JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Monckton on Readfearn: A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist

Readfearn’s quiz is one of the most trashy-teenage-smears I’ve seen in print. (Where else but The Guardian?).  Monckton responds to Graham Readfearn’s vacuous attacks on Dennis Jensen M.P. with his trademark withering style. Readfearn had tried to be withering, in a 12 year old kind of way, but petty snark-by-association only proves how incapable he is. Readfearn (journalist) scorns Dr Jensen — PhD in materials engineering, CSIRO researcher, Analyst – Defence Science and Technology Organisation. But Readfearn has nothing at all on Jensen, not a single tiny point, the best he can do is try to paint Jensen with things other people said. It is scorn by proxy — Readfearn is really attacking Monckton. That the Guardian editors thought this worth reproducing says a lot about the intellectual caliber there.  – Jo

A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist. Graham Readfearn, described as “a journalist”, heavily lost a public debate on the climate against me some years ago and has borne a steaming grudge ever since. Readfearn is no seeker after truth. He is an unthinking propagandist for the New Religion of ThermageddonTM.

This sad figure, furious at his fell0w-Socialists’ recent electoral drubbing, now snipes futilely at Dennis Jensen, perhaps the most scientifically-qualified member of either House, and certainly better qualified than the militantly ignorant Readfearn.

Dennis Jensen’s crime, in Readfearn’s eyes, is that “he doesn’t accept the position of the world’s science academies and Australia’s CSIRO that climate change is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees and that this might be bad.”

Stop right there, Graham, baby. Let’s just take a peek at the peer-reviewed literature on this notion that there is some sort of a scientific consensus that Man can claim credit for most of the 0.7° C global warming since 1950.

As Readfearn may know, in May 2013 a comic called Environment Research Letters, which was set up in 2006 precisely to preach the New Religion, published a fairy-tale by five polemical blograts at Queensland Kindergarten and a clutch of their studenty friends at various real universities. These children’s story was that 97.1% of abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific papers published worldwide between 1991 and 2012 endorsed the supposed “scientific consensus” that most post-1950 global warming was down to us. Trouble was, this “once-upon-a-time” fable did not end “happily ever after” for the Queensland kiddiwinks. Legates et al. (2013), in a grown-up, peer-reviewed paper in the long-established Science and Education journal, devastatingly revealed that the Queensland Quixotes themselves had only marked 64 out of 11,944 abstracts as actually saying that most post-1950 warming was manmade. Oops!

One realizes you’re arithmetically challenged, Graham, old fruit, so one’s large and able staff have determined that 64 out of 11,944 is not 97.1%. It’s 0.5%. Oops2!

But Legates et al. went further. They read all 64 abstracts. A third of them – 23, in fact – did not say most post-1950 warming was manmade. Only 41 did so. Oops3!

One’s l. and a. s. have done the math for you again, Grazza. The true length and breadth and with of your imagined “scientific consensus” is not 97.1%. It’s 0.3%. Oops4!

So, when you say “97% of research papers published in scientific journals agree that humans are causing climate change”, you’re either using a definition of “scientific consensus” that is not the same as the papers you’re citing or exaggerating about 300-fold. Oops5!

And when you take Dennis Jensen to task for saying “The argument from consensus is a flawed argument,” it’s Dennis and not you that is correct. Oops6!

You see, Grabbikins, real scientists from Thales of Miletus and Aristotle via Abu Ali Ibn al-Haytham, Galilei and Newton to Huxley, Einstein, Popper and Feynman don’t consider consensus is science, not even if it’s a consensus of soi-disant “experts” or even of “academies” or of grand-sounding “Commonwealth Institutes”.

The late Michael Crichton, no mean scientist himself, put it best: “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”

One appreciates that the constituents of the Socialist hive mind hate thinking for themselves, and are largely incapable of doing so. But science and Socialism are clean different things, Graham, my old son, and this particular attempt by the latter to take over the former has already failed abjectly. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Jensen’s capital crime, in Redfearn’s eyes, is that he once said most of my work is “entirely reasonable”. Jensen had said: “Some of it I don’t agree with, but on the whole a lot of what he says is in my view correct.”

Readfearn then takes a dozen assertions of mine, rips them out of context like a good little propagandist, distorts them just a tad to make them look as silly as possible, and then challenges Dennis Jensen to say whether he agrees with the Readfearn version, asking with tedious repetitiveness, “Yes or No?”

Altogether not a very grown-up carry-on, but very much in the Readfearn tradition of putting Socialism before everything, and especially before the truth.

Just for fun, though, let’s have a look at each of Readfearn’s out-of-context parodies of statements by me.

1.      Science should only be practised by people who adhere to a religion, preferably of the Christian variety. Yes or no?

Sigh! In context, I said that some climate scientists had acted dishonestly and even fraudulently; that many more, under peer pressure, had looked the other way; that science was a moral process; that the duty of the scientist was to be what al-Haytham beautifully called a “seeker after truth”; that science was indeed a moral process; and that scientists who were Christians already had a moral outlook, which is why it was beneficial that scientists should be Christians.

2.     The former ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, is “shrimp-like”. Yes or no?

Oh brother! One had no idea that the Australian parliamentary tradition is one of never passing any form of adverse comment. Newman had failed to stop the ABC rampaging against me or anyone who dared to oppose the 0.3% viewpoint on climate science that it has so long and fervently espoused. I called him a name. Tough titty.

3.     The “expert reviewers” for the IPCC are “appointed” to carry out that role by someone other than the person himself. Yes or no?

My oh my! The Socialists have never forgiven the IPCC for having appointed me as an expert reviewer. I applied for it, and, having satisfied it of my publication record (which continues to grow) was appointed. My name appears on the IPCC’s register of expert reviewers. My 80 pages of comments are at scienceandpublicpolicy.org under “Monckton papers”. Go read it, Graham, and you may learn something.

4.     The world’s climate scientists and advocates for action are just trying to “stamp out democracy”. Yes or no?

Well, well! Socialists are often careless with their quantifiers. Two such are recognized in logic: “There exists” and “All”. I have never said that all climate scientist or all advocates and propagandists such as Readfearn himself are trying to “stamp out democracy”. However, it is undeniable that some of the absurdly extreme measures advocated by a very small band of climate scientists and a larger crowd of lobbyists and fanatics such as Readfearn would indeed have the effect of stamping out democracy. James Hansen, for instance, said those who disagreed with him about the climate should be “tried for high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, and the dead can’t vote. Shortly before my second speaking tour of Australia, a prominent Australian journalist said all climate “deniers” (a nasty word, with overtones of Holocaust denial) should be branded with cattle-irons, and another said they should be gassed. Not a squeak out of Readfearn about those, of course.

5.     The cleanest form of energy is “coal”. Yes or no?

Oh, no, not again! What I have said, time and again, is that one needs reliable, base-load energy that will keep the lights on even at night when the wind is not blowing. Modern, circulating fluidized-bed or pelletized supercritical coal combustion is highly energy-efficient; and, with fly-ash trapping and flue-gas scrubbing, a modern coal plant is about as clean, per MWh of output, as gas or nuclear power. CO2, Graham, me lad, is not a pollutant but a naturally-occurring trace gas essential to all life on Earth. Coal emits quite a bit more CO2 per MWh than gas, and that makes it twice as good for trees and plants as gas: for CO2 is plant food. It is not dirty.

6.     Lord Monckton is a Nobel Peace Laureate. Yes or no?

And another one! Here, puir wee Graham begins to wander from the climate a little, as well as getting his facts wrong. I have never called myself a “Nobel Peace Laureate”, though Michael Mann, who, like me, contributed to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, has called himself one without any complaint from Readfearn.

However, after I had given a lecture on climate sensitivity to the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, NY, the Professor of Physics there, Dr. David Douglass, produced a presentation box and gave me a Nobel  Prize pin that he had made out of gold he had recovered from a physics experiment 35 years previously. I wear it from time to time in gratitude for his kind recognition of my contribution, which helped to correct an error in the report. What I suspect has happened here is that others – such as those who post up my writings on climate from time to time – may have described me in jest as a “Nobel Peace Laureate”; though I cannot say, since life is short and eternity long, so that I spend very little time reading about myself on the web.

7.      The BBC once had an Argentinian service and Lord Monckton used this to help the UK win the Falklands war. Yes or no?

Off topic again, and still more obviously. The BBC, in case Readfearn is unaware of this, maintains a World Service. On the leader-page of the Daily Telegraph at the time when the fleet sailed to recapture the islands for democracy and freedom, I wrote at the request of the editor an article explaining the reasons in international law why the Falklands are British. The article was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister. Some of the transmitters available to us were retasked to broadcast messages into Argentina during the Falklands conflict – a practice that is almost as old as radio itself. Among the material that was regularly broadcast throughout the war – though I did not find out about it until afterwards – was my article. Shortly thereafter, I was invited to join the Prime Minister’s policy unit at 10 Downing Street.

8.     Some “super-rich” sceptics should be encouraged to buy into media organizations so that climate sceptics can get more coverage. Yes or no?

Now we’re back to climate, though not to climate science, of which Readfearn has remarkably little knowledge. I gave a talk a couple of years ago to the Mannkal Foundation in Perth, WA, in which I said that the inbuilt hard-Left Socialist prejudice in the Australian media was as bad as in the UK or the US; that in the US Fox News was making $2 million a day by broadcasting straight, unbiased news surrounded by centre-Right commentary; and that a centre-Right entrepreneur in Australia setting up a non-Left TV news channel would also make a fortune. Someone videoed my talk and put it up on the Web. Then a Socialist site picked it up and, nervous of having the hard-Left stranglehold over the electronic media broken, whinged about what I had said. As a result, several months after my talk the video became the most-watched video in Australia on any subject.

9.     The number of people being killed by a misplaced belief in climate change is, if anything, greater than the number of people killed by Hitler. Yes or no?

Hurrah! Readfearn is getting the point at last. Policies have consequences. Expensive policies have expensive consequences. Cruel policies have cruel consequences. Tens of millions die needlessly of starvation and disease every year. The opportunity loss from diverting trillions from where the money could do some good to CO2 mitigation, where it cannot do any good at all, is a real cost. And that cost is measured not only in treasure but in tens of millions of lives. Socialists have been banging on for years about how capitalism kills. The truth, of course, is that Socialism kills far more, and the cruel diversion of funds that has prevented the entirely affordable eradication of infectious diseases in the world’s poorer countries and has hindered them from getting access to the cheap fossil-fuelled electricity we have long enjoyed continues to have consequences as murderous as they are real.

10. President Barack Obama’s birth certificate published on the White House website is a fake. Yes or no?

Oh, come off it, Graham! Don’t be a baby. What on Earth has Mr Obama’s mickey-mouse “birth certificate” got to do with global warming policy in Australia? Lawyers acting for a Hawaiian citizen whom the State had denied his right in law to obtain a copy of his deceased sister’s birth certificate approached me in 2012 and invited me to review the evidence collected by a much-decorated Sheriff and his team of investigators, and to prepare a report on the mathematical probability that, in the light of that evidence, the document on the White House website was genuine. I visited the Sheriff in Arizona, went to Hawaii, and submitted my report in the form of an affidavit, which was duly lodged with the court. With the client’s permission, the affidavit was published, whereupon a Professor of Mathematics came forward ex proprio motu and provided a further affidavit to the effect that the method I had used and the conclusion I had reached were legitimate and proportionate. My conclusion was that the document on the White House website was indeed a poor forgery that bore signs of having been fabricated in very great haste.

11.   The chances of President Obama being born in the United States are “no better than 1 in 62.5 quadrillion”. Yes or no?

Way off the point again, Graham! As far as I know, Dennis Jensen has not made any pronouncement on Mr Obama’s birth certificate, and his endorsement of my remarks on climate change cannot be presumed to be an endorsement of my researches into Mr Obama’s birth certificate. Unlike me, Dennis Jensen has not reviewed the evidence, and nor – for that matter – have you, Graham, old sport.

12.  Hospital staff who perform abortions are “butchers”. Yes or no?

Once again, way off the point. Dennis Jensen’s endorsement of my stance on the climate, which has so far proven closer to reality than that of Mr. Readfearn, was manifestly not intended to extend to endorsement of all my views on everything else. I declare an interest: I am Catholic – practising but not perfect. But why do we not ask Graham Readfearn, whether he has sympathy with the little child, killed in its mother’s womb without an anaesthetic, whose short autobiography I give below?

   A short autobiography

The Hippocratic Oath is graven in Greek and English on a stone pillar outside the University of Toronto Medical School. Doctors no longer take that Oath, for it condemns abortion.

In silent, sad, unheeded admonition
The graven finger stands. They pass it by.
It speaks his tongue, his ancient erudition;
It speaks their tongue, yet now they pass it by.
“None will I harm. I will not kill a child” –
They spake his wisdom: now they speak it not,
And I was killed, before I ever smiled.
In pain I died. These healers had forgot
My soul could mourn, my body sense, my end.
I must forgive their heartlessness perverse;
I must believe that they did not intend
To try the patience of the Universe:
The Lord of Life did not mean this – not He –
Who said, “Let little children come to Me!”!

13.  Young climate change campaigners are like “Hitler Youth”. Yes or No?

That old chestnut again! What has this got to do with climate science, or with Dennis Jensen’s endorsement of my opinions on climate science? Nothing, that’s what. At Copenhagen, I was at a meeting when 50 preppy thugs paid for by profiteers of doom marched in, grabbed the microphone, menaced anyone who tried to resist them and broke up the meeting. My lovely wife and I were sitting next to a German in his 80s who had been in Copenhagen at the time of the Nazi occupation. He burst into tears and said that the last time anyone had broken up a meeting like that in Copenhagen had been when the Hitler Youth had done so. He was horrified to see it happening again. I told the story on German television that night. The yapping yuppies whined to me next morning, and filmed my unsympathetic response. I told them that if they behaved like the Hitler Youth than that is what I’d call them. They filmed the exchange and put it up on YouTube, where several hundred comments ran 11 to 1 in my favour. Bought-and-paid-for hard-Left totalitarian Socialist activists should in future take great care to distinguish themselves from, and not act in the same brutal fashion as, the hard-Left totalitarian activists of the Hitler Youth and the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.

14. Professor Ross Garnaut’s views on climate change are “fascist”. Yes or No?

Another piece of ancient history out of context. In a thoughtful address to Zionists in California some years ago, I had shown the ideological roots of the Green movement by citing Hitler’s Mein Kampf, marked with a swastika. I then gave several further quotes from hard-Left climate scientists. There was also a quote from Professor Garnaut. I did not say that his views were fascist, but I did say that he had expressed “a fascist opinion”. Readfearn, as malevolently desperate then as now to claw back something from his earlier crushing defeat in debate at my hands, broadcast my remark – ripped out of context and distorted in his usual repellent fashion – without the slightest regard for the feelings of Professor Garnaut, who found himself shouted about on both sides of the Despatch-Box in Canberra. Readfern never apologized to Professor Garnaut for the hurt he caused him by unreasonably exploiting my remark out of its context. But I apologized to the Professor, without reserve.

  15. Climate change scientists should be prosecuted and locked up. Yes or No?

The last time I looked at Australia’s statutes, I did not see that there was one law for climate scientists and one for everyone else. Climate scientists who perpetrate scientific frauds to gain status and profit by giving governments the specious justifications for the totalitarian intervention too many despots crave are not, and in my opinion should not be, immune from prosecution. The Attorney General of Virginia has already opened an investigation into the conduct of scientists who had abolished the medieval warm period by using methods that were, to put it mildly, questionable, and his investigation is under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000. I have said that, given the sullen, irredentist prejudice displayed by the hard Left on the climate question in the teeth of the mounting evidence that their belief system is wrong, the quickest way to bring the climate nonsense to an end is to prosecute not “climate change scientists” in general, as Readfearn has with characteristic inaccuracy and inattention to quantifiers suggested, but one or two of the worst offenders. A couple of convictions for making up or tampering with or withholding or destroying data or results would lift the academic peer-pressure on scientists to conform to what they have been told is the “scientific” consensus but is in reality a political consensus on the hard Left – a consensus which is now rapidly collapsing in the face of the ever-more-serious failure of the “consensus” computer predictions.

16. NASA blew up their own emissions-monitoring satellite. Yes or No?

What on earth can Readfearn be talking about here? And, even then, what does it have to do with Dennis Jensen endorsing my views on climate science? I recall once saying what a pity it was that a $280 million NASA satellite that would have had the capacity to reveal whether Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) were right about equilibrium climate sensitivity being below 1°C per CO2 doubling had not made it into orbit. I had pointed out that it would indeed have been very expensive for NASA, now a climate monitoring agency, if the satellite had shown what I expected it to show. But what I said fell a long way short of asserting that NASA had blown it up.

Conclusion: spite doesn’t pay, Graham

Readfearn ought to know that his posting, which was pure spite, does not reflect well upon him or upon the shoddy Socialist cause he and so many like him unthinkingly but comfortably and profitably espouse.

Governments are increasingly turning to me and others with real expertise in dealing with the climate question because they see the unreasoning savagery of the relentless and organized attempts at character assassination to which the likes of Readfearn subject us, and they realize that (as here) there is either no true science in these attacks, or, when science is attempted, it is done hilariously badly (see, for instance, my utter demolition of the hapless “Professor” Abraham’s attempt to deconstruct one of my talks: www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org).

Let us end by doing what Readfearn is incapable of doing: some science. As far as I know, he has not had any of his absurdities peer-reviewed. However, I have had several papers published after peer review – including the paper (Legates et al., 2013), in which my distinguished co-authors and I reveal that the imagined “97.1% scientific consensus” chanted like a mantra by Readfearn of Borg and the rest of the hive mind of international Socialism is indeed imaginary.

Think 0.3% consensus, Graham. And that means the scare is over. Move along!

Footnote: Railroad Engineer Pachauri, who for some unfathomable reason is the climate-science chairman of the IPCC, admitted in Melbourne six months ago that there had been no global warming for 17 years. He was doing no more than to echo the words of the temporary delegate from Myanmar at the United Nations’ Doha climate conference, who had told his fellow delegates that there had been no global warming at all for 16 years. The delegates were furious. They behaved like a gaggle of teenagers at a pop concert on learning that Justin Dribbler would not after all be appearing. They behaved, in fact, just like Readfearn.

Grazza, me boy, you need to raise your game if you want to play in the big leagues with the grown-ups. Science is not done by hurling off-the-point, out-of-context insults of the sort you specialize in. It is done by meticulous observation, by meticulous measurement of what is observed, and by the meticulous application of established theory to the results, so as to inch the theory meticulously forward.

Perhaps you find it easier to think in pictures than in words of many syl-la-bles. Well, here’s a picture for you. It shows that for once Pachauri is just about right:

 

Yup. No global warming for 16 years 10 months. Not one of the wretched “consensus” computer models predicted that. Not one.

And if there is one member of either House who actually understands the elements of climate science, just as I do and just as the incapable Readfearn never will, it is Dennis Jensen. He would make a first-class choice as minister of science, and Readfearn’s childish attack on him for endorsing some of the scientific conclusions I have reached will perhaps be the clincher that ensures he gets the job.

You see, Graham, anyone as ill-informed and calculatedly unpleasant as you are will tend to achieve the precise opposite of what he had, however malevolently, intended.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (119 votes cast)
Monckton on Readfearn: A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist, 9.2 out of 10 based on 119 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lrrjocm

216 comments to Monckton on Readfearn: A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist

  • #
  • #
    Tiresome

    The more they bite – the more you know it’s got to be hurting.

    Methinks the lord doth protest too much.


    Report this

    554

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      So your point is … what, exactly?


      Report this

      373

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yes… You are Tiresome.

      And IRRELEVANT !


      Report this

      351

    • #
      TAboat

      Absolutely correct, Tiresome. Monckton and Jensen are utterly skewered by Redfearn and Monckton pulls out the skewer and agonisingly inserts it back into himself.

      Name-calling, mockery, cognitive dissonance, diversion…it’s all there from Monckton.

      Ironically, Monckton is clearly the propagandist. He travels the world spruiking non-science and nonsense but not a venture into the published academic domain has he made in order to prove his assertions.

      I love the guy. The man discredits the “sceptic” position like no other.


      Report this

      464

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Is that the best you can do?

        Is that all you have got?

        Grandiose Assertion (a logical fallacy), Projection (another logical fallacy), Splitting Hairs (yet another logical fallacy) and Ad Hominem (the generic fallback logical fallacy, for those without evidence).

        “I love the guy.” I feel sorry for you. I think you will find that he is straight.

        “The man discredits the “sceptic” position like no other.” Then rebut his points, one by one, using real evidence and logical deduction. That is what he did to Redfearn. Turn the tables, and do it to him.

        If you do that you will have made your case, and we will give you our (admittedly begrudging) respect. At the moment, you come across like a year one psychology student who thinks that debates are won by those who can shout loudest. That is exactly the same mistake made by Redfearn. You are not related, in any way, are you?


        Report this

        422

      • #
        AndyG55

        Wow.. Talk about ignorant bluster.. Great rant from the leaky boat.

        Feeling irrelevant yet, dude? Must be hurting you. :-)


        Report this

        141

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Perhaps the truth just hurts a little too much?


      Report this

      141

  • #
    Mattb

    “I called him a name. Tough titty.”

    lol haven’t we just had an entire thread where BoM whinged incessantly about being called names. Tough titty says I!


    Report this

    1827

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I gave you a green thumb for that, Matt.


      Report this

      134

    • #

      And Matt, I have also given you a thumbs up as well, but only because you have changed the whole context by, umm, neglecting to proof read you comment prior to hitting the Post Comment button.

      You’ve turned MoB (Monckton of Brenchley) into the BoM (Bureau of Meteorology).

      At least I got a laugh out of it.

      Tony.

      PostScript: Let me write your reply for you Matt. “Hey Tony, I meant to do that. Just waiting to see if anyone’s actually paying attention.”.


      Report this

      311

    • #
      Joe V.

      Does MattB fail to notice the difference between good honest name calling, like:- “The former ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, is “shrimp-like”,” & the incessant snidey, side swiping chatter that Readfern et al. indulge in , which seems to be their modus operandi and their sole contribution the debate (The debate which they so fervently deny of course as they are incapable of defending it) ?

      Yet Monckton replies to all points, however malevolently they were hurled at him, in good humour.
      Readfern diligently dredges back over every ‘bit of dirt’ they think they ever had on him, Readfern and his coterie of sad embittered co-conspirators who were once nothing, but take some solace in the little attention they have grabbed for themselves solely by knocking Monckton. (Moonbat excepted of course, whose bile has earned him attention for other equally futile endeavours). So diligent are they I’m surprised he missed that old one about the management of a deadly, communicable disease. Without Monckton they would still be nothing, these Moncktonarrazzi of the new media , to put it politely.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    What a brilliantly crushing annihilation of Readfearn. There are so many phrases used by Christopher Monckton in this piece that they’re well worth savouring and preserving for further beneficial use. Thanks a thousand times Lord M and Jo.


    Report this

    612

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    It’s a regular feature that these low intellect journalists have the opposite impact from what they intend. Keep handing them a gun and let them find their own feet.


    Report this

    422

  • #

    Redfearn fired an arrow into the air.

    And missed.

    Tony.


    Report this

    433

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Redfearn will be really peed off when the new physics is revealed which shows CO2 CS <0.1 K.


    Report this

    342

  • #
    manalive

    Dennis Jennings would be an excellent science minister IMHO.
    James Dellingpole probably was caught off-balance by Sir Paul Nurse with his analogy of cancer treatment (see Guardian article).

    Not to derail the thread, but there are areas of cancer treatment which are still somewhat controversial like whether or not to treat non-aggressive prostate cancer in over the 70s.

    On the general point, the false assumption in Nurse’s oh-so-clever analogy is that so called ‘climate science’ is as developed as modern diagnosis and surgery etc., which of course is ridiculous.
    Bloodletting was a popular treatment for any number of ailments up until the 1800s but in fact caused many deaths through blood poisoning and general weakening of the patient and that is the stage at which I would put IPCC style climate science.


    Report this

    220

    • #

      Delingpole was caught off guard with the analogy with cancer treatment. There is a consensus on both. But it is the basis on which consensus is arrived between a common cancer and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that is the interesting.
      1. Millions of people die of cancer each year. It is not pleasant. It is a non-trivial problem. CAGW is only a forecast series of projections prophesy. The evidence for it is weak, and (like sea level rise) points to a trivial problem.
      2. Diagnosing cancers is extremely difficult. The problem of false positives is recognized in screening, along with the stress and even undergoing unnecessary treatments with side effects. Every extreme weather event is linked to “climate change” encouraging false positives.
      3. The identification of a cancer does not point to a treatment method. There are separate disciplines in treating cancer, including various drug treatments. Having a PhD in climatology, or even having the support of a few chaps with a “science” PhDs, seems to give the ability to decide on the most effective economic policies.
      4. It is recognized that many treatments for cancer, whether drugs or surgery, carry risks. There is a phenomenal amount of cancer research going into improving the treatment, and developing more effective drugs. Climate alarmists ignore the side effects. For instance, those of a left-wing bent (like Sir Paul Nurse) ignore that policies are highly regressive, pushes and enrich large banks (carbon trading); large industrial companies and many middle-class bureaucrats in well-paid jobs.
      5. Treatment of cancer is about constant monitoring of the patients response to treatment. That response can be measured against norms. Measuring the effectiveness of policies is very difficult, and the standards are determined by political spin doctors.

      Remember, every analogy falls apart at some point. They are instructive because of the common characteristics. Unpicking weak analogies is more instructive than the superficial understanding that they impart.


      Report this

      80

      • #

        As I keep saying: Dellers should have said that if my plumber tells me my surgeon is hiding evidence, manipulating the system, and won’t release his methods in public, then I’m listening to my plumber and finding another surgeon. Surgeons are not Gods either. The BBC interview was the usual ambush interview. Record three hours, and if they get lucky with one trick question, bingo, character-assasination-to-go. Thanks. It’s not about helping the public understand an issue, it’s about denigrating the voices who speak against their religion.


        Report this

        323

        • #
          TAboat

          It’s not about helping the public understand an issue, it’s about denigrating the voices who speak against their religion.

          But Jo, you really, really believe that CO2 is not a problem. But you have absolutely no counter proof of AGW or any proof that we will be unaffected by climate sensitivity. It looks like a faith to me. Only yours is founded purely in political ideology – as proven by your partisan support for the Coalition – even while they have a CO2 reduction scheme. Bizarre. That Greens membership of yours wasn’t that well thought out, was it? Looks like you’ve got no idea who backs your non-scientific position. Maybe you should form your own party. That might bring in some $ and several new computers. And the attention you so crave.


          Report this

          121

          • #

            See my post “The Evidence” — linked top right column.

            I realize you really really hate me. When you grow up, life won’t seem so confusing.


            Report this

            110

          • #
            farmerbraun

            We should frame that one.
            A TAd bilious TAboat?
            Something stuck in the craw perhaps?
            Struggling to digest?

            Choke baby , choke.
            Love it!


            Report this

            30

          • #

            But Jo, you really, really believe that CO2 is not a problem. But you have absolutely no counter proof of AGW or any proof that we will be unaffected by climate sensitivity.

            Hey, TAboat, where do you get your notion about science from? It seems a little at odds with the ones I was taught in my philosophy of science course. The truth of a scientific hypotheses can never be ascertained, just for it failing to be falsified by the evidence. In the hard sciences this seems to work fine. Just one of tens of thousands of scientific hypotheses being falsified would be sufficient for this PC I am using, not to work. With the empirical, or soft, sciences (like climatology and economics) it is a lot trickier. People have belief systems that they do not like contradicted. Many very bright people spend the best years of their lives on a research program (gaining considerable prestige and influence amongst their peers) only to see it torn apart, or falsified, by someone who looks at the evidence in a better way, or for the theory to implode when confronted with proper data. People will dogmatically support their work, and form alliances to do so.
            The relevant philosophers to look up are Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, (and maybe the anarchic Feyerabend) with a preliminary look at Francis Bacon and the logical positivists. I prefer a Popperian approach myself, though this requires a belief in the scientific method, and not in the particular set of hypotheses. What I do not recall is any philosopher of science ever saying that a hypothesis was true until somebody showed it to be false, or that a theory should be accepted simply because somebody could not come up with a better one. A theory that is unsupported by the evidence is just that. CAGW is in transition from being unsupported through having some contradictory evidence, to being falsified by the data.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Robert

              Someone somewhere thinking they were being clever had made the remark “But you can’t provide a competing hypothesis” as though that meant anything. Actually they used the word theory, but none of what has been passing as climate “science” has ever made it that far, it’s still all conjecture and supposition.

              What I found humourous was that the individual who was claiming that “we” didn’t understand science, implying that he did, demonstrated his own lack of understanding by his request.

              No competing hypothesis is necessary to invalidate another hypothesis. One could present me with their hypothesis to which I only need to provide one example of where the suppositions in said hypothesis fail. Game over.

              I don’t have to know why whatever invalidated it is happening etc. I only need to be able to show that here is a case where said hypothesis fails. At that point I or someone else can investigate why, but no “competing hypothesis” is needed, just an example where said hypothesis is wrong. Not a belief that it is wrong but actual evidence that it is wrong. So either the originator of said hypothesis revises and corrects it or they scrap it.

              They do try and gloss over that aspect of things quite a bit don’t they?


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Manfred

          Hi Jo, did you moderate away my comment on Nurse/Delingpole & consensus?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Measuring the effectiveness of policies is very difficult, and the standards are determined by political spin doctors.

        And this is true in general. It’s not limited to climate change. No government policy decision is ever followed to see if it actually does what it intended. When did you ever see that happen?

        Then there’s the law of unintended consequences. We see that working constantly. But the policy makers are [self snipped] in their closets when it comes to the problems.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Manfred

      The point is, as I have raised before on several threads, illustrates the meaning of consensus and demonstrates the implication nicely, why consensus is never science. The oncological concensus is (or should be) based on the principles of evidence based medicine, itself a subset of best practice. On the other hand, the basis of the climate consensus varies depending on the perspective required to provide the context, which may be funding, political, social, environmental, or actually scientific to name a few possibilities. In the case of the climate, the consensus is an orchestration of spin required to ensure the engagement and provocation of a particular audience. The tenor of this subject is well illustrated by the ridiculous film Al Gore made: An Inconvenient Truth.

      It is pity Delingpole missed a particular opportunity to demonstrate the nature of consensus through Sir Paul Nurse’s frankly incorrect use of analogy. However, it is far, far worse that a man who claims the science and erudition of Sir Paul Nurse as leader of the Royal Society, manufactures a spurious analogy of this nature in the first instance. It is likely that the analogy he used merely highlighted his ignorance regarding the nature of consensus. It remains possible nonetheless that it was a knowing exercise in disingenuity, Sir Paul realising that most listeners would be unable to see the gaping flaws. If this is true, we should not rest until people such as Nurse are expunged from science and from membership of its august institutions.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    manalive

    I meant Jensen (stupid me).


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I have come to expect nothing less from Lord Monckton, he continues to be a shining light in these post modern dark ages of science (if that makes sense) and does so in a mature intelligent manner, which I believe the general populous expects but has been neglected in receiving.
    One of the stand out discoveries at the Monckton address I attended was how approachable, honest and well… normal he came across to the audience, a lot of times intelligent people can be a bit antisocial and too analytical for the public but not so with Monckton.
    My only regret was I wish there was more time to talk with him afterwards as many others said also, days later at work I was repeating the above story to people who asked about him and a left wing unionist naturally bagged Monckton using their mantra and went on to declare how great it was to meet Tim Flannery at a rally.
    I laughed and said I come across shallow fools like Flannery everyday whereas a man like Monckton is much rarer to encounter in your lifetime,
    perhaps only a 0.3% chance.


    Report this

    362

    • #
      Speedy

      Vonniestone

      I’ve only met Lord Chris once and briefly but was left with the distinct feeling that he believed that his message was more important than the messenger. Same with Rob Carter, Jo and David Archibald.

      When was the last time you saw a humble socialist? Me either.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      362

    • #
      DavidH

      Approachable and normal – fully agree.

      I went to his talk in Sydney. I arrived just before the start and BoM … sorry I mean MoB … was at the door. “Hello. I’m Chris. Thanks for coming along” was his greeting, offering his hand to me.


      Report this

      191

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      perhaps only a 0.3% chance.

      Delightful sense of humor. :-)


      Report this

      111

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I actually feel sorry for Redfearn.

    It is one of my basic principles to never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. That is obviously a principle that Lord Monckton does not share, and he does not share it, to devastating effect.


    Report this

    413

  • #
    Thumbnail

    God he is an ignoramus. I saw that debate and spoke to GR. IDIOT!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Brilliant stuff, Christopher Monckton. I love your way with words.

    I wonder about the ‘thought’ processes that led Readfearn to believe that he had the intellectual capacity to challenge you. I went to a selective English public school in the Cotswolds and a university college with a library designed by Wren in Nevile’s court and with a fountain in its Great Court. I then worked in IT in a few selected/targeted/elite project teams. I didn’t encounter really thick people with definite, mad convictions until a few years ago. I had no idea how to work with them. You’ve shown me how. Brilliant.


    Report this

    211

  • #
    Mattb

    “which is why it was beneficial that scientists should be Christians.”

    This is still an absolutely farcical statement. Nothing in the paragraph explanation from Monckton comes close to defending it. Does he at least mean religious? Or are scientists of other religions not to be trusted? So total fail in answering #1… and tbh the rest reads like childish dribble.


    Report this

    326

    • #
      Backslider

      This is still an absolutely farcical statement.

      No Mattb, you simply do not comprehend it, which is understandable.


      Report this

      192

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Matt,

      Absolutely wrong. Morality counts for something. Without it anything is allowed. Christianity isn’t the only religion that teaches good moral principles but certainly Monkton, a Catholic, would think it a good example for morality.

      When he says it’s “necessary” for scientists to be Christians, then complain. In the meantime, he didn’t say necessary.


      Report this

      172

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Scientists of the Warmist religion are most certainly not to be trusted.


      Report this

      111

    • #
      farmerbraun

      No , he just means that they should uphold truth; you see now?


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Bob Cormack

      Mattb

      September 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm · Reply

      “which is why it was beneficial that scientists should be Christians.”

      This is still an absolutely farcical statement. Nothing in the paragraph explanation from Monckton comes close to defending it. Does he at least mean religious? Or are scientists of other religions not to be trusted?

      You really must work on your reading comprehension. Nothing Monckton said could possibly be considered as implying that scientists of other religions are not to be trusted. His obvious point was that scientists should have a moral tradition, and Christians were given as one subset that has such a tradition — perhaps because it is the tradition that Monckton is most familiar with, being a Catholic himself. Is your real complaint that Monckton didn’t make a comprehensive list of other religions and philosophies which promote a moral tradition?

      So total fail in answering #1…

      Rather, total fail in your comprehension of his answer.

      and tbh the rest reads like childish dribble.

      Given your lack of comprehension demonstrated above, I can well believe that it would strike you as such. Give us some entertainment and analyze some of this ‘childish dribble’ for us.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Mattb

        two counts Bob. 1) specifically harping on about Christians specifically, and (2) suggesting that being a religions person of any denomination makes any difference. Good scientists could be priests or athiests – who cares? Science doesn’t.


        Report this

        09

        • #

          Mattb — So Monckton didn’t “harp on” about Christians specifically. He quoted a Muslim (al-Haytham) saying that a scientist is the seeker of truth.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Bob Cormack

          Good scientists could be priests or athiests – who cares? Science doesn’t.

          Monckton’s point is that good scientists need a moral tradition (telling the truth, for example, even when it doesn’t favor you), and that religions promote such traditions, hence it is good for a scientist to be also religious. Obviously, atheists can also be moral persons.

          “Science” (in the abstract) may not care if a scientist is a priest or atheist, but it does care if a scientist is truthful or a liar.

          It is extremely unlikely that someone who saw no problem with lying to promote themselves would make a good scientist.

          I still suspect you’re peeved that M. didn’t list a bunch of non-religious moral traditions, so I give you a link to one in post #18.2


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Chester

      Yes. And the fact these guys will sit here and try to justify idiotic statements like this and other Monckton gems, proves that this site is given over to Group Think. Proving also the
      laughable irony of Jo’s banner!

      ——————————-
      NOTE: If Chester tried to defend his arguments, rather than just throw cut and paste insults, it would show he is not a bot. You think? – Jo


      Report this

      05

      • #
        Aboat

        And yet Monckton couldn’t refute any of Redfearn’s points adequately and he resorted to throwing condescending insults. I guess you feel the need to defend your house guests however loopy, Jo?


        Report this

        012

        • #

          TAboat-might-be-Aboat the anonymous declares every argument Monckton said null and void by his Godly decree. We bow before your judgement Mr Aboat.

          (Has anyone else noticed the latest batch don’t even bother to make an argument at all?)


          Report this

          120

          • #
            Bob Cormack

            (Has anyone else noticed the latest batch don’t even bother to make an argument at all?)

            Definitely an inferior batch of bots. Give me MattB anytime — at least his answers are usually responsive and he attempts to make arguments, even good ones sometimes.

            I think this may be a new meme in the Leftist Universe. I have noticed this method of “argumentation” being used on a number of left-wing blogs. They list a number of statements by someone they hate (say Allen West). These statements are arguably true, based on common knowledge. Then at the bottom, they say something like “See how crazy he is!” without any attempt at refuting anything quoted.

            I get the feeling these people never talk to anyone they disagree with and haven’t a clue how to defend any of their beliefs.

            The current crop of ‘bots have a steep learning curve before they can join our respected group of ‘trolls’.


            Report this

            10

  • #

    I too was pleased about Graham Readfearn so vehemently supporting the case for Dr Dennis Jensen being made Minister for Science, etc.

    One key to good marksmanship is to watch where one is shooting. At the very least, one is then unlikely to shoot off one’s own foot.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Greetings from Tasmanistan!
    Bismillahi-Rahmaanir-Roheem
    As salamu aleikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatu brother Shabir, Allah yubaarik fiik my beloved brother Rereke. You are absolutely correct. The tainted lens of the Godless Socialist culture entraps them in arrogance and it is arrogance that begets ignorance.

    I’m just practicing up for when they turn the place into a massive detention centre. You no doubt heard that Julian Burnside QC. blew a thought bubble in the bathtub. He is about two hundred years behind the time. It WAS a detention centre then! What a bunch of nonsense these Sydney academics spruik. Are they to sleep in the bush? What’s to stop them from boating to the mainland (New Zealand’s West Island). What does QC stand for? Quack Circus?


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Angry

    Readfearn a little punkass tosser with delusions of grandeur…

    Couldn’t keep his job running the Courier Mail’s “green blog” after his resounding defeat in his pitiful attempt to debate Lord Monckton.

    Just an OXYGEN THIEF.


    Report this

    172

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    While the Noble Lord takes aim with devastating effect at one misguided man, his remarks can apply equally to over-enthusiastic proponents on both sides of the climate argument. There’s plenty there to make all of us pause for thought.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    Once you put the dream inside their heads, you really don’t have to do much in the way of excusing the methods by which that dream can become a reality. It was a succession of just do this one slightly distasteful thing and the dream will come one step nearer. It was a beguiling path to hell taken one small step at a time, one compromise, one look away, one little don’t want to know. Basic moral boundaries both of commission and omission were crossed, but it was all for a greater good.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/know-your-ultimate-enemy-the-dream/

    The parallels of the greens with the Nazis are inescapable.

    Pointman


    Report this

    172

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      There is much more to this. Behind it all is Fabianism and Common Purpose, of which Rudd and Gillard and many others of all nominally centrist political persuasion are members.

      In the UK Cameron is a big CP cheese, as is probably Obama in the USA. An interesting member is John Prescott who in 2003 piloted the plan to make all UK power generation from windmills, assuming that the Siemens, Vattenfalls and Vestas of this World were telling the truth about the ‘virtual Power Station’.

      But the key to the affair is the landowners who include Cameron’s in-laws: they rent out the land for windmills or solar cells. In Oz, it’s the Unions who are the Mafia.

      So, what we have is a new but international Nazism with moronic International Socialists motivated by Hansenkoism to blame big energy. Yet the CRU was funded by big energy e.g. Shell wanted to make 2/3rds of its turnover from carbon trading. In Oz, Turnbull the banker is a quisling figure.

      And that tells the last part of the story. [snip... too spec, OT, - Jo]


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Bob Cormack

      Spot on Pointman; The dream tells them that the end justifies the means. A moral tradition such as (*), however, would maintain that the means becomes the end.

      (*) To avoid setting off MattB again, I’ll refrain from mentioning a religious tradition and simply point to The Code of the West.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Well written, but too long and a little bit too snotty.

    The wit and slicing and dicing not up to Monckton’s usual high standard.


    Report this

    412

  • #
    ursus augustus

    I would not have bothered responding to Readfearn frankly. Readfearn is just a laughable little [snip] wannabe something who has gormlessly latched on to AGW as a vehicle for his own [snip] ego.


    Report this

    131

    • #
      Chester

      Wow. Doing a great job of fighting Group Think here. Redfearn merely pints out all the idiotic things Monckton has said with references, without name calling, mockery or accusations and yet here we find a series of defamatory slurs against him and not the merest hint of a decent rebuttal. Go have a look at Monckton addressing the Tea Party rallies and see for yourself just how loopy the man is.

      And he has done nothing to counter that widely held view here either.

      Association with Monckton is foolish and Jensen showed what a fool he is.


      Report this

      336

      • #

        Chester pops in with the usual warmer bluster to tell us black is white (and Readfearn is not “mocking” anyone, right?). Meanwhile he does his own name-calling and denigration, and doesn’t provide any evidence to back up his claims. None of this has anything to do with Jensen. Readfearn is just trying the usual character assassination ritual.


        Report this

        342

      • #
        AndyG55

        How’s your janitorial studies going, Chester ?

        Got your Cert 3 yet ?


        Report this

        51

  • #
    AndyG55

    I never liked his singing, either.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    As Readfearn may know, in May 2013 a comic called Environment Research Letters, which was set up in 2006 precisely to preach the New Religion, published a fairy-tale by five polemical blograts at Queensland Kindergarten and a clutch of their studenty friends at various real universities. These children’s story…

    Altogether not a very grown up carry on, as Monckton himself says.
    As to the consensus, the Cook study is badly misrepresented. The 97% comes from the papers that state a position on AGW. Obviously most papers do not specifically state a position as most are to do with science in the related fields of AGW without stating a position. To claim that 0.3% support AGW is also saying that .08% reject AGW. This is also consensus in the science not in scientists. The 97% comes from many directions for the science and scientists. From Oreskes to Doran and Anderegg the consensus keeps being reinforced. Also important is that no internationally recognised scientific body that I know of rejects AGW, worldwide.
    [REPLY: Michael cannot let the 97% argument go. Since he can't find evidence to support his faith, this point is a make or break one, despite it being a logical fallacy and profoundly anti-science, and based on inept studies of keywords. Remember the "evidence" is overwhelming. You'd think it would be easy to name a paper.... -Jo]

    [SNIP comment re graph. No Michael -- you have stated 20 times that the recent halting was due to natural factors. Do you not get that therefore the warming just before that was likely due to natural factors too? If la nina's cool, then el nino's warm. I am too bored of this point to let you repeat it ad infinitum. You keep cherry picking some ENSO events to fit your story. Please get a more sophisticated argument. -Jo]

    I agree that Graham Readferns argument was fairly childish but Moncktons was clearly even worse. Not much real science in either arguments.


    Report this

    236

    • #
      Chester

      Do you not get that therefore the warming just before that was likely due to natural factors too? If la nina’s cool, then el nino’s warm.

      This is not scientific and it doesn’t follow, Jo. “likely due to natural factors” is just something contrarians use when they mean “it could have been anything else because I don’t want to believe it was the obvious thing – CO2. If you want to assert that the warming was due to “natural factors” tells us what the natural factor is and prove that it caused the warming. Then you can publish it and make a hero of yourself.

      Meanwhile, all you are doing is indulging in meaningless bluster.

      [Ahh the God-of-cherry-pickers who decrees he and only he can declare what is a natural factor and what is not. I'm just pointing out the asymmetry in your argument. You are the one suggesting La Nina's can cool but el ninos can't warm the surface by an equal and opposite amount. Go an publish your own paper, you appear to have "found" something new. You can't have it both ways. If you blame the current halting on "unknown" forces, then you admit the models don't contain all the forces. If you claim the halting on ENSO, I'm only pointing out the bleeding obvious - that ENSO didn't start in 1998 - it was there all along. --Jo]


      Report this

      38

      • #
        Backslider

        If you want to assert that the warming was due to “natural factors” tells us what the natural factor is and prove that it caused the warming.

        A 0.4%/decade reduction in cloud cover for a start… then you can also look at the whiteness of clouds.

        Want proof? Sure: Step out into the sun and feel the glorious warmth.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Want proof? Sure: Step out into the sun and feel the glorious warmth.

          Yep, that is a perfect example (in a par with your gravity wave proof) of the strength of your science ability.


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Backslider

            So you maintain Michael that a reduction in cloud cover will not warm the planet? Interesting.

            So you also maintain that a reduction in the reflectivity of clouds will not warm the planet? Interesting.

            So you also maintain that stepping from the shade out into the sun is not in fact a very simple and valid way to show that a reduction in shade does indeed warm? Interesting.

            But not surprising Michael, because you maintain the The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age. Were it not for CO2, we would still be freezing our asses off, according to you. Sit back for a moment and think about just how stupid your beliefs are Michael.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              So you maintain Michael that a reduction in cloud cover will not warm the planet? Interesting.

              You do lie a lot. Where did I say that? I believe I would have said something to the effect of please explain the mechanism, show the science and provide the data and corroborating mechanism. Unfortunately you think opinion is science or that a paper that shows cloud cover has fallen is proof of effect or says anything about mechanism. You have been unable to provide either despite repeated requests. Admin should direct you to answer the questions properly.


              Report this

              04

              • #
                Backslider

                I believe I would have said something to the effect of please explain the mechanism, show the science and provide the data and corroborating mechanism.

                But I have explained the mechanism Michael. I have even give you an easy experiment you may conduct yourself. But then, it only takes common sense to know that less shade means more warmth…. but as noted, common sense is something which eludes you.

                Unfortunately you think that the simplest things to understand require peer reviewed science before you can accept them. Could it really be true that you have never stepped out from a shaded area out into the sun and felt the warmth? Do you REALLY need peer review for something so simple and basic??


                Report this

                20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Not much real science in either arguments.

      I guess I need to point out that Monkton was not arguing the science. He was arguing against extreme prejudice and plain old lying. To do that effectively you point out the misrepresentations. Science has little to do with it.


      Report this

      220

    • #
      Backslider

      no internationally recognised scientific body that I know of rejects AGW

      Which is meaningless Michael. Most skeptics do not reject AGW either.

      Your biggest problem Michael is that you cannot tell the difference between AGW and CAGW alarmism (you are one of the latter ilk).


      Report this

      151

      • #
        Manfred

        Most skeptics do not reject AGW either

        Can you quantify this please Backslider (and I’m not referring to the number, size, volume, location of skeptics)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        There is no doubt that humans are having a warming effect on local urban environments.

        This in turn manifests itself in the (ridiculously meaningless) global average surface temperature…
        …. especially when massive manipulations are added to radically increase any warming trend.


        Report this

        61

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          especially when massive manipulations are added to radically increase any warming trend.

          This is incorrect. Every global temperature data set shows the same trends, even the short satelite series. Every peer reviewed paper that has looked into UHI has also found it to be negligible, that climate misinformers cannot accept that, especially Watts, shows just how stuck in their confirmation bias they are.

          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1955/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1955/trend/plot/rss/from:1955/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1955/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1955/trend/plot/uah/from:1955/trend

          Again proof of the warming over the last 60 years, without natural explanations. ENSO comes out neutral, solar is flat to falling etc.


          Report this

          012

          • #
            AndyG55

            Giss temp, from 1955.. and you say not manipulated..

            Darn you really do ignore reality , don’t you !! That’s Hansen’s work, and is one of the most fraudulent data sets around. The guy will eventually be held to account over it.

            UAH. RSS can only be from 1979, and show basically flat from 1979-1998, then the El Nino jump , then flat again.

            Your pathetic attempts don’t fool anyone but yourself.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Michael,

            Do you know, and can you tell us, how often the temperature recording equipment (of whatever type) is calibrated against a known standard?

            Do you understand that the vast proportion of the historical record was recorded by hand, to an accuracy of half a degree?

            Do you realise that a large number of weather stations are installed at airports, and that these were not originally installed to measure global temperature, but rather the local temperature at airports, for flight safety reasons?

            Do you recognise the fact that the vast majority of weather stations that are not at airports, are still in heavily built up areas, surrounded by heat reflective (and heat retentive) material?

            Do you think that the computer models just use records from all of those different sources as they are? Or do you realise that they might need adjusting in some way, against a common base?

            And have you considered that the adjustment parameters might not make allowance for all of the many and varied situations that might occur?

            And have you ever worried that somebody, somewhere might be tempted to “tweak” the adjustments to make the results of the models look a little better in regard to what is expected intuitively?

            You see, the problem that I have, is there is no auditability in the process. If the Government spends a couple of millions building a new school, then the financial spend is audited, probably at several stages in the project. But when hundreds of millions are to be spent on climate mitigation, where are the auditable records? Who audits the adjustments to the temperature record, who audits the operation of the models? By definition, audit must be external and defensible. But I have seen no requests for tenders being issued in this particular area. Doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?


            Report this

            110

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              The UHI effect has been tested in the literature multiple times. Its effect is real but negligible and is often adjusted for (yes some adjustments are down). This is science of the natural world, most of it is incomplete and developing and improving. The same applies to all your science when you argue about the LIA, MWP or temp and CO2 trends of million of years ago, and the further back you go the worse ti gets. That argument does not help your argument.

              What I know is that the satelite trends, match the global surface trends (shown above)(using lots of different data sets) and most of the info is public as well as the methods, that the last 60 years has seen 0.6 deg of warming and that most natural factors are flat or cooling. So for the most recent and most accurate period we have we see warming that can only be explained by AGW. Don’t you find that strange?


              Report this

              013

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Yes Michael, blah blah blah, as usual you avoid the question.

                My point was, and is, that there is no totally independent audit-ability in the process.

                Billions of dollars are being invested on the basis of computer models that are not independently audited, processing data that is not independently audited, collected by methods that are not independently audited.

                You speak of the UHI effect being tested in the literature – fine, that is theory. How, when, and by whom, are they audited?

                And if they are audited, by independent sources, then where are the audit reports?


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Rereke you are talking meaningless drivel. The UHI has been examined in several peer reviewed articles. This is the scientific auditing process. It is not a liberal accounting system where they say something was audited and then the truth comes out that it never was.

                In science you submit a paper, that you have spent a great deal of time researching, gathering data, making experiments etc, to peer review in a reputable scientific journal that specialises on the subject in your paper. It is reviewed by scientists knowledgeable in the field. The data and methods are checked, suggestions are made, the paper is reviewed again. Of the few papers that pass review, they get published in the journal where it is then checked and analysed by most experts in the field. If something is found they can submit a paper rebutting the original paper etc. That is how science progresses. You are making things up to confuse and deceive. It has been examined and found to be inconsequential, to misinform that fact shows bias.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Backslider

                The UHI has been examined in several peer reviewed articles

                Links please.

                Michael. It only takes common sense to figure out that any claims that UHI is not significant is patently false.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                It only takes common sense to figure out that any claims that UHI is not significant is patently false.

                This is your main problem Backslider, to you science is a thought experiment. Your science is back in Aristotilean times where they thought that everything could be known by sitting on a rock and thinking about it (when the earth was the center of the universe, made sense). But then came Newton and he developed the scientific method. Go and learn it and use it, your grasp of science is becoming embarrassing and I cannot understand why Jo has not told you to do things properly instead of allowing you to present science in such a ridiculous way.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Backslider

                This is your main problem Backslider, to you science is a thought experiment.

                No Michael. Some things only require common sense. I have been on this planet long enough to know first hand the UHI effect.

                Try this experiment Michael:

                Stand in the middle of a bitumen road beside a big grass field on a nice hot day (with a bit of luck a semi will nail you), say during one of our beautiful 45C days. Stand there long enough to make some observations. Trust me, you won’t even need a thermometer (but feel free to take one if you want to feel more like a scientist).

                Then go and stand out in the middle of that big field. Observe.

                Congratulations, you now have evidence that UHI indeed ups temperatures. That’s the scientific method Michael.

                The problem is not with me Michael, its with you. Common sense eludes you.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Try this experiment Michael:

                Stand in the middle of a bitumen road beside a big grass field on a nice hot day (with a bit of luck a semi will nail you), say during one of our beautiful 45C days. Stand there long enough to make some observations. Trust me, you won’t even need a thermometer (but feel free to take one if you want to feel more like a scientist).

                Then go and stand out in the middle of that big field. Observe.

                That is the most pathetic excuse for the scientific method and science I have heard in a long time. Seriously it is a travesty that they allow you to promote this kind of science. I will not respond to you anymore, we just go around in circles and repeat the same things over and over because you don’t accept real science and try and trump it with thought experiments and then put forward papers that do not support your view as proof and cannot explain the actual science and mechanisms of what you try to put forward, if you put anything forward. More times than not you ask people to prove your lack of science for you (which I do repeatedly).

                “We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).”
                http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-104.php


                Report this

                03

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ah, still naming yourself “realist”, like your buddy John Cook uses the word “sceptical”

      ie.. as satire.


      Report this

      111

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Ah, still naming yourself “realist”

        Yep because I use the actual science, data and trends to prove my case. While climate misinformers try to use lawyers arguments by cherry picking and vague references to hotspots and null hypothesis arguments. I try to base most of my conclusions on as much reality as possible.


        Report this

        117

        • #
          AndyG55

          roflmao.. You are seriously DELUSIONAL !


          Report this

          80

        • #
          AndyG55

          Reality.. you gab on about the “consensus” frauds from Cook et al and then speak about reality?? seriously?

          Here’s some reality for you.
          1. Liberals 90+ seats: Greens 1
          2. Carbon tax fraud GONE within a year.
          3. Climate Commission.. GOME within a couple of months.
          4. IPCC downgrades sensitivity, because they KNOW they were wrong
          5. IPCC are STILL wrong.
          6. Arctic Ice did NOT disappear in 2013, In FACT it increased some 60% from previous year
          7. ZERO warming in any un-tampered data set this century
          8. Hottest temp in Sydney 2012 was the same as 74 years ago !!!
          9. USA Hurricane number decreasing over that last few decades
          10. 2012 was only hottest is BOMs highly manipulated data set, reality of satellite temps says otherwise.
          11. We are still in a COLD point of the Holocene, and it looks like global temperatures are starting to FALL.
          12. CO2 is highly beneficial to plant life and causes basically ZERO atmospheric warming.
          13. Wind and solar power are highly inefficient and unreliable, and an extreme waste of our money.

          you want reality…… there, you just got some.


          Report this

          100

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I use the actual science, data and trends to prove my case.

          Oh really? What I have seen you use, are opinion pieces, written by other people like yourself, and simple graphs that often do not have error bars, but do have cherry-picked start and end dates.

          … climate misinformers try to use lawyers arguments by cherry picking and vague references to hotspots and null hypothesis arguments.

          If you want to know about the Hotspot, then you need to do some research. The models predict a significant warming in the upper troposphere above the equator. None of the empirical measuring equipment and techniques have been able to identify it. What does that mean? It means that the models are wrong in that particular area. It does not necessarily prove that they are totally wrong, but partially wrong. The issue really is that for runaway global warming to occur, then the hot-spot is kinda necessary. Bummer.

          And if you want to know about the null hypothesis, that is easy. The null hypothesis is, by definition, that everything we observe, on any topic, can be explained by natural causes and natural variations. The onus is then on the researcher to first demonstrate that whatever is being observed cannot be caused by natural causes or natural variations. Once they are over that hurdle, they then need to prove that their hypothesis can be the only cause of what is being observed. That is an established part of the scientific method, and it is used by all scientists, and most engineers. In fact, it is the very definition of being a scientist, because it is the scientific method.

          Ergo, if you do not follow that process, you are not a scientist. You might be an activist, or a publicist, or a politician, but without answering the null hypothesis, you are not a scientist. And that is why we go on about it.

          It is also why the majority of people on this site think you are … somewhat challenged in your views, and you obviously mix in a society with equally … challenged people. Folks here, do not take that position out of spite. They take that position because it is very difficult to have any form of genuinely scientific discussion with people to do not understand what science is actually about. If you joined in a discussion, instead of firing ad hominem and unsubstantiated factoids from the lip, you might understand something about the real world, rather than the propaganda image that is slowly fading into history.


          Report this

          120

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Oh, and I forgot.

            In terms of cherry-picking dates, we invariably use a start date, that is based on a quote from one of the wharmist scientists, at some previous time, like, for example, “two thirds of the worlds glaciers will have disappeared by (some year)”. So, since ‘some year’ has now passed, we show the growth of glacial ice since that date, to show that the original opinion, and hence the science it was based on, was incorrect.

            Can you think of a better way of showing that these people really have no idea.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Oh really? What I have seen you use, are opinion pieces,

            Nope.
            Actual data on ENSO from NOAA.
            Actual temperature trends, take your pick on any global standard, even the satelites show the same trend.
            Actual peer reviewed science on the Pacific ocean and its effect on temperature.
            Actual figures of solar TSI and sunspots
            etc etc.

            It all tells the same thing, temps are rising and natural factors cannot explain them. This answers your definition of the null hypothesis. Natural variations have been examined, they cannot explain it, as I have been pointing out for awhile now. Examining all the factors they are aware of leaves them with the conclusion that only AGW is the cause of the warming. Even skeptic scientists have examined the natural factors and predicted cooling in 2011 to 1956 levels. This is further confirmation as it did not occur.

            I have discussed the hotspot before. It is an outcome of models (that you do not agree with), has been found in recent measurements, the long term measurements are not available as it has not been specifically looked for before and is difficult to find. Nevertheless it is not a big issue in AGW and does not outweigh the reality explained above. You cannot on one hand say all the lodels are broken and then say if an outcome of the models does not happen then AGW is fake. The models are not AGW, they are projections of specific scenarios. All that I have explained is reality and you are unable to explain away.


            Report this

            03

    • #
      Backslider

      Oh Michael, just in case you missed it, please take a look.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Michael cannot let the 97% argument go. Since he can’t find evidence to support his faith,

      I am not the one not letting it go. It is on topic as the main point of the post itself. Monckton tries to ridicule and denigrate the journal and the peer review process. If it is so unimportant then why take so much effort trying to destroy it? I was trying to correct the misrepresentations in the post.

      Do you not get that therefore the warming just before that was likely due to natural factors too? If la nina’s cool, then el nino’s warm. I am too bored of this point to let you repeat it ad infinitum

      Not cherry picking, I show the whole 60 years of the ENSO data for the period in question. This is not like the picking of the temp period from 1998 (the equal largest al nino affected period) by climate misinformers. Yes el ninos warm, la ninas cool, my explanation and that of the peer reviewed science I have referred to includes all of them. Basically the decade prior to the warmest decade of 2001 to 2010 was predominantly affected by strong el ninos. The hotter decade was the one affected by la ninas. Over the 60 years the net effect of ENSO is roughly zero, even though over this same period we get 0.6 degrees of warming. You guys keep removing my graph and peer reviewed science because you cannot explain away that fact. Show some skeptisism and look at all the data, using a cherry picked temp period, out of context and the long term trend and without examining natural factors is not a very scientific way to argue science.


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Backslider

        Basically the decade prior to the warmest decade of 2001 to 2010 was predominantly affected by strong el ninos.

        You continue to repeat this falsehood when it has been clearly shown to you that this decade was predominantly affected by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

        You are a bald faced and shameless liar Michael.

        The hotter decade was the one affected by la ninas

        I have shown that this decade was just as much affected by El Niños.

        The fact is Michael that temperatures are now falling. Everybody admits this except for you.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          You are a bald faced and shameless liar Michael.

          That is incorrect and admin should pull you up on statements like that. I have provided the actual data and references to support it and peer reviewed science. You have presented some sentences with nothing to back them up. learn the difference, learn the scientific method.

          The fact is Michael that temperatures are now falling. Everybody admits this except for you.

          Stop misrepresenting me and ‘Everybody’. You are wrong and do not speak for anybody but yourself.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            Backslider

            I have provided the actual data and references to support it and peer reviewed science.

            No Michael. I have provided the peer reviewed science showing the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption on that decade.

            Basically the decade prior to the warmest decade of 2001 to 2010 was predominantly affected by strong el ninos.

            This statement is false. You continue to make it even though I have shown you are wrong. That makes you a liar Michael. The decade was predominantly affected by the massive sulfur cloud from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which saw temperatures fall as much as 0.7 degrees.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            You are wrong and do not speak for anybody but yourself.

            Remember those words – they apply to you as well.


            Report this

            10

  • #

    Which just goes to emphatically show that with our tolerance of the “journalist” tribe where we find ourselves. We find ourselves debating and pitting one scientist against another with due respect for their accumulated knowledge yet it’s the barking and crowing of the dumbshit journalist brigade that is foremost in the minds of people who tick the boxes. I have real issues with this. It’s like we are giving free passes to objectively driven leftist warriors as opposed to a subjective appraisal of the facts as we know them. The Soviet Union never died, it just reinvented itself far outside it’s borders.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    J Martin

    Excellent stuff and most enjoyable.

    I would just take issue with one point; “Railroad Engineer Pachauri, who for some unfathomable reason is the climate-science chairman of the IPCC”, since the IPCC is nothing more than a Gravy Train then surely a railroad engineer was indeed the most appropriate choice.

    The IPCC was not set up to establish truth or reality or even consensus, and so far as I know has yet to do so and has been quite successful at not doing so, why does the name Ben Santer spring to mind.

    Maybe Ben Santer and Julia Gillard should get married.


    Report this

    171

  • #
    Neville

    Good article by Matt Ridley in the WSJ.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

    Seems like the IPCC 5th report will be turning down the dial on temp projections.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Ian

    But how much of MoB’s commentary and the comments of those responding here will reach the MSM audience? Unfortunately not much which leaves the odious Readfearn essentially unassailed


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Tim

    So, finally revealed by an IPCC foot soldier: it’s all about politics, not science. The words are mightier than the computer models.

    Thanks for the honesty, although it did take you guys some 30 years to reveal it.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I could say many things for sure. But I’ll settle for just two — one for my own personal pleasure and one for reality.

    1. A put down by Christopher Monkton is always a delight to read. And the delight is in the way he grasps the essential facts and then turns them on his adversary, not in the language he uses. Job well done Sir! And yes, I thought, “Tough titty,” was uproariously funny. I laughed because of it — a good start to my day I might add.

    2. We still have the terrible problem that the truth is not getting out to the public. How many news outlets and commentators will mention the destruction of Readfearn’s rant against an honest man? None, that’s how many. There will be cold stony silence. Not even Fox News has anyone dedicated to exposing the fraud that is climate science.


    Report this

    181

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      The truth is slowly getting out to the public, through the reality of climate change itself, the increasing floods (see Colorados 1 in 500 year flood the latest in a long list), heat waves (Australias hottest 12 months on record), Arctic ice loss, sea level rising migrations of animals, fish and plants and much more. The media is finally slowly starting to wake up to the science and reporting it as such, though we still have many misinformers, especially in Murdochs media.


      Report this

      018

      • #
        Heywood

        Quick! Throw money at the problem. That will fix it!!


        Report this

        40

      • #
        farmerbraun

        I disagree . The reality is being revealed to the public by the efforts of complete idiots such as yourself. The public is very good at realising when they are being lied too. It may take a little time , but it always happens. The truth always comes out.

        Which is why your AGW hypothesis is no more than a little amusement now . The scare is over. The science has moved on. And the public knows a bullshitter when they see one .
        If you insist that the public still needs more convincing that AGW is a crock , then of course you must keep on posting.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        AndyG55

        Darn you really do speak some absolute RUBBISH .

        Are you related to Flannery or something ?

        His secretary.. reading is future press flashes ?


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Gee whiz, a 1 in 500 year flood. Who’d a thunk it? Hottest 12 months on record??? … …

        You scare me but not with your predictions of doom and gloom. What scares me is your gullibility. You’re too willing to believe some “expert” and follow him off a cliff. He’ll get you to jump but then he’ll sit down and laugh at you instead of jumping himself. And that won’t work on anyone here.

        So get a life, Michael. Then you won’t have to try this nonsense to puff up your self image and feel good about yourself. I’ve seen far too many like you — always just pompous little asses armed only with ignorance and fear. And to the very last one they get tired of their game when people who know their way around don’t kiss up to them and they disappear, never to be heard from again. And so will you.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        The evidence builds up, most predictions from decades ago are coming true, most faster than expected. If you don’t want to accept reality then that is your prerogative, some people are just to scared to or unable to accept there role in the consequences and then others just care about money. So Roy, not predictions, actual events happening now. I could make a long list of extreme record breaking events from the last 4 years but it would probably get cut. How about you download the latest publication from the WMO and read through a summary of the decade, all actual observations and trends. So either accept the facts or pretend they don’t exist.

        “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

        Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
        Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
        According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
        http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


        Report this

        016

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.

          Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.

          But, but . . . but . . . only five years ago we were being told the world was “becoming hotter and drier“, that “drought was the new normal“, that “even the rain that fell wouldn’t make it to the dams“, and that “snow was a thing of the past“.

          We were told the “science was settled”, and that these portents of doom were not merely “predictions”, these were all the “absolute certainties” as a result of, and proof of, CAGW.

          Now you are quoting rain and floods as a result of, and proof of, CAGW?

          .
          And you wonder why – along with most of the rest of the population, we don’t take you seriously?


          Report this

          120

          • #
            Heywood

            MV.

            Is it just me or has Michael’s activism becoming more desperate.?

            It doesn’t matter what the particular weather event is, it MUST be caused by AGW. No ifs or buts. Rain, drought, fires, snow, cold, hot. To the true believer, these are all man made events.

            Same material though. I am sure he has spammed us with that link and quote a hundred times now.


            Report this

            70

            • #
              MemoryVault

              What can one say, Heywood?

              No temperature rise for 16+ years and now trending downwards, five progressively colder NH winters and and an even worse one now forecast, record and near record European snowfalls, record ice in the south polar region, and near-record ice build-up in the north, record cold temperatures at BOTH poles when we were told polar warming was the “canary in the coal mine”, hurricane and cyclone activity at a century all time low, half-way through the NH hurricane season without even a single low pressure system, it goes on and on . . . ,

              And Michael the Ridiculous not only pretends none of it is happening, but DEMANDS we share his delusion of ever-increasing temperatures caused through human activity.

              .
              I don’t think the word “desperate” does him justice.
              Dangerously psychologically delusional springs to mind, though.


              Report this

              80

              • #
                MemoryVault

                WOW!!

                Over three hours in the moderation sin bin, only to eventually emerge un[snip]ped and without comment.
                That makes three in less than twenty four hours.

                Whats’a matter?
                Don’t you mods love me anymore?
                [Do you really want me to answer that? -Fly]


                Report this

                20

              • #
                MemoryVault

                [Do you really want me to answer that? -Fly]

                Well, actually, given how often it has happened in the last twenty four hours, yes, an explanation would be appreciated.

                At least that way I would know whatever “mistakes” I have apparently been making and avoid them.
                Obviously it hasn’t been content.

                [MemoryVault, there is something wrong with the automatic trip on the filter. Several people have been caught for no reason. We're trying to figure it out. We're not picking on you] ED


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Dave

                I’ve been in moderation also over the last three days for every comment apart from one.

                Dave

                [Dave, please see the note for MV above. There is something wrong with the automatic filter. It's not you] ED


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              it MUST be caused by AGW.

              This is a logical fallacy. Every climatic event, in fact every tiny weather event no matter how small is a combination of all forcings on the climate. They cannot be singled out, it is one large interactive and integrated system. The sun, greenhouse gases, ocean currents, cosmic rays, land use, volcanos etc etc are all a part of every weather event. What we do know is that even though the last 60 years have seen the temperature rise by 60 degrees, we have no natural effect to acount for it. The extra energy in the system will affect the climate, regardless of where it comes from. We examine natural factors, such as ENSO (nope, balances out), solar (flat to cooling), volcanos (MT Pinatubo caused cooling) etc. So that only leaves increasing CO2 caused by mans emissions as THE ONLY VERIFIABLE source for the extra warming. You can guess and make assumptions, but that is not science.


              Report this

              011

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                rise by 60 degrees,

                Oops I meant 0.6 deg


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                This is a logical fallacy.

                No Michael, it is not. It is satire – a joke – and it was probably aimed at the excitable and alarmist media.

                But seeing as you took it oh so seriously, I guess it also included you through collateral damage.

                Now, in your response, you mentioned that for the last 60 years we have seen a temperature rise of 0.6 degrees, or 0.01 degrees per year (smoothed).

                Given that a nominal generation is 25 years, I doubt very much that your children or your grandchildren will actually notice any difference in temperature, especially as our perception of temperature is relative rather than absolute – the boiled frog effect.


                Report this

                50

              • #

                So that only leaves increasing CO2

                Argument from ignorance.

                You may as well attribute the “warming” to the increased wearing of blue jeans.


                Report this

                10

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            only five years ago we were being told the world was “becoming hotter and drier“, that “drought was the new normal“, that “even the rain that fell wouldn’t make it to the dams“,

            Nope, the science was not saying that. Only some cherry picked portions out of context remarks from individuals even suggested that. The science always said that hot areas would become hotter and drier and flood prone areas would become wetter. Regionally there are huge differences as climate change can be unpredictable, just look at Europe with its vast changes due to the destabilised jetstream caused by the warming Arctic. The loss of ice is faster than predicted and the changes to the weather due to that warming was not predicted. This is the whole point, we are on a grand unpredictable geo engineering experiment where we do NOT KNOW what is going to happen, how bad and how fast. Some things seem to be worse and faster, some less and slower and some things were not predicted at all, this has not happened before in our experience, such a sharp short term increase in CO2.

            SO sit back and say with absolute certainty, like you guys do, that it will not be bad and probably good (with nothing to back that up), or you are like me, a realist, that says current trends are scary and match predictions and we cannot sit back and ruin the habitability of the planet for future generations just because we are lazy and greedy, our kids deserve better than that.

            So I showed you the WMO report, pointed to the current flood in colorado (also been big ones in India, Canada and Europe this year) but have you looked at China recently? We are so sheltered here we have no idea at how bad things are getting.
            “China has already experienced five billion-dollar weather disasters so far in 2013. This is the most of any nation, according to insurance broker Aon Benfield. Utor is likely to the be sixth such disaster. The five Chinese billion-dollar weather disasters have all hit this summer:

            1) Drought, Central and Eastern China, 1/1 – 7/31: $6.0 billion
            2) Flooding, nationwide, 7/7 – 7/17: $4.5 billion
            3) Flooding, Sichuan Province, China, 7/7 – 7/11: $1.6 billion
            4) Flooding, China, 6/29 – 7/3: $1.4 billion
            5) Flooding, China, 7/21 – 7/25: $1.4 billion”
            http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2487


            Report this

            111

        • #
        • #
          Backslider

          Remember when Michael first poked his sorry head in around here he was constantly squarking “peer review, peer review”?…….. now all we see from him are press releases and references to articles from the ABC and The Guardian and his own interpretations of ENSO graphs.

          His rant above missed the bit where he was squarking that 2001-2010 was SO MUCH hotter than the previous decade even though the previous decade according to him had a “preponderence of natural warming events” (he completely misinterprets ENSO graphs for this)…. but what he completely missed with the 1991-2000 decade was:

          THE 1991 ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO !!!!!


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            THE 1991 ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO !!!!!

            I hope Jo does not mind the repost, considering that Backslider is being allowed to repost his inaccurate science across threads. I must be allowed to answer, or he should be told to stop repeating himself and stay on topic.

            So does this not mean that things should be even cooler? So lets see, ENSO zeros out, solar falling, Mount Pinatubo cooling. BUT TEMPS HAVE RISEN BY 0.6 Deg C IN THE LAST 60 YEARS, WOW!!! WHAT HAS CAUSED ALL THAT WARMING? YOU HAVE NOW ADDED EVEN MORE NATURAL COOLING FACTORS.

            Hmmm looks like AGW is overwhelming natural factors more than I thought?


            Report this

            014

            • #

              You’ve defined an arbitrary sampling window on a stochastic signal and effectively draw a statistical conclusion from a population of one.

              Have you at least verified that moving the sampling window’s bound preserves your conclusion?

              Our climate experience is very much like riding a roller coaster backwards on a foggy day; where we cannot see the future and much of the past is at best only slightly visible. We tend to get excited by the steep rises and sudden falls; leaving some frozen by fear, others screaming wildly, wanting to get off and a whole lot more wanting their money back because the ride isn’t all that impressive.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              So does this not mean that things should be even cooler?

              No Michael, it means that you do not know what you are talking about.


              Report this

              01

            • #
              Backslider

              You could actually learn something from Mount Pinatubo Michael.

              What it showed very clearly is that changes in our atmosphere show their effect on temperatures almost immediately.

              This being the case and with CO2 continuing to rise, why then has global warming “paused”? (or do you deny that it has “paused”?)


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                You could actually learn something from Mount Pinatubo Michael.

                We did. Models used the eruption as a real life experiment and put it through the models. They accurately predicted what would happen.

                This being the case and with CO2 continuing to rise, why then has global warming “paused”?

                For about the hundredth time look at the data. You are making the incorrect, illogical and unscientific assumption that CO2 is the ONLY DRIVER OF CLIMATE and IGNORING NATURAL FACTORS. Look at the long term trend skeptically. It has many ups and down in the record but with an obvious long term warming trend. The long term trend comes from the CO2, the wobbles comes from natural variation as well as anthropogenic causes. This has been explained to you multiple times, the data presented and the peer reviewed science referenced. You ignore everything but what fulfils your confirmation bias.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Backslider

                The long term trend comes from the CO2

                Ahh yes Michael. This is in line with your assertion that The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age.

                You will find Michael that the long term trend comes from what the sun is doing. You will not find one peer reviewed paper which supports your ridiculous position.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider
                You could actually learn something from Mount Pinatubo Michael.

                We did. Models used the eruption as a real life experiment and put it through the models. They accurately predicted what would happen.

                “We did” huh? Wow Michael, so now you are a climate scientist…. ha ha ha ha

                You missed the most important point: the eruption showed that changes in the atmosphere are felt almost immediately. This falsifies your CO2 theories.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Mattb

                “the eruption showed that changes in the atmosphere are felt almost immediately. This falsifies your CO2 theories.”

                you’re not actually serious here are you slider? These are two completely different mechanisms and there is zero reason to assume they would both operate on the same time scales. I mean seriously, surely some skeptic here could back me up for once?


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate

                As explained repeatedly, this comes from the PAGES paper, you know, actual peer reveiwed science.

                the eruption showed that changes in the atmosphere are felt almost immediately. This falsifies your CO2 theories.

                How? It does not falsify anything. It proves that with cooling volcanos, flat solar and flat ENSO over a 60 year period the earths temps grew by 0.6 degrees. It must be killing you that you cannot explain that away, and you helpfully add to the evidence. CO2 is not the only factor, it can be(and is) react to volcanos, ENSO, solar and CO2 at the same time. Wow, that must blow your mind!!! So think about it a minute… and then the factor overwhelming factor compensating for all the cooling natural factors must be CO2 because temps have risen.

                Logic not your strong point hey?


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Backslider

                As explained repeatedly, this comes from the PAGES paper

                Explained repeatedly where Michael? You have certainly never mentioned the “pages” paper to me anywhere. Link please.

                CO2 is not the only factor, it can be(and is) react to volcanos, ENSO, solar and CO2 at the same time.

                Nice to see you have added “volcanos” [sic] finally Michael. I think I had to tell you at least ten times to get it through your thick skull.

                So these are all you have Michael? Is ENSO the only ocean cycle that effects climate (for example)??

                then the factor overwhelming factor compensating for all the cooling natural factors must be CO2

                Why must it Michael? Because you don’t know any other factors? I had to nail you repeatedly just to have you accept the fact the the eruption of Mount Pinatubo falsified your ENSO assertions.

                How about some science to back up your assertion that “the factor overwhelming factor compensating for all the cooling natural factors must be CO2″?

                You say it “must” be. Prove it.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                You have certainly never mentioned the “pages” paper to me anywhere. Link please.

                Liar, I have shown this to you before, but as always you ignore actual science in preference to your pre scientific method thought experiments.

                “Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
                http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html


                Report this

                04

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          So Roy, not predictions, actual events happening now. I could make a long list of extreme record breaking events from the last 4 years but it would probably get cut. How about you download the latest publication from the WMO and read through a summary of the decade, all actual observations and trends. So either accept the facts or pretend they don’t exist.

          You do persist don’t you?

          OK, so this is all about CO2 causing these things, is it not? So to be convinced of CO2 as the cause I can logically assume you want to see the real science behind it all, right? And that real science would be aimed at showing, according to the scientific method of investigation, that CO2 actually can warm the planet. I have been looking for, asking for, even pleading for anyone to show me empirical evidence that CO2 can do what you claim. I’ve looked for it for years now. It ain’t there, Michael, it ain’t there. It’s always just assumed as a starting point and then with that magical foundation firmly established in imagination, the rest of the framework follows with no trouble at all.

          You’ve fallen for a scam, pure and simple. There is no evidence that CO2 can do, much less that it’s actually doing what you claim. And if you want to convince me you need to come up with that missing evidence. Rising CO2 level in the atmosphere and extremes of weather are hardly a decent science experiment. It’s just a joke. Without your unproven theory you wouldn’t have the nerve to try to connect them even in a sci-fi novel. The WMO’s statistics mean nothing unless you can connect CO2 to rising temperatures with something better than an assumption. And actually it’s even worse than that because rising temperatures stopped way back in 1998 or 2001, depending on whose choice of year you want to use but the CO2 continues to increase.

          You tie yourself in knots trying to explain why your scam doesn’t hold together. So let me suggest that the real truth is obvious but you don’t like it so you ignore it.

          The dedication of people like you to this cause is nothing short of bizarre. Show me the damned evidence, Michael, show me the evidence or go away.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Test comment to see if the prior one now in moderation and this much shorter one also gets tossed in the sin bin.

            Mod, you can delete this once my previous one is out of prison.

            Roy


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Brian

    Bravo!

    Now, it’s time to send a clear message to the new government, to appoint nothing less than Jensen or his equivalent.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      They are treading a very fine, dishonest, manipulative tightrope. On the one hand most don’t accept the science and they are likely to appoint someone hostile to it. On the other hand they publicly state and have documents that publicly state that they accept the science and will do something about climate change. They are likely to give it lip service but spend billions of dollars on something they don’t accept because they are deceiving both sides. Never a more dishonest, conviction-less government has been voted in.


      Report this

      015

      • #
        AndyG55

        It is YOU who refuses to accept the science..

        Its just that you understand SO LITTLE, that you never will accept actual REALITY. !!


        Report this

        61

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          What part of what I have said about liberals is wrong? Please correct me. Do they or do they not have a climate change policy that says that they agree with the science, that climate change is real and that they have an ineffective multi billion dollar direct action policy to deal with it?

          Do they or do they not as individuals and as believed by you guys as posted on this thread majority reject the science of AGW and trying to wind back as much as they can of actual useful action towards it without looking like they don’t believe it. Has or has not most state lib governments when they get in ramp up mining approvals and encouragements and have been winding back environmental controls and overseeing?

          Are you really aware of reality?


          Report this

          011

      • #
        Backslider

        They are treading a very fine, dishonest, manipulative tightrope.

        No Michael.. please wake up *slap* *slap*….. Labor are GONE!!!!!


        Report this

        100

      • #

        On the one hand most don’t accept the science

        New or Old Testament?


        Report this

        20

  • #
    • #
      Roy Hogue

      When the IPCC folds up its tent in the middle of the night and sneaks away — an exit very befitting for them — I’ll believe they’re cooling on warming. Then the UN will need to disband everything they have going under the heading of climate change. The snake will only be dead when its head and body are lying on two different platters for everyone to see.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      You mean 2500 of the smartest “scientists” in the Universe plus two activist graduate students taking notes for them were wrong?

      How could they possibly have been wrong?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Mattb

      “Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult”

      some one tell me… do “extremely” and “very” have “specific and different: statistical meaning. TO me I’d have thought comparison would be difficult because they are vague and possibly similar but who knows?


      Report this

      06

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        That is indeed a scholarly parsing of statistical relevance; previous editions did not address the simple issue, “it never happened in the past, but could be expected to now,” and do you suppose we can expect a meaningful answer in the current edition?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Backslider

        do “extremely” and “very” have “specific and different: statistical meaning. TO me I’d have thought comparison would be difficult because they are vague and possibly similar but who knows?

        Let me give you a feel for it Mattb:

        You are not very stupid…. you are extremely stupid.

        Get it now?


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Mattb

          yeah but are they statistically specific enough for me to know which is 80% stupid and which is 95% stupid?


          Report this

          07

          • #
            Mattb

            it would appear that the use of terms very and extremely in statistics are not set in stone. When used the user is expected to refer to the scale they are using to say which is which, so the reader knows what they are on about.


            Report this

            07

    • #
      Mattb

      “Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage.”

      I’m not convinced that is a true statement. 2 degrees is pretty much simply what is considered even vaguely possible.

      Also how does he translate ““likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius” to “Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”

      That is a conclusion not at all backed up by even his own reporting on the content of the report. (which lets face it as a supposed report based on sneak previews allegedly seen is probably inaccurate).


      Report this

      19

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        My understanding on what I have read and seen is that most scientists believe that 2 degrees is already to much. The figure is purely a political one and not based in science. Going on the changes in extreme weather, ice loss, trends in hot days, sea level rises, falling ocean ph and more from the rises we already have that 2 degrees will not be pleasant. There is already zero evidence that benefits have outweighed the harm.

        I don’t think people realise just how sensitive the climate is to changes in global temperature. The difference between an ice age and a warm period is just 6 degrees. Montreal being covered by several km of ice or a thriving city is just 6 degrees. Wake up.


        Report this

        017

        • #
          Backslider

          2 degrees will not be pleasant

          You are of course able to show us this from previous warm periods that were warmer than today, such as the Medieval Warm period….. can’t you?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Michael,

          The difference between an ice age and a warm period is just 6 degrees.

          Can you please list me all of the research papers that come to that conclusion?


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Just going on the paleoclimate record. The difference can be as little as 6 degrees c.


            Report this

            013

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Michael,

              You’re certainly fond of making sweeping conclusions from data that ought to be swept under the rug. Do you realize how inexact and subject to individual researcher opinion that paleoclimate record really is?

              It’s one thing to do some research and say, “I think it means this.” But it’s quite another to demand that the whole human race make sweeping sacrifices based on a mere opinion.

              Please, do get yourself a real life.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Backslider

              Just going on the paleoclimate record

              Oh, just your opinion again Michael? Is that “just going on” in the same way as your opinions on ENSO where you completely missed the eruption of Mount Pinatubo?


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Backslider

          I don’t think people realise just how sensitive the climate is to changes in global temperature.

          I don’t think you realise just how sensitive the climate was to THE ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO during your “decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderence of natural warming events”……


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            I don’t think you realise just how sensitive the climate was to THE ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO

            Oh but I do. Volcano cooling, ENSO neutral, solar flat or falling but over a 60 year period temps ROSE 0.6 degrees. I don’t think you realise you just strengthened my argument.


            Report this

            02

        • #
          Backslider

          I don’t think people realise just how sensitive the climate is to changes in global temperature.

          I don’t think you realise just how sensitive the climate has been to a 0.4%/decade decline in cloud cover.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            I don’t think you realise just how sensitive the climate has been to a 0.4%/decade decline in cloud cover.

            Feel free to provide the science, data, mechanism and proof of how sensitive it is. Your paper does not support your view, you are again misrepresenting science.
            1. Why has cloud cover fallen? mechanism
            2. What effect does that have on climate? mechanism
            3. Proof.


            Report this

            03

            • #
              Backslider

              Your paper does not support your view

              Considering that you and I both know that you have not read the paper, how do you know?

              You only read abstracts, which observes a decline in total cloud cover of 0.4% per decade from 1971 through 2009. This begs the question, how much has the total decline been?

              Why has cloud cover fallen?

              Why don’t you find out for yourself? Surely it must interest you, considering how massive a factor cloud cover is when considering climate. Or do you think that clouds are irrelevant?…. oh, that’s right, for you the only factor is CO2.

              What effect does that have on climate?

              There are lots of kindergarten lessons online about the influence of clouds on climate…. but, do step out from youf hovel out into the sun to get an idea for yourself.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          AndyG55

          “My understanding on what I have read and seen”

          Your understanding is extremely LIMITED !!!

          You obviously have zero to none scientific background.

          Please go away and get an education.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Robert

          I don’t think

          So far after reading through your ramblings that excerpt from one of them is the only honest thing you have written. Now if you would just learn to stop there it would make life much easier for you. Though of course you would have to think to learn.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I don’t know why Lord Monckton would bother responding to the yellow journalist Readfearn, but if Readfearn had asked me, my answers to many of the questions would unfortunately be a resounding “yes.”

    In the case of #16, NASA approved the rocket designs of the company, Orbital Sciences, to place the OCO and GLORY satellites into orbit, both attempts failed, NASA really ought to have been able to calculate the pressure of the shock wave at Mach 6 across the fairing (nose cone) to know that pressure was too high for the fairing to open with the release mechanisms they had in place.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    mem

    Thankyou Lord Monckton.You have fought an heroic battle and deserve your title.Love your work.Readfearn is a street cred journo/activist who has done some good stuff in his career for the right motives.My bet is he was,like many other activists, specifically targetted and pulled into the warmist camp.He has been used and now he can’t quite come to terms with it.Time to grow up Mr Readfearn.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Boadicea

    Last Saturday I spent some time doing my bit in handing out how to vote cards for the Liberal candidate in this part of the country.

    Being the first at the site, I introduced myself to the other hander-outers with a comment that we are all Australians, and there is no reaosn why we shouldnt talk to each other etc. There was not problem with everyone else but the Labor bloke went all beady eyed and feral and lit into me with a trade about how we, the Libs, will be responsible for:

    a) 250 people losing their jobs at the nearby Migration Detention Centres, full of illegals.

    b) be the reason why some of his research will be cancellled… thereby revealing who, and what he was, and

    c) the cancelling of a light rail project (which I had never heard of) they had been investigating between where he works, and a new technology park.

    So having adjudged this turkey to be a complete waste of space, I politely retreated and watched in amazement as he and the newly arrived Greens person and he engaged in the lively debate, about the usual drivel that an academic and a Green would wank on about…. as all potential voters just side stepped around them, and left the job of paying attention and handing out most of the how to vote cards to myself, and other other parties.

    I thought… absolutely typical.

    Then we read that the Univerity of Adelaide has granted Juliar Gillard an Honorary Professorship, to lecture students in politics… thus re-inforcinging the same rubbishy standards she was herself was brainwashed with…(but to be fair her own origins would have a bit to do with itas well)

    Am I the only one to feel perturbed by this…


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Monkton is a dazzling wit.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    J.H.

    LOL… Lord Monckton loves guys like Readfearn. They give him publicity and exposure while offering up the opportunity to rip them pieces in his now trademark style.

    He must wake up feeling like the luckiest man on Earth sometimes. A champion in the quest for truth and understanding….. It just doesn’t get better than that for Lords of any Realm. ;-)


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Sunray

    I believe that Lord Monckton just executed a “surgical strike”, a gift to which I aspire.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    I’ve been busy. ;-)

    To explain my relative silence, I’ve finished writing this War Story.

    Disclaimer from the story:

    This is a work of fiction. Any characters portrayed are fictitious and any similarity with real people is coincidental; even if amusing. The voices you hear are only in your mind.


    Report this

    30