrong.” If a formal reviewer could demolish Monckton’s thesis, then it would be justified to reject the submission. However, it appears that the reviewers are responding on an emotional level, not an objective, rational level.

There are different ways to implement feedback in a model. If done explicitly, as is common in system dynamics modeling, it also incorporates lags, and is easy to see what the relationships are. If done implicitly, as seems to be the case in GCMs, it is harder to untangle. But, more importantly, despite the pious claims that GCMs are based on physics, that is only a half-truth. The biggest problem is the parameterizations, which makes assumptions that may not be correct. They modify the ‘Physics,’ leading to the classic GIGO! It would probably be better to try to simplify the GCMs by using only empirically verifiable relationships and avoiding the mixing of the differential equations of ‘hard science’ and the assumptions of parameterizations.

June 3, 2019 4:45 pm

Clyde,
“There are different ways to implement feedback in a model….If done implicitly, as seems to be the case in GCMs”
It is not the case in GCMs. They do not use feedback. You can use feedback, as in the real world, as a diagnostic, to try to interpret the relationships. But they are not part of the implementation.

Alan Tomalty
June 3, 2019 7:17 pm

They don’t use feedback in the empirical sense because the models are not based on the Navier Stokes equations when calculating radiation because they can’t model clouds on a global basis. Tapio Schneider, a climate scientist admitted as such recently.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 9:11 pm

Oh Nick, Nick, Nick: Feedback assumptions are fundamental to UN IPCC climate modeling. How, otherwise, do modelers get tropical tropospheric water vapor amplification other than feedbacks?

Man, you need to get your physics arguments consistent with one another. I understand physics, and it does not support CAGW. Show me the physics that support runaway CO2-driven temperature speculation.

whiten
June 3, 2019 11:21 am

In the case of a crime and fraud supposedly committed, that is the main and the easier way to deal with…in the end!

cheers

whiten
June 3, 2019 12:18 pm

I am not sure why, but my above comment is literally out of place…I did posted earlier and before my other following comment above…
The first one directed at Nick!!!
Oh… whatever…it was meant as a reply to the Nick Stokes first comment in this blog post…
Very much directed and meant to the Nick’s first comment in this article of the Lord M…
hopefully this somehow makes sense.

cheers

Editor
June 3, 2019 12:24 pm

Nick

What would you suggest be done to get the information properly reviewed and I am not saying here whether it is right or wrong?

tonyb.

June 3, 2019 1:09 pm

Tony,
I think it has been properly reviewed, and the reviewers were correct. But if people are dissatisfied with a journal rejection, the normal next step is to try another. And if you really think there are no suitable outlets, you could start one yourself. The basic function of a journal is to recommend papers to its audience. This function is not improved by the intervention of the police.

Editor
June 3, 2019 1:18 pm

You are serious, Nick?

You write:

“I think it has been properly reviewed, and the reviewers were correct. But if people are dissatisfied with a journal rejection, the normal next step is to try another. ”

Now I know you didn’t read the article Monckton wrote since he showed that it wasn’t properly reviewed, I wonder if you are here to lie on this, because of your personal dislike of the man?

Here is what you didn’t read:

“His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.”

Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber in my review.

June 3, 2019 1:58 pm

I said it has been properly reviewed, and I quoted, via Lord M, some of the reviews above. Again, just highlights:

“Simply inserting emission temperature in place of anthropogenic surface warming in the equations, and proceeding as before, is a massive violation of energy conservation.”

“Instead of feeding in the perturbation temperature and asking what the perturbation in the top-of-atmosphere energy budget is, they shove the whole temperature difference from absolute zero into the equation by fiat and without physical justification. It’s plain rubbish.”

“The analysis given is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed and I cannot recommend publication by a reputable journal.”

Editor
June 3, 2019 2:57 pm

Nick,

TWICE I read through the article Monckton posted, the quotes you posted are not visible in it. Where did you get them?

Meanwhile you have now TWICE dodged these statements about Reviewer reactions:

Here is what you didn’t read:

“His eyes widened as the story unfolded. I said that, when we had submitted our paper to a journal, its editor had at first replied that he could not find anyone competent to review the paper. When we had persisted, the editor had spent six months garnering precisely two reviews. The first reviewer said he disagreed with the mathematics on a page that did not exist: whatever paper the reviewer was commenting upon, we were able to prove it was not the paper we had submitted to the journal.

The second reviewer had actually read the submitted paper, but he had commented that, because he had found the paper’s conclusion that global warming was not a problem uncongenial, he had not read the equations that justified the conclusion.

We pointed out that, since neither of the reviewers had actually reviewed our paper, the editor had received no indication that there was anything wrong with it, wherefore he should publish it without any further delay. He refused, saying that he would only publish the paper if the reviewers said it should be published. He added that he had telephoned a third party, who had told him not to publish the paper. We asked for that review in writing, so that we could comment on it and respond to any specific scientific points it made, but were refused.”

===============================

It looks like a run around to me, they could have simply said they think it is bad and drop it, but no they don’t appear to have a decent reason to drop it, hence the run around.

Editor
June 3, 2019 3:27 pm

I found the link YOU failed to provide.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/

It is interesting that you failed to post Monckton’s replies to the quotes you SELECTIVELY posted:

The first one the Reviewer never backed up their statement at all:

“Besides, the reviewer had provided no evidence or argument whatsoever to justify the nonsensical assertion that our method was a “massive violation of energy conservation”.

The third quote you chose, which Monckton replied that destroyed the reviewers argument since it was demonstrably false!

“See the analysis of the water vapor feedback, earlier in this article. The magnitude of that feedback has not been “proven beyond doubt”: it has been disproven beyond doubt. Consider, for instance, John Christy’s fascinating graph of predicted tropical mid-troposphere temperature change in 73 models from 1979-2012. All 73 models showed tropical mid-troposphere warming at a mean rate about four times the observed rate, and no model’s prediction was below the observed outturn –

It is very likely, therefore, that the chief reason why the corrected value of the system-gain factor, and hence of equilibrium sensitivity, is so much below all official estimates is the overegging of the water-vapor pudding in the models. But we don’t need to know what the models got wrong – it is sufficient to demonstrate – in our submission irrefutably – that wrong they were.”

====================================

There were many other reviewer statements you left out some that are well answered for even caveman visitors can understand.

Meanwhile how do you know these are the SAME reviewers Monckton is complaining about in THIS article. The quotes you lifted was from nearly a year ago, they might be from a different set of reviewers, than the ones in THIS article. I think they are different because the reviewers in THIS article are giving him a run around, while the reviewers LAST year gave specific objections, that he answers.

Readers, suggest that you go to that link and see the replies Monckton made to Nick Stokes, who make a lot of slippery replies there.

June 3, 2019 4:18 pm

“I found the link YOU failed to provide.”

Of course Monckton replied, at length. But he’s wrong, and the reviewers were right. It was properly reviewed.

Editor
June 3, 2019 4:39 pm

Nick,

Once again you dodge questions I bring up, you still have yet to address THIS article set of reviewers who seems to give Monckton the run around. I don’t think they are the same reviewers as last year, thus your use of quotes NOT attributed to Reviewers in THIS article are profoundly dishonest.

Why is it so hard for YOU to present honest replies?

The reviewers in your link were obviously wrong in several places, which YOU also dodged here as I pointed out two OBVIOUS errors on the reviewers part on two of the three quotes you posted.

John Endicott
June 5, 2019 11:37 am

Why is it so hard for YOU to present honest replies?

There’s an old adage that helps explain that: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Rudi Joe
June 12, 2019 10:50 am

John Endicott has a good point. It’s ethical you call Nick out on his bias and fraudulence but at some point we have to realize our energy is wasted on Nick whose salary depends on you being wrong. He will continue to be funded so he can waste your and our time. This keeps you from constructively using your time intellectually fighting against the globalist catastrophic climate change slavers as you’re arguing with this well paid shill. The first time he dodges your questions and gives you links that are incorrect maybe you should move on. We have a long way to go in getting the truth out and even cavemen like me can understand that.

Editor
June 3, 2019 2:45 pm

Nick

Whether we always agree or not I think you are a sincere and competent person. What would it take for someone like you to properly review the item and make constructive, objective comments?

I have no view either way as to it’s accuracy or value as the maths are beyond my pay grade

Tonyb

June 3, 2019 5:38 pm

Tony,
I have made many specific comments on previous threads. It’s hard to be constructive when the beginning point is a basic misunderstanding of feedback and signal analysis. Amplification and feedback relate to, and are proportional to, perturbations. Lord M claims that “climatology” should include the reference temperature itself, which is basically the pre-existing state. But that isn’t the signal, and it doesn’t make sense to take a proportion of a state and feed it back. Often the notion of the state doesn’t even give a base for proportioning. Here Lord M uses Kelvin – ie difference from absolute zero. But there is no reason why that difference should have a physical significance that makes it sensible to feed back a fraction.

But as said above, I think the clearest demonstration of nonsense is in my comment here et seq. The showpiece M result is the climate sensitivity estimate. But after all the feedback talk, the answer is exactly the same, to many decimals, as what you would get by just dividing the observed T change by the forcing, as many have done before. It’s the most primitive calculation you can make. And there is a basic reason why it all cancelled out. As a black box, with just input and output observed, you can’t deduce anything about the feedback operating inside. An amplifier with big gain and negative feedback would look the same as an amplifier with modest but stable gain and no feedback.

And as noted below, when a paper is loaded up with stuff (in the abstract!) like
“Mitigation entails a heavy net global welfare loss disproportionately afflicting 1.3 billion people to whom access to electricity is denied.”
with absolutely no substantiation in the paper, that is inviting a journal editor to give it short shrift. Not because he doesn’t agree with it, but just because it has nothing to do with the supposed subject of the paper.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 9:13 pm

Nick, you just said that the method was wrong, but it got the right answer.

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 8:58 pm

Har, Har, Har, Nick: You say if properly reviewed! The fix is in. Discerning reviewers know that the politics of CliSci are rampant.

HotScot
June 3, 2019 1:17 pm

Nick

I was the Police. Fraud is fraud. Scientific or otherwise.

Perhaps you might like to submit your ‘observations’ and be considered part of the potential fraud.

No?

Thought not.

June 3, 2019 1:59 pm

“I was the Police.”

RW
June 3, 2019 3:32 pm

Sophist.

RW
June 3, 2019 4:14 pm

I’ll add a particularly cheaky one…

HotScot
June 4, 2019 1:12 am

How about you stick your neck out like Chris Monckton and risk being attacked incessantly by people like you?

As far I can see, that’s all your good for, rubbishing other peoples work.

If a criminal lawyer states there is a case to be made for fraud, there must be evidence for it. Or are you an ‘expert’ in Criminal Law as well as climate change science?

Swampy
June 12, 2019 10:52 am

Good move on not falling for Nicks deflection and disrespect here. He loves to trap and troll.

J. Butts, Ph.D. physics
June 3, 2019 2:33 pm

I agree. And I could not get through the abstract –appears to be total rubbish.

Editor
Reply to  J. Butts, Ph.D. physics
June 3, 2019 3:30 pm

If true, why the run around?

Anna Keppa
Reply to  J. Butts, Ph.D. physics
June 3, 2019 5:45 pm

The obvious question: WHY is it rubbish, learned Ph.D, physics?

RW
June 3, 2019 2:34 pm

He deserves a fair shake, like all of us do. If M is correct, then neither the editor nor the reviewers did their job.

F1nn
June 4, 2019 11:16 pm

A fraud is a fraud, whoever does it. And you don´t have the truth on your side, so…

Charlie
June 5, 2019 5:54 am

Nick . Unless we know how much phytoplankton is in the oceans and how much CO2 it absorbs along with other forms of photosynthesis I habe doubts about feedback mechanism. The Cretaceous had 6x times present CO2 levels, fluctuations in temperature over the last 5 million years have been immense.
The reality is that many scientists prefer running computer models rather than uncomfortable time consuming field work. The reality is that most scientists lack the humility to say we do not know.
We have had drying out periods about 8600 years and 5900 years ago- why ?

If people are concerned about climate then they should ask how much a decline in temperatre and rainfall would getaly reduce the wheat output of the World’s Bread Baskets.

AndyE
June 3, 2019 2:28 am

Go for it, Christopher Monckton. What an interesting idea. It will be expensive – but there will be thousands of \$20 notes coming your way if you ask for it through WUWT.

Arjan Duiker
June 3, 2019 10:22 am

I agree, I will be the first one to pay.

Pablo
June 3, 2019 2:41 am

Is this just another way of saying that is unwise to average out the incoming solar energy for the entire sphere of the Earth to balance the outgoing in any radiative balance equation?

Editor
June 3, 2019 2:54 am

Thank you, Christopher. For the past half-dozen years or so, I’ve wondered when someone would take legal action against the propaganda wing of the United Nations and their paid-propagandists (the climate science community) for, in effect, crying fire in a crowded theatre when no fire exists.

Best of luck.

Regards,
Bob

ozspeaksup
June 3, 2019 2:59 am

Im crap at math but the effort alone deserved upvote . getting it open and looked at instead of the groupthink refusals to publish would be huge step forward;-)

Derg
June 3, 2019 3:57 am

The IPCC looks at Christopher like he is a flat earther 🙁

They see no point in publishing his team’s work.

A conundrum indeed.

DrDweeb
June 3, 2019 5:39 am

Bizarrely, “climate science” is based on the earth being flat. So I submit that LM is in fact closer to reality than the “ Climate Industrial/political complex”

Greg Cavanagh
June 3, 2019 5:14 pm

LOL. You did remind me of those long discussions many years ago when they discussed how the models modeled the earth. A non-rotating flat sphere with no water and no convection.

Editor
June 3, 2019 5:22 pm

DrDweeb June 3, 2019 at 5:39 am

Bizarrely, “climate science” is based on the earth being flat.

Say what? I have no idea what this claim means. I have NEVER heard a single climate scientist or investigated any climate model which said the world was flat.

An example or a link from you would go a long way …

w.

JB
June 4, 2019 2:35 am

Willis,

after that many years it might as well be spelled out here.

The hypotheses of the green house effect, and lets take Kiehl and Trenberth as example, is spreading out a solar incoming power over the full surface of the Earth, which neglects entirly the fact that the Earth only receives energy on the day side of the planet. This by the way, is at double the power, than what Kiehl and Trenberth or so many other caricatures of the so called “energy balance” want to make us believe. This is the same as saying that the sun is shining every second on every square meter of the surface of the Earth. This is only possible when the Earth is flat.
Its worrysome that you would not understand this yet. But you better do, because this is the argument that destroys the green house hypotheses.

Editor
June 4, 2019 10:02 am

JB June 4, 2019 at 2:35 am

Willis,

after that many years it might as well be spelled out here.

The hypotheses of the green house effect, and lets take Kiehl and Trenberth as example, is spreading out a solar incoming power over the full surface of the Earth, which neglects entirly the fact that the Earth only receives energy on the day side of the planet.

JB, What is the global average rainfall?

Well, to figure that out, you take all of the rainfall measurements around the planet and you average them. It gives you a figure of about one meter of rain per year.

Does this imply that the world is flat? After all, there are areas where it doesn’t rain for half the year, and there are always areas where it isn’t raining.

This is just like there are areas where the sun doesn’t shine for half the time, and there are always areas where the sun isn’t shining.

The answer, of course, is no. Neither average implies that the earth is flat. They are just averages. They don’t imply anything of the sort.

w.

JB
June 4, 2019 5:35 pm

Bizzarly Willis,

With your averaging skills you will never be able to get floods from heavy rainfall.

But since we have floods the averaging will be wrong.
You also therefore underestimate the temperatures on Earth.

This is a fine example were averaging will not work!

Editor
June 4, 2019 8:34 pm

JB June 4, 2019 at 5:35 pm

Bizzarly Willis,

With your averaging skills you will never be able to get floods from heavy rainfall.

But since we have floods the averaging will be wrong.
You also therefore underestimate the temperatures on Earth.

This is a fine example were averaging will not work!

JB, there are thousands of places where averaging won’t work.

There are also thousands of places where you MUST average to do any meaningful work.

w.

JB
June 4, 2019 10:11 pm

Willis,

down to semantics then!
Fact is that the “energy balance” graphic as being used in “climate science” depict Earth as a flat disc, that receives energy over the whole surface every single second.
If you call this meaningful, maybe, but it is a flat Earth argument.

AndyE
June 3, 2019 8:39 am

Don’t worry whether you are good at math or not. Leave that to the folks who have a head for that. Christopher Monckton is here talking about justice, legalities, common sense. You need no knowledge of mathematics here.

Perry
June 3, 2019 3:05 am

RStabb
June 3, 2019 3:20 am

Great work.

Morano exposes 97% consensus before Congress: ‘Pulled from thin air… tortured data’

RStabb
June 3, 2019 5:44 am
Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 2:35 pm

According to their own abstract, only 32.6% endorsed AGW which is not a consensus. Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so all this talk of consensus is nothing but speculation. Even if they had voted on the AGW conjecture, the results would have had no significance because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. If someone has to quote consensus as a reason to believe in a “scientific ” theory then there mus be something really wrong with it. AGW sounds quite plausible at first until one closely examines the scientific details and then it becomes obvious that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

Mark Pawelek
June 3, 2019 3:22 am

The prison door will not shut on them. In nearly all cases, their error is ignorance, and confusion over what science is and isn’t.

Federals should restrict funds for modeling to no more than 1% of research funds in anyone discipline. Modelers should be pay for it themselves.

commieBob
June 3, 2019 5:11 am

… their error is ignorance, and confusion over what science is and isn’t.

That’s probably not a valid excuse. What we’re looking at is the banality of evil.

Nial
June 3, 2019 3:29 am

“However, climatology1-6 considers only perturbationse.g. 1, p. 1450”

Checking this out it says…
“Climate feedback An interaction in which a perturbation in one
climate quantity causes a change in a second, and the change in the
second quantity ultimately leads to an additional change in the first. A
negative feedback is one in which the initial perturbation is weakened
by the changes it causes; a positive feedback is one in which the initial
perturbation is enhanced. In this Assessment Report, a somewhat narrower
definition is often used in which the climate quantity that is perturbed is
the global mean surface temperature, which in turn causes changes in the
global radiation budget. In either case, the initial perturbation can either
be externally forced or arise as part of internal variability. See also Climate
Feedback Parameter”

If they’re using the global mean surface temperature then they’re not just looking
at pertubations.

?

June 3, 2019 1:13 pm

Yes, they are
“the climate quantity that is perturbed is the global mean surface temperature”

Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 3:55 pm

Just for grins, Nick, explain to me how “global mean surface temperature” is a quantity.

Editor
June 3, 2019 3:30 am

“It’s not for wimps”, that is a classic example of British understatements.

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the observed world conforms far better with your mechanism than with the “consensus” stand point. As for the mathematics and physics, that is well above my ever diminishing abilities.

Thanks.

Alexander Vissers
June 3, 2019 3:31 am

Given the immunity of the United Nations as laid down in their charter there is little hope there I am afraid.

Greg Cavanagh
June 3, 2019 5:22 pm

The diplomats might be immune, but I remember soon after the Himalayan ice melting fiasco broke, the IPCC applied for immunity also. To my recollection, that bid failed.

Independent_George
June 3, 2019 3:34 am

The Monckton blaster is in da house!

I won’t be reading that maths again. I tried sketching out a couple of those equations and didn’t hit the answer by a mile. I am pretty sure however that i just summoned a genie 😮

Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 3:35 am

The peer review process that you have encountered is largely political as you experience shows. If the journals that you are submitting your work to were really scientific journals, they would accept papers from all sides of the AGW controversy.

You work shows that based on surface temperature measurements since 1850, the climate sensitivity of CO2 cannot be more than 1.2 degrees K assuming that all the warming since 1850 has been caused by mankind’s adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere. But if we look at natural global warming that occured before 1850, one would conclude that the more likely value of the climate sensitivity of CO2 would be significantly less than 1.2 degrees K,

The theory is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes even more warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. However this theory neglects that fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere, The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less that the dry lapse rate. So the H2O feedback effect is really negative and hence attenuates any warming that CO2 might provide. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate over at least the past 500 million years, enough so that mankind might evolve for we are here.

The IPCC will never accept a lower value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 than what they have already published for fear of losing their funding. The IPCC is largely a political as opposed to a scientific organization.

Mark Pawelek
June 3, 2019 4:32 am

Climate sensitivity of CO2 cannot be 1.2K. Because CO2 is only 5% of the GHGE. The 95% that counts is water vapour and clouds. Divide climate consensus number by 4 or 5 to get a better picture of CO2 ECS:
0.24 to 0.3 K.

Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 3:22 pm

Radiametric calculations performed decades ago came up with a climate sensitivity of CO2, not including feedbacks, of 1.2 degrees C. A researcher from Japan pointed out that these calculations assume that a doubling of CO2 will not affect the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such is not so. A doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. This slight decrease in the dry lapse rate will decrease the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 from 1.2 degrees C to less than .06 degrees C. The feedback idea is that CO2 based warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will in turn cause more warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas with LWIR absorption bands. But H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate hence H2O can only act as a negative feedback reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 even further. Applying an attenuation factor of 3 we come up with a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C. That is to say if CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere increased from the current 400 ppm to 800 ppm such would cause an increase in global temperatures of less than .02 degrees C which is too small to even measure.

June 3, 2019 8:27 am

William please provide technical and popular references for “wet lapse rate is significantly less that the dry lapse rate” so readers can follow up. Thanks

Clyde Spencer
June 3, 2019 10:03 am

David L Hagen
If you actually wanted to know, you could have looked it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 2:58 pm

I apologize for I have not been good about supplying references. One can always to an Internet search on either ” lapse rate”, “wet lapse rate”, or “moist lapse rate” to find more than one would want to know about the subject.

June 3, 2019 3:37 am

I invite you to take a look at the last slide in the seventh post that Anthony Watts ran on this subject for Lord Monckton, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/, where Lord Monckton says, “Here’s the end of the global warming scam in a single slide.” That slide shows that Lord Monckton has made an error in high-school math.

I hasten to add that this is only one of three fundamental errors in his theory.

The first error is that the large ECS estimates bruited about are not arrived at in the way that Lord Monckton claims as the “grave error.” Roy Spencer points out Lord Monckton’s own error in this regard, and I’m pretty sure Dr. Spencer is right. But I don’t have the wherewithal to make that case myself.

The second error is that, even if the earth could be characterized by such a thing as equilibrium temperatures, the values Lord Monckton uses for his with- and without-feedback equilibrium temperatures aren’t correct. If Lord Monckton’s accuracy on other things is any guide, I think this is indeed an error, and I believe others have made that case somewhere. But it’s not one I can creditably make myself.

However, the third error is one that requires no particular expertise to detect. It’s just math; all it takes is a certain analytical ability. The reason most people seemed to find it hard to detect is that Lord Monckton so effectively hid what he was doing (even from himself, I believe). But that slide finally boils things down to their essence, and it reveals that what he was doing is bad extrapolation.

The slide sets forth the correction he proposes to what he calls climatology’s “startling error of physics.” $E$ and $R$ in that slide are the with- and without-feedback equilibrium temperatures that he previously referred to as $T_\mathrm{eq}$ and $T_\mathrm{ref}$. That slide’s $A$ is the (large-signal) slope of $E$ as a function of $R$, a slope that he previously referred to as $1/(1-f)$. (Here $f$ is the “feedback factor,” i.e., the product $\mu\beta$ of the open-loop gain $\mu$ and the feedback coefficient $\beta$.)

In a post I proposed (but Mr. Anthony wouldn’t run), I graphed $E$ as a function of $R$. That is, I plotted the points $(R_1,E_1)$ and $(R_2,E_2)$ that the slide sets forth. What the slide does is tell how Lord Monckton would extrapolate the $E$ value, call it $E_3$, for what we’ll call $R_3\equiv R_1+\Delta R_2$. The resultant $\Delta E_2\equiv E_3-E_1$ is what he concludes ECS is. Specifically, he would use the large-signal slope $E_1/R_1$ or $E_2/R_2$ as the extrapolation slope. The “grave error” he says “climatology” made was instead to use $\Delta E_1/\Delta R_1\equiv (E_2-E_1)/(R_2-R_1)$ as the extrapolation slope. (Of course, he obscured this by not describing it in terms of extrapolation or slopes.)

But what his approach implies is that the slope of $E$ (a.k.a $T_\mathrm{eq}$) as a function of $R$ (a.k.a $T_\mathrm{ref}$) is expected to fall abruptly from the 1.43 value it’s known to have in the first, $[R_1,R_2]$ interval to 0.50 in the contiguous, $[R2,R3]$ interval. In contrast, what he characterizes as the climatology approach would employ the known slope as the contiguous interval’s slope. In other words, the climatology approach is standard linear extrapolation, whereas his theory boils down to bad extrapolation.

Craig
June 3, 2019 4:28 am

whether you are right or wrong Joe, full marks for at least demonstrating where it could/is wrong unlike say…..Nick Stokes who just pretends he’s a clever boy by making unsubstantiated remarks in general.

Derg
June 3, 2019 5:29 am

I don’t know Craig the following sure seems to be emotional. He refers to Mr Monckton as Lord to set him up as a higher power before referring to the error made in high school math. Very deceitful indeed.

“That slide shows that Lord Monckton has made an error in high-school math.”

Harry Passfield
June 3, 2019 6:59 am

Oh dear, oh dear! Here we go again. If one is courteous one will observe the usual conventions of address and be polite in your address. Christopher Monckton – that is his name, and he responds to it – is entitled to the address of ‘Lord’ (he is a Viscount) in as much as you, Derg, are entitled to be known as ‘Mister’ (I assume much here). If you call Chris Monckton, ‘Mr Monckton’ you are being discourteous in much the same way it would be for someone to merely call you Derg if the situation called for you to be addressed properly.

Derg
June 3, 2019 12:08 pm

I was more interested in the derogatory high school math error 😉

Editor
June 3, 2019 12:44 pm

Oh dear,oh dear! Here comes a representative of the professionally offended class.

Harry, Christopher Monckton is a grown man. He doesn’t need someone to get offended on his behalf. Me, I never deal with what I call “Third-Party Offense”, where someone gets all offended by what someone else calls a third party.

If Christopher is upset, he is more than capable of saying something, and he just might take off a strip of your hide in the process in the most delightful English fashion.

w.

RW
June 3, 2019 3:37 pm

C’mon. A call for decency, good faith argumentation, and/or civil discourse is not being part of a professional offended class.

Editor
June 3, 2019 10:16 pm

RW June 3, 2019 at 3:37 pm

C’mon. A call for decency, good faith argumentation, and/or civil discourse is not being part of a professional offended class.

I see. RW is also one of the professionally offended class.

Look, if Christopher (I can call him that because he’s a friend of mine) wants to complain about not being addressed as “Viscount Monkton of Brenchley”, which I believe is his “style”, as it’s called, or as “Lord Monckton”, he will assuredly tell us. He is not a man to sit on a perceived slight, and more power to him in that regard.

So when you are getting upset about what someone calls him, you are indeed engaged in taking third-party offense.

And unless Christopher has appointed you his spokesdude, I pay no attention to such third-party whining, other than to point it out. If I want to find out if a given form of address is offensive to Christopher, I’ll talk to the organ grinder, not to the monkey …

Finally, there was no “call for good faith argumentation” in what Harry said, just whining about him being offended by the form of address.

My rule of thumb, which I am able to follow at least a good percentage of the time, is:

“The fact that I am offended is NOT evidence that you are offensive.”

Regards to all,

w.

John Endicott
June 5, 2019 11:35 am

Me, I never deal with what I call “Third-Party Offense”, where someone gets all offended by what someone else calls a third party.

And yet, ironically, your post Willis, from which that above quote comes from, is very much a “third-party offense” post (as you say Lord M can handle it for himself, he doesn’t need you to chastise others for him).

Incidentally, pointing out the conventions for using titles/honorifics (such as “lord” or “mister”) isn’t necessarily being “third party offended” (and certainly wasn’t in Harry’s case from my reading of the posts) particularly when it’s in response to someone who was being third-party offended over the use of such (it’s called educating them on why their offense was misplaced), so you Willis are being third party offended over something that wasn’t even a third-party offending remark. your ranting about “third party offenses” would have been better directed not at Harry’s post but rather the one it was in reply to, ie the one in which Derg took third-party offense over the use of Lord instead of Mr. just saying.

John Endicott
June 5, 2019 11:40 am

Or to put it another way, willis, it is *you* who is showing himself to be “one of the professionally offended class” with this series of posts.

Harry Passfield
June 7, 2019 3:44 am

Willis, as you were particular in your response:

(Finally, there was no “call for good faith argumentation” in what Harry said, just whining about him being offended by the form of address.)

can I point out, I was not ‘whining’ about (Chris) being offended, I was merely calling for courteous dialog (knowing full well that I can go off on one, as I have often seen you do so). But, no matter, I get your pov. Cheers.

RW
June 4, 2019 5:32 pm

Nonsense. You’re muck raking. It’s incumbent on everyone to adopt a high standard for good faith argumentation, decent discourse, etc. There are better ways to express objection.

June 3, 2019 5:34 am

I respect Dr Roy Spencer for his work with Satellite measurements although it is actual John Christie that has worked out the formulae and does the calculations. However, I do not respect Dr Spencer’s knowledge and understanding of thermodynamics and heat&mass transfer. If Spencer read some engineering texts on these subjects he would find that there is no such thing as back-radiation.
Secondly, I find Monckton’s opinion of CO2 sensivity wrong. Engineering science measurements which have resulted in outcomes for equipment designs and property measurements show that CO2 has no affect on atmospheric temperatures. Experience of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of engineers since since the late 19th century have confirmed the theory. Finally, actual well known facts from meaurements is that temperature changes lead CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere. These facts all indicate that the so-called sensitivity is zero or more correctly sensivity does not exist.

June 3, 2019 8:41 am

cementafriend
Radiation to/from molecules is no respector of direction or location.
Chemical physicists quantify radiation across 5000 lines.
Look at the NET radiation, summed across all sources.
That can be positive or negative.
Study Line By Line models and how they have been validated. e.g.
Kratz, D.P., Mlynczak, M.G., Mertens, C.J., Brindley, H., Gordley, L.L., Martin-Torres, J., Miskolczi, F.M. and Turner, D.D., 2005. An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 90(3-4), pp.323-341.

Study what Spencer actually says.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/?

June 4, 2019 5:07 am

I do not want to make nasty comments but are any of you familiar with the work of Prof Hoyt Hottel which is to a small extent outlined in the chapter called Heat and Mass transfer in the Chemical Engineering Handbook or called Heat transfer in the Mechanical Engineering Handbook? Have any of you had some actual experience with heat transfer from gases or flames? I have designed burners for various fuels such as coal, waste oils, natural gas, pulverised waste carbon anodes. I have made hundreds of heat balances. I have measured CO2 in many process and have even measured CO2 in the atmosphere.
The wavelength lines are a factor in the emissivity of a mixed gas in a temperature range. Partial pressure of radiative gases in the mixture is another factor. One can not look at the properties of a pure gas to determine the emissivity. Finally look at the original work on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (in original German text) The S-B applies to surfaces in a vacuum. Gases do not have a surface but as Hottel found estimates can be made by using volume consideration.
Please stop talking about pseudo-physics. Heat transfer has been an engineering subject since around the 1800 from the work of Lazare Carnot the father of Sadi Carnot after whom the Carnot cycle is named.
Willis, below, I normally find your posts interesting but you are not correct about everything and I have in the past found that you have pointed to articles that have no relevance. As well as I recall you have no qualifications in chemistry or engineering and I also recall you do not understand dimensionless numbers which are used in engineering including in heat transfer.

Hugs
June 3, 2019 12:13 pm

‘ If Spencer read some engineering texts on these subjects he would find that there is no such thing as back-radiation.’

Tell me what exactly happens to the infrared shine of the Earth that happens to point towards the Sun?

Editor
June 3, 2019 10:18 pm

There is indeed back radiation. Care for an odd fact?

If you light a candle outside in the day, the sun gets warmer.

Go figure …

w.

See - owe to Rich
June 5, 2019 5:19 am

Joe, your criticisms sound very similar to the ones I posted in previous threads on the subject, most recently at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/10/the-credibility-gap-between-predicted-and-observed-global-warming/#comment-2591317 .

I am going to write something fuller at the bottom of the comments thread.

Reply to  See - owe to Rich
June 5, 2019 6:22 am

Without thinking it through completely, I think your previous comment’s A3 = A2 + A2 – A1 roughly approximates using the local slope–i.e., approximates the standard extrapolation that Lord Monckton labels an error–but I think the difference between the R intervals makes the result different.

Anyway, I’ll await further elucidation.

noylj
June 3, 2019 3:48 am

Since there have been e-amils showing intentional fraud and there have been numerous “corrections” to historical data, who needs math to KNOW fraud?
If Australia does not report temperatures below 10°?, isn’t that prima facia evidence of fraud?
If they can’t even predict the output of the sun, how can they predict climate which is controlled by the sun?
Have they explained all the ice ages and hot ages the Earth has gone through using their models?

lee
June 3, 2019 4:44 am

The reasons BoM gives for ACORN2 adjustments –
“Reason for adjustment Maximum temperature Minimum temperature
Statistical 209 244
Site moves (all) 176 170
Screen change or condition 79 77
Site condition (without move) 9 5
Observation time change 2 24
Total 450 491
Table 7 ACORN-SAT version 2 adjustments by cause. Totals do not add as some adjustments have multiple causes. ”

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf

Statistical no logical or physical reason for change.

Neville
June 3, 2019 4:07 am

Christopher has anyone asked Nic Lewis to review your study? Or perhaps Roy Spencer, John Christy, Steve McIntyre etc?
Also what are we to make of the Royal Society + NAS report question 20 that tells us that there is little we can do to mitigate so called CAGW even if we stopped all human co2 emissions today?
Here’s the link to question 20 and that incredible lag time before co2 levels would fall is very confusing. Don’t forget this is if we stopped all co2 emissions today and they claim there would be no change in co2 levels for thousands of years and temperature would also take a long time to fall according to their calculations.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

June 3, 2019 5:53 am
Dave Fair
June 3, 2019 11:18 am

All of this to say: “We adjust model parameters until we get an ECS that seems about right.”

Nik
June 3, 2019 4:09 am

Tally ho!

I’m making popcorn for the show, and I’ll gladly contribute to the funding.

Dodgy Geezer
June 3, 2019 4:22 am

Um.

Your problem here is not unlike the Brexit fiasco. You are trying to get people to comply with a set of rules (such as implementing the Brexit referendum decision) when they REALLY do not want to.

In such cases the opportunities for evasion are too numerous to mention. In your case i would simply defend against exposure by ensuring that the Crown Prosecution Service ruled such a prosecution as not being in the public interest. And I would waffle a bit about scientific freedom to decide what to publish.

Your legal adviser is incorrect when he says that “…Once the police realized that we were telling the truth, they would begin to investigate…”. Though inexperienced in this field, I predict that what would happen is:

1 – the police would ignore you. As they do most complaints.
2 – if pushed, they would realise that they are dealing with a sensitive political topic here, and push the decision up the chain
3 – direction would come down to delay justice, and then deny it.

Rod Evans
June 3, 2019 11:02 am

The Blair defence would be invoked to stall or stop any action. The Blair defence is Deny and Delay then Deny and Delay then Deny and Delay, this works for well over 10 years, and results in documents being released that are so heavily redacted they are worthless to the public.

Sara
June 3, 2019 4:30 am

Suppressing the truth. How medieval can you get? Hang in there.

Photios
June 3, 2019 9:37 am

Hang together or hang separately.
The choice is ours.

Dodgy Geezer
June 3, 2019 4:32 am

“….If that second journal failed either to publish our paper or to provide a legitimate and robust scientific refutation of our argument…..”

A=B and x=y – therefore your paper is wrong.

Your problem is, I believe, that the courts have explicitly stated that they are not the places to determine the truth or otherwise of scientific hypotheses. So ANY refutation which ‘appears’ scientific will be all right with them.

You might be on stronger ground following the precedent of that judge who ordered that errors of fact in Al Gore’s film should be mentioned in notes if the film were shown in schools. Perhaps there is some ability to require errors of fact to be corrected in policy submissions to ministers? Then again, perhaps not….

ggm
June 3, 2019 4:37 am

I have a question for you. We know the average temperature of the Earth is 15 degrees C, and that without the atmosphere it would be -17C. So the natural GH effect warms Earth by 33C. This is old science. I believe the 15C is an actual measurement, and the -17C (and 33C) is a calculation based on the science. My question is this. If the AGW theory says there is a massive feedback in going from 300ppm to 400 or 500ppm, then there MUST also be a massive feedback in the steps from 100ppm to 200ppmm and 300ppm. And was this taken into account when they calculated that Earth’s atmosphere warms Earth by 33C. If not, then either the AGW theory is false, OR, the original science behind the natural 33C warming is false.

June 3, 2019 6:02 am

No brief for massive positive feedback here, but the fact that the small-signal feedback is low at lower temperatures does not necessarily imply that it can’t be much higher at higher temperatures; we’re dealing with things like evaporation, cloud formation, and emergent phenomena like thunderstorms, that are highly nonlinear.

Me, I don’t think there’s much if any positive feedback, but simplistic approaches like Lord Monckton’s aren’t the way to prove that my opinion is right.

ggm
June 3, 2019 7:24 am

But CO2’s absorption is not linear, it’s logarithmic. Most of CO2’s IR absorption happens in the first 50ppm and then it’s all downhill from there (or more accurately, less uphill !).

June 3, 2019 2:44 pm

Yes, the relationship’s essentially logarithmic, but that’s irrelevant here, because Lord Monckton’s equations don’t deal with CO2 concentration. They deal with feedback to temperature, not to CO2 concentration.

He provides as given values the equilibrium with- and without-feedback responses to pre-industrial and current CO2 concentrations, and he also gives the without-feedback value for doubled CO2. But, again, those are givens, so the logarithmic relationship is already baked into the data; his equations don’t deal with it.

All he does is extrapolate the with-feedback temperature for double CO2 from the five given temperature values.

It was feedback to temperature that I said could be seriously nonlinear. Again, I don’t personally think there’s much net positive feedback. But nothing in his work bolsters my opinion. And the fact that there’s a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and forcing isn’t relevant.

George Mihailides
June 3, 2019 5:45 am

Lord Monckton, you need to dumb down the language if you want people to follow your argument, and I personally found your logic difficult to follow (and I want to)…

example..
“due to an erroneous definition of temperature feedback in climatology. All transport across the climate-system boundary is radiative; and, in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, flux density at an emitting surface is a function of absolute temperature, which is accordingly the proper metric for sensitivity studies”

…what is the “climate system boundary”?
…What is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and why should I care?

If you are pitching your paper at the few who are familiar with this stuff, that’s one thing. If you want a broader audience to follow, they will need to be hand held….and btw, my undergraduate degree is in mathematics..so I suspect if you are losing me, you are losing many, many more…

Greg Cavanagh
June 3, 2019 8:06 pm

He has posted simpler layman’s versions of his idea in the past.

The site search feature may find some of those if you want to read them. Try a couple of common terms in Lord Monckton’s text and see what you can find. Google probably has them archived too.

June 3, 2019 8:59 pm

Actually, he has “dumbed it down.” It’s condensed into a single slide at the end of the post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/.

There he gives two values 287.55 K and 288.55 K of what he says are the with-feedback equilibrium temperature E as a function of his values 254.80 K and 255.50 K for the without-feedback equilibrium temperatures R that would respectively result from the pre-industrial and current CO2 concentrations. From those values he extrapolates a with-feedback temperature 287.55 K + 1.17 K = 288.72 K, which according to him corresponds to the without-feedback equilibrium temperature of 254.80 K + 1.04 K = 255.84 K that he says would result from doubling the pre-industrial CO2 concentration.

But, instead of conventionally extrapolating in accordance with the ratio of the with- to the without-feedback differences (“perturbations”) between those purported pre-industrial and current values, as he (erroneously) says “climate science” does, he arrived at his result by using the ratio of the purported with- and without-feedback values themselves, as high-school math will tell you would rarely yield a good result. (It would if the function were nearly linear—but then so would the “climate science” approach he says is a “grave error.”)

fah
June 3, 2019 5:45 am

I am never sure of the claims of fraud. One element of fraud is that the perp knows the claim to be false. Feynman, as usual, had something to say about being careful about this:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Having fooled myself a number of times, I often give others the benefit of the doubt in that department. One really needs to find evidence that the perps actually believe that they are wrong and yet persist, instead of live in a world of fooling themselves.

Editor
June 3, 2019 10:21 pm

Thanks, fah. I wanted to make the same point but you’ve done it much more clearly than I would have.

w.

johnny
June 3, 2019 5:52 am

Definition of the feed back factor at Fig 2 is backward/reciprocal of what it should state.
I will be absorbing this for days. Thank you!

Lloyd Martin Hendaye
June 3, 2019 6:13 am

Quite right– by numerous private and public investigators’ well-publicized admissions over some four decades, chiliastic AGW Catastrophism is not an empirically falsifiable (Popperian) hypothesis but a psychogenic idée fixe, akin to thanatist death-cults described in Will James’ classic “Varieties of Religious Experience” (Gifford Lectures on natural theology, Edinburgh 1901 – ’02).

Detailed technical arguments aside –which deviant collectivist/Statist (“One World”) ideologues assiduously misrepresent– why not just note that physics’ fundamental Conservation Laws render disproportionately escalating feedback mechanisms energetically impossible? At root, these mundane chemical –not nuclear– processes do not self-reinforce by some iterated, sloshing-bucket type reaction, but cancel to equilibrium as kinetic differentials dissipate

As for engaging one’s local constabulary as well as governing authorities’ Grand Theft investigative teams, by all means seek remedies for “fraudulent enrichment” by all manner of peculating coteries whatever their obscurantist academic, professional, or sanctioned organizational credentials. Clausewitz calls war “politics by other means”, Sun Tzu treats politics as war… when so-called “climate science” degenerates to deathly-serious assaults on naive populaces’ literal survival, then War it is: Make Offense your best Defense, storm Warmist citadels, gnaw their deadhead skulls.

Phil R
June 3, 2019 6:13 pm

Yooper
June 3, 2019 6:20 am

Neville said: “Christopher has anyone asked Nic Lewis to review your study? Or perhaps Roy Spencer, John Christy, Steve McIntyre etc?”

Lord Mockton said: “Is our argument sound? Is it definitive? Or is it erroneous or in some respects deficient? And should we follow the eminent lawyer’s advice? I shall read your comments with interest.”

Looks like LM is using WUWT to get the peer review he couldn’t get from “the jounnal”…

JohnJohn
June 3, 2019 6:54 am

I saw an article in a popular TV magazine the other day. It read:

“Climate Change by the Numbers. 650,000 – number of people killed in extreme weather events since 1995… ”

This thing is now all-pervasive. Scientific fraud or not, it has it’s own momentum and you’ll never kill it.

Jan E Christoffersen
June 3, 2019 9:18 am

Johnjohn,

Let’s see. 650,000/24 = 27,000 deaths per year due to extreme weather events annually out of a global population of roughly 7,000,000,000. Sounds reasonable and not too alarming, but for the tragedy for those affected.

Yirgach
June 3, 2019 1:49 pm

Looks about the same value for that time period as Joe Bastardi’s graph on Climate Related deaths.
Of course back in the 1920’s it was more like 450,000 per year.
https://tinyurl.com/y2a5ulhk

Steve Richards
June 3, 2019 7:01 am

I agree that courts are not the place to decide scientific truths.

However, I suspect here, the issue will be the deliberate breach of process. With collusion or conspiracy as a multiplier effect.

Journals pride themselves in the way they publish ground breaking papers. Remember:
the fat/sugar debate, which is still ongoing,
Red wine is good/bad for you – still ongoing,
Your ideal weight – still ongoing,
Speed of light is still being refined – ongoing,
Cold fusion – a bit dodgy – but still ongoing,
Hot fusion – lots of breakthroughs every 30 yrs -= still ongoing,
String theory – still ongoing,
Climate change – they know it all (or at least enough) – science is settled.

Of all the issues facing us today, it seems peculiar the it is only climate science believes that, as self declared, its settled, they no need to publish all sides of the science on climate.

We have the wilful refusal to publish data, the refusal of the media to cover all aspects of the debate.

There is so much to choose from, however, it will be hard to get sufficient detailed evidence that will stand up in court.

Clyde Spencer
June 3, 2019 10:40 am

Steve Richards
Inasmuch as the issue is so contentious, and there are experienced, well-educated individuals on both sides of the argument, I think that the journal(s) would be doing a much needed service to bring it out in the open and let the ‘big guns’ in fields outside of climatology weigh in on whether or not Monckton has “gone off the rails.”

Taking what Monckton has said at face value, there has been no reviewer who have provided a reasonable justification for rejecting publication. It appears to only be a personal disagreement with the thesis and conclusion. Fortunately, Einstein was not faced with the same barriers of prejudice.

Editor
June 3, 2019 10:33 pm

Steve Richards June 3, 2019 at 7:01 am

I agree that courts are not the place to decide scientific truths.

However, I suspect here, the issue will be the deliberate breach of process. With collusion or conspiracy as a multiplier effect.

Deliberate breach of WHAT process? There is no law concerning when a reviewer can reject a piece. He (or she, of course) can reject it just because of a gut feeling that there is something wrong that he can’t put a finger on.

Nor is there any law saying the reviewer cannot get together with other reviewers to discuss the case, which is what you seem to be calling “collusion” or “conspiracy”.

I happen to have some knowledge of this, as I am occasionally involved in advising on whether to publish something on WUWT. And while I do my best to be as scientific as possible, sometimes the whole piece just doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Or it goes somewhere and despite my best efforts I can’t follow it. Or even though I can’t directly falsify them, the claims involved are far too overblown to sustain close scrutiny. Or everything is right except for one single claim, and I think that error propagates throughout the whole piece.

So … when I advise rejecting a piece, I’m sure the writer will not be happy.

But would I be guilty of “fraud”?

Hell, NO! I can recommend rejection simply because the paper has too many errors and typos that are distorting the meaning, and I don’t have the patience to guess what each one of them is supposed to mean.

So y’all should understand … if you are arguing that it’s OK to involve the judicial system and that the scientific journals should be accused of criminal fraud if you don’t like what they publish …

… you are making the same argument regarding WUWT.

There is no “Right To Be Published”, either here or in the journals. Joe Born had a proposed post discussing the errors made by Monckton turned down by WUWT … is he entitled to sue for fraud in a criminal court?

Don’t be daft …

w.

chris
June 3, 2019 7:10 am

making the extraordinary claim of a fundamental mistake in Physics requires, as the saying goes, extraordinary evidence. Given the ubiquitous inter dependencies in Physics, I would expect that this alleged fundamental mistake would have become obvious in many branches in Physics and not require a single journal to publish a paper that – evidently – did not pass peer review.

The claim of fraud – implying monetary reward for a cover-up – suggests that there is a lot more money to be made in exposing such a fundamental mistake in one or more of the many non-climate Physics journals. In fact, discovering a fundamental error would seem to be grounds for a Nobel prize.

so I’m a it puzzled why this boils down to the opinion of a retired Scottish lawyer. hmm …

Editor