Monckton Reaches New Heights of Anti-Environmentalism

Fri, 2011-11-18 12:25Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

Monckton Reaches New Heights of Anti-Environmentalism

Screenshot from The Daily Caller interview with Lord Monckton

CLIMATE science denial think-tank the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow is flying a four-strong delegation to next week’s UN climate conference in South Africa, with a promise to engage in a “balanced, civil and genuine” dialogue.

But the chances of much civility appear to be somewhere between zero and naught, given their delegate Lord Christopher Monckton’s latest outpouring of bilious, conspiratorial anti-environmentalism.
 
During a video chat with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas, Monckton claims environmental groups “hate humanity”, that the UN process (which he is flying into at Durban) is to “set-up a world government” and throws around claims of fascism and communism like confetti. 
 
Never a man to understate his case, CFACT delegate Lord Monckton is fast becoming the Harold Camping of the climate science denial industry, claiming the global warming “scare” is an attempt to “shut down the West”, “stamp out democracy” and establish “a tyranny over the mind of man”.
 
The cleanest form of energy on the planet? Monckton tells host Ginni Thomas, it’s “coal”.
The fact is that if we allow our fossil fuels to be interfered with or priced out of the market, so as to subside futile, bird-killing, bat-slicing windmills, or these ridiculous solar panels, then all we do is cut of our nose to spite our face
Now the trouble with this is, that it’s actually fossil fuels that are receiving the bulk of subsidies. According to that famous left-wing environmental organisation, the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel industries received $409 billion in 2010 (up from $300 billion in 2009).
 
Monckton tells Thomas that he “likes to speak for freedom”.  Actually, Monckton also likes to threaten to sue people who disagree with him, which isn’t quite speaking for freedom.
 
Monckton has issued threats to sue Guardian columnist George Monbiot, scientist professors Scott Mandia and John Abraham and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He also went to the UK’s High Court in an unsuccessful bid to have his own response inserted at the end of a BBC-commissioned documentary Meet the Climate Skeptics.
 
Lord Monckton also attacks plans being discussed in the state of Maryland for a more sustainable future. If implemented in full, Monckton says the plan will take the state “back to the stone-age but without even the right to light a carbon emitting fire in your cave.”

Alarmist, anyone?
 
Actually, caves as housing options aren’t mentioned in Maryland’s plan, but it does talk of the utter evils of a “range of housing densities, types, and sizes… for citizens of all ages and incomes”.
 
The plan also states how quality of life can come through “universal stewardship of the land, water, and air resulting in sustainable communities and protection of the environment”.
 
Elsewhere in Lord Monckton’s tirade, he says that raising CO2 levels “would hugely increase yields of crops - the extra carbon dioxide is tree food”. He adds that “if you want to green the planet, then what you want is more carbon dioxide and not less”.
 
I asked Associate Professor Ros Gleadow of Monash University and President of the Australian Society of Plant Scientists, about this common meme that CO2 is merely “food for plants” and that increasing it would just raise crop yields.
 
She told DeSmogBlog that under enhanced CO2, the nutritional quality and protein levels of most plants decreases. This could affect plants such as wheat, where protein levels are vital in bread making. Because protein levels would fall, this reduction could also affect the ability of humans to tolerate cyanide, which gets released when foods such as cassava – a staple in Africa - are eaten.
 
She added because plants grown in higher CO2 regimes need fewer leaves to grow, this would also impact on animals which ate those leaves.
 
For Australia, this means koalas. Just before Lord Monckton came to the land of koalas for a mining-industry sponsored tour earlier this year, he compared the country’s former climate policy adviser Professor Ross Garnaut to a Nazi and used a picture of a large swastika next to a quote from Professor Garnaut to ram his point home.
 
On arriving in Australia, Monckton issued an apology – of sorts – saying he had been “catastrophically stupid and offensive” and that he had written to Professor Garnaut to withdraw the comment “unreservedly”.
 
But in his interview with Ginni Thomas, Monckton now claims his previously “catastrophically stupid” statement was actually “very mild”.
 
You don’t actually hear Ginni Thomas at all during the interview, so at no point does she even attempt to restrain or challenge his stataments.
 
But perhaps the most conspiratorial part of the interview, comes when Monckton claims that Google had been paid “something like a quarter of a million dollars” to publish bogus pages on the internet in order to push a video of him down the search engine’s page ranking. Without this intervention, Monckton claim modestly the video would have “gone to 20 million” and been “unstoppable”.
 
A Google spokesperson told DeSmogBlog
Google ranks websites to deliver the best possible results for users. We rely on a fundamentally algorithmic approach because this is the most scalable way to answer more than a billion search queries each day. Search rankings are completely unrelated to Google’s paid advertising services and other partnerships, and there is absolutely no way for a webmaster to pay money to increase search rankings.
According to research by MediaMatters, CFACT has received more than $2million in funding over the years from ExxonMobil and foundation’s chaired by Richard Scaife, the billionaire heir to the Mellon family’s oil, banking and aluminium businesses.
 
In addition, CFACT also received $160,000 in 2010 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, according to the foundation’s latest annual report
 
For the record, SSF also gave $250,000 to the George C Marshall Institute, another promoter of climate science misinformation, and $600,000 to the Heritage Foundation, which heavily downplays the need to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and argues against scientific consensus. The Allegheny Foundation, also chaired by Richard Scaife, gave $1.25 million to Heritage last year.
 

Given their funding, CFACT can obviously afford to stick Lord Monckton on a plane to Durban to attend a UN conference. Let's hope he doesn't run into any more of those “Hitler Youth”.

 

Comments

Monckton’s mental illness is clearly running rampant now.

“and throws around claims of fascism and communism”

Monckton ignores his own oxymoron & just concentrates on throwing enough “isms” in to make it sound scary to people who have no idea what he is talking about. I was recently told by a guy at work “The new carbon tax is just marxist!”. I said, “why is it Marxist & what is Marxism?” . He responded with ” I don’t know, but it’s bad.”…………..Lol.  Another right wing echo chamber success.

“Elsewhere in Lord Monckton’s tirade, he says that raising CO2 levels “would hugely increase yields of crops - the extra carbon dioxide is tree food”. He adds that “if you want to green the planet, then what you want is more carbon dioxide and not less”.”

Ironic that Monckton complains that the current scientific paradigm on AGW cannot possibly get metrics on climate sensitivity anywhere near correct because of all the variables & it is in the future. The future being unknown. Yet, he can somehow predict the future & knows higher CO2 will benefit mankind, despite science saying otherwise.

“that Google had been paid “something like a quarter of a million dollars” to publish bogus pages on the internet in order to push a video of him down the search engine’s page ranking. Without this intervention, Monckton claim modestly the video would have “gone to 20 million” and been “unstoppable”.

Google optimization & de-optimization is done in the web design process. As far as i know, you can’t pay someone to deoptimize a competitor. That would be a monopolists dream. It depends on what words you use or don’t use, the links & metadata. If his pages are failing it’s because a) no one cares &/or b) web site design or keywords used. Monckton is just a failure & just doesn’t understand that.

In 10 years time, people will look back on him as a side show alley freak.

 

Maybe we should officially call him ‘Not Lord Monckton’.  It’s true, and it emphasizes that he’s a lying lier.

the title “Lord” appears on his passport so I think we have to let him use it verbally

“the title “Lord” appears on his passport so I think we have to let him use it verbally”

Well, passports don’t have to be changed for 10 years & there is no police or Interpol as such that travels around policing such things. It’s meant to be a matter of honor that one goes by those titles or not.

Besides, the House of Lords only issued their statement in July 2011, advising Monckton he is not a Lord & to please stop calling himself one.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf

Hmmmm, what it says on his passport vs the authority that recognizes lordship….I wonder who is right?

 

The “house of lords”doesn’t actually own the word lord. It’s used in a variety of ways in the UK to make people feel like they are important.

related: Colonel Sanders of chicken fame wasn’t a military guy and Dr. Pepper is a non medicinal drink. Burger King is largely a ceremonial title in the fast food industry and Prince the musician is just a non royal who dresses funny.

Just where do the parliamentarians in the UK get off calling themselves “lords”anyway?

bunch of self important stuffed suits bought and paid for by Exxon probably.

The “house of lords”doesn’t actually own the word lord. It’s used in a variety of ways in the UK to make people feel like they are important.”

“Monckton is a Viscount, a title which he inherited, so he is a lord.”

Apologies, I was focused on the house of lords membership. I got that wrong as VJ pointed out below. But hey….at least I can be swayed by evidence & say I was wrong. Not sure how that changes anything in regards to AGW though. Monckton is still a denier & liar for hire, with extremely bad attire.



 

Not fishing AnOilMan. Fishing would imply that a person was trying to catch someone. I would call it more like backed in a corner. Sorry about the trap as a book I read somewhere stated that he that digs a pit will surly fall in it. But any answer would serve my purpose. Purpose being just to make a statement that lying does more harm than good. For instance is you answered the questions factually then I would say that maybe you have been on the drill floor turning to the right that would be calling some of you dear writers a liar wouldn’t it? If you agreed with their facts then I would know that you had never been on the drill floor. Or as you did you could shrink to the size of a mouse and crawl through the hole in the back of the wall by dodging the question all together. And now you are quick to call someone a liar.

Scientists have a hard time agreeing on if we have past the point of no return. So what! Even if we have past this point maybe we can delay it 20,30 maybe 50 years. Maybe if delayed just a few years we could find new technology to reverse it. Regardless we must start ASAP. To do this we must present our case with facts, figures, and solutions that viable and achievable. Take for example that “fugitive gas” is a major problem for global warming. Ok if you approached a committee hearing with this statement and FACTS to support it and request that a team be allowed to work with the industry to find a solution then this could actually be accomplished. Go in there and state the problem and say you want to shut down the whole industry and you won’t be invited back! Maybe even in a few weeks you can have a solution! Once you have a solution THEN you could ask the committee to mandate it and establish fines if not in place. Fact is they probably already have a lot of solutions to a lot of these problems but until to make an effort to work with them then they don’t and won’t want to share information. Get the ball rolling on this, prove that you are here to solve problems rather than shut them down and then each problem may be fixed at a furious pace. These people in this industry can solve problems better than any class of people on earth. They have proven that time after time. Approach this committee with figures that are inflated, exaggerated, or outright lies and you get run out on the rail!

Can anyone start a blog where we can talk about actual fixes and not just tabloid material?   

Solving problems?  What industry are you talking about?

Bite the bullet and pay more for your energy. I do. My house is run on Wind.

Use transit. I do. My house is located at an transit hub and light rail station.

Use less water. I do. My yard is xeriscaped.

Recycle… Yup.  Do all that.

I haven’t gone Solar with Geothermal…  (Sad fact… Geothermal uses more electricity, and in Alberta, that means Coal power… so its not such a green solution.)

Again.. I have no clue where you’re going with all this. Umm… From what I understand adding a hefty tax or fine will get the ball rolling to cut carbon. Removing subsidies would also help. Market forces will do the rest.

So to use your example of fugitive gases, companies will inventory their fugitive gas issues and decide where to make their savings.  No one including me would demand that a business be shut down while we spend their money merrily (and inefficiently) trying to cut their carbon emmissions.

For example in Alberta there is a water shortage looming… fugitive emmissions of water are a big concern (leaky toilets).  So.. the city puts out information and tries to get people to fix up their toilets.  No one is walking around shutting down all the toilets.

There is no need to catastrophize solutions to environmental concerns.

Agricultural industries are all looking into doing their parts as well. New Zealand is studying sheep farts.  Alberta is studying cow burps.

What trap? What are you talking about? Who’s them?”

Lol, thought that was some oil insider knowledge or something you discussed with him earlier, but obviously you are none the wiser either.

Bite the bullet and pay more for your energy. I do. My house is run on Wind.”

Mine is solar. I had to outlay a bit to get it installed, but once paid off, i will be creating free energy. Which is something fossil fuels can never offer.

Use less water. I do. My yard is xeriscaped.”

Same, although I admit it wasn’t a conscious decision. A sever drought & a 20% water supply led to a ban on watering gardens. Succulents & other plants requiring little water became very popular. Although, I have a low lying area on my property where 3 properties meet that was naturally boggy due to sub soil water movements. I put a whole heap of citrus there & some vegies. Serves two purposes now. Stops the ground getting boggy after rain & the citrus get a good drink naturally.

“Recycle… Yup.  Do all that.”

I compost garden waste, but we have recycle bins provided by the council. Does Canada & the U.S do the same thing?

 

Phil just ask yourself just one question. Can the majority of people in your country afford get of the grid and do as you? Do they have the money in their pocket to plunk out the cash get off the grid? If they have this money and just choose not to go green then I say you need to talk to the people. But here in the US we have reached record foreclosure on homes. Can’t blame anybody but ourselves but it is here and it is real. More people are losing their homes and every thing they have worked for right now than any time in US history. To simply say “had to outlay a bit” just don’t fly here. People here have lost all that they have worked for and have not a bit left! This is a sensitive area for politicians as well because they know the votes come from the majorities. Now you get a politician to get up and say we all got to give a little to save the planet in front of people that have nothing to give and you have lost the race. So what I am saying is don’t look at yourself as I am doing right. Look at what it will take for the majority to do right. We can do more without costing the populous by working at common goals rather than just come out and tax everyone. As for the trap I will explain in a few.

“Phil just ask yourself just one question. Can the majority of people in your country afford get of the grid and do as you? Do they have the money in their pocket to plunk out the cash get off the grid?”

No. You are quite correct. But like many consumer items, it starts with only the wealthy being able to afford them, then the middle class, then the poor. Look at the first, car, T.V, Plasma etc. With fossil fuels, we will never achieve a state where it becomes cheaper for the poor to purchase energy.

Energy consumption of the past few decades has exploded, requiring ever increasing upgrades to the energy generation side, transmission networks & distribution networks. Many people now have an air con, plasma, light their house up all night ( even in unoccupied rooms), standby power etc etc. Power companies have to upgrade to meet demand, then pass the cost on. Resulting in power costs in most countries spiraling out of control. At least with renewables, there is a chance that they (the poor) can offset some of that impact & it will only get cheaper. Fossil fuels on the other hand, will only get more expensive, provide less jobs & cost governments more in climate change mitigation costs. Money that could have been spent elsewhere. Those mitigation costs will only get higher the longer we wait & deliberate.

“But here in the US we have reached record foreclosure on homes. Can’t blame anybody but ourselves but it is here and it is real.”

While the GFC created a very real problem with serious flow on effects. It doesn’t diminish the need to act on climate change. It just means we have more problems to deal with.

“More people are losing their homes and every thing they have worked for right now than any time in US history.”

Yet, ironically, it has given rise to political movements like the TEA Party & other right wing politicians who advocate even less regulation than the lack of regulation that caused the GFC in the first place. Instead of being outraged at the corporations who have caused this, they have been conned by the corporations into advocating even less regulation….in the guise of liberty & freedom. Wonders never cease.

“To simply say “had to outlay a bit””

You are right. That was a poor choice of words. Even being in the middle class, that was a considerable outlay for me. But the costs over the long term will be far less than energy derived entirely from fossil fuels.

“So what I am saying is don’t look at yourself as I am doing right. Look at what it will take for the majority to do right. We can do more without costing the populous by working at common goals rather than just come out and tax everyone.”

I’m all ears. In fact, most scientists & economists worldwide are all ears. I’ve seen you criticize mitigation efforts, yet say we should make an effort to mitigate the effects of AGW. But I’ve never seen your actual solutions. It’s easy to just keep on saying no to everything, but you have to have a solution. Otherwise, it’s just opposition for opposition sake.









energy generationTransmission & distribution

I’m beginning to think he doesn’t think I work in the oil industry.  “AnOilMan” wasn’t my first name choice (I was thinking of something more along the lines of Fraud Singer).  But “AnOilMan” seemed to put Brendan at ease given where I work… in the oil industry.

My house is located in Zone 2… subarctic, its at the high point on a hill, so all the water drains away.

Canada and the US recycle but it really is location dependant.  Where I am, they only recently started a city wide recycling system.  We only have one bin, and they sort it all after the fact.  (I heard in the UK they got like a separate bin for each recycling item.)

but aren’t we virtuous.

Is it really making any difference?

 

“but aren’t we virtuous. Is it really making any difference?”

Allowing him to ply his trade uncontested lends weight to the illusion there really is vigorous  debate within climate science……when there is next to none amongst actual climate scientists.

Allowing him to perpetuate his myths gives credence to the possibility that we should delay action………because it’s just all so uncertain. He can submit a peer reviewed paper & bring down the science if he thinks it is all wrong. Until then, all he is doing is spreading verified & well documented lies & he needs to be held accountable every time he does it.

Not paraded around the media circuit as a counter balance, or……the other side of the story. Out of “fairness” & giving the viewers/listeners/readers “both sides of the story”.

 

One might doubt the efficacy of virtue, and yet hold no illusions regarding the worth of deadweight cynicism.

I feel that its important to practice what you preach. (Perhaps you live by different ideals.)

In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t make a difference.    But it makes me feel better and I would certainly strive to lead by example.

Sometimes people listen to what I have to say, and reflect on it.  I think that is a good thing.

http://www.desmogblog.com/gas-industry-geologists-not-doctors-decide-if-water-safe-alberta-fracking-contamination-cases

 

You can trash the guy all you want, but he is getting his message out. I watched him debate at the National Press Club event back in July of this year and he clearly knows how to speak, came very well prepared, and beat the pants of the guy he was debating.

Despite what Desmog is saying here, many of his points were based on current ‘consesus’ science but played out in a way that didn’t hide the economic reality of what they willl cost the people of Australia. For instance, current programs that will cost approx $127 billion dollars over the next 10 years will (maybe) result in a .00007 degree reduction in world temperatures. It’s the truth that he spews, not the few bits of anti-green sentiment, that people don’t like.

Watch the video, he’s mostly in the 2nd half.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ma6cnPLcrtA

“He is well researched articulate and his points are always well thought out. Instead of pointing to a few hand picked experts he examines the evidence and bases his arguments on that.”

Great! Well he can submit that “evidence” by peer review then can’t he & set it in stone. We both know he wont do that. That would expose him.

“Some may argue that the climate is a long term game, but in the near term the last 15 years we have not seen any statisticaly signifigant warming nor have we seen any climate disasters and the evidence certainly bears this point out.”

Please provide evidence from one of the institutes that everyone derives their data from. No interpretations of interpretations.

 

You can not deny that there has been no statistically signifigant warming for over 15 years now. Even Phill JOnes of the CRU has come on record to state that.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

I think we should all give Professor Phil Jones some much deserved credit for coming forward with some straightforward to answers to many questions on the climate file. In fact he has restored some credibility to his field with many of his frank answers where he examines the mideval warm period and talks about the debate within the climate community about global warming.

You can examine the data from any institution you want but it is all the same. No statistically signifigant warming for 15 years during a period with record setting amounts of c02 emissions. Clearly this is the big chink in the warmist armor. Clearly the climate sensitivity to c02 is very small and any alarmist claims have been thoroughly debunked by the evidence.

 

For brave souls like Lord Monkton who have been coming forward with the straight goods. You should not be deriding Monkton but thanking him for the free education in climate science he is providing at no cost.

 

“You can not deny that there has been no statistically signifigant warming for over 15 years now.”

Yes I can. For starters, Jones made that statement in Feb 2010. Its nearly 2 years later & we now know that:

“Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The two years differed by less than 0.018°F. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.”

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=467

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/02/global-temperature-in-2010-hottest-year/

2nd. Jones said “This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.” . If someone told you, that it was 94% likely you would be shot if you went into a suspect house, but not 95%, would you say it’s ok to proceed?

3rd. As i asked. Please provide evidence from an actual institute, not an interpretation of an interpretation.

Otherwise you end up turning this:

“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.”

Into this:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995”

Please highlight the bit in Jones original interview where he said “there had been no global warming since 1995”.

nor have we seen any climate disasters and the evidence certainly bears this point out.”

Nope…..nothing to see here, move along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhCY-3XnqS0

  

“You can trash the guy all you want, but he is getting his message out. I watched him debate at the National Press Club event back in July of this year and he clearly knows how to speak,”

When combining the gish gallop & a lack of morals & ethics, snake oil salesman can stare bold faced at an audience & lie quite comfortably.

“For instance, current programs that will cost approx $127 billion dollars over the next 10 years will (maybe) result in a .00007 degree reduction in world temperatures.”

Yes, if Australia was the only country implimenting that policy & no one else planned on making those changes or endevoured to make mitigation plans. What if Australia was the only country that banned CFC’s back in the 80’s & 90’s? It’s a red herring. The point is, when everyone acts, the little bits add up. It takes time. There is no world government, so policy moves at different speeds depending on which country you are in.

 

I heard Gish speak once.

Indeed he galloped away from questions.

 

You guys realize that it’s all an act and that Lord Monckton is really Sacha Baron Cohen, right? ;-)

“You guys realize that it’s all an act and that Lord Monckton is really Sacha Baron Cohen, right? ;-)”

Yes. But personally, I think his act is getting a little stale now. He needs to incorporate the lime green mankini into his act from Borat & lighten it up a little.

 

Monckton is a Viscount, a title which he inherited, so he is a lord. He is not, however, a member of the House of Lords and has dishonestly tried to imply that he was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Political_career

Wattsuphisbutt has a post up claiming that everyone but Monckton was wrong and that  Monckton is a “Member of the House of Lords”. What is his evidence for this? Well it seems that Monckton went trawling for lawyers’ opinions and finally landed one, a “Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers”. I would be very surprised if this legal opinion is worth anymore than one he could have obtained from John O’Sullivan. Afterall, lawyers’ opinions are 10 a penny, till you get your bill and find that the lawyers think they are worth a lot more :-)

Get out the pop corn and let’s watch this piece of tripe ripen in the next few days.

He stated that he was “a member of the Upper House of the United
Kingdom legislature
”.

There is no imply in that statement.  Its unequivocal.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

 

Since the temperature has been remarkably stable from one year to the next you can actually claim that every year is the hottest on record as is routinely done before each big climate get together. Even James hansen admits the Hottest year on record is a political statement.

Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F).It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13.

Since the temperature is not rising despite the dramatic increase in co2 and the temperature is always within the margin of error you can claim that every year is the hottest on record.

Over the past 15 years we have seen record increases in C02 emissions and no corresponding temperature increase. Clearly the effect of c02 on the climate is extremely minor and not worth worrying about.

You have to start looking at the data analyticaly instead of being led around by PR firms with an adgenda to push the warming scare.

 

You are applying standard, text book, predictable denier tactics.  “Oh look! A short trend!  Lets make a big deal about it.”  You are doing this as you invent new science, to attempt to debunk. You believe you are successful because your fake invented science isn’t true.

You are looking at a short timeline and trying to claim there is no difference. Behold 5 degrees.  (And please don’t tell me there is a heat island effect in the arctic…)

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

Let me be really clear with you.  No one in the climate science field has stated that every single year will be warmer. No one.  At all.  There are plenty of cycles in the climate system.  And the overall increases are there.

And here’s what deniers say; (Good thing they don’t have any experts.)

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html

Here’s what  Muller at BEST has to say on this specific issue;

decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.

And the skeptical science review.  Notice the discussion on uncertainty, and oh… the 20 year trend line.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/baked-curry-the-best-way-to-hide-the-incline.html

Oilman, it’s funny how you completely ignored Ralph’s question about the truly massive increases in CO2 having almost no bearing on temperatures.

And please don’t accuse skeptics of cherry picking short time spans for data when it’s the warmist’s side that is well known for always pointing to every single strong weahter event as ‘proof’ of CAGW.

If you are a scientist you’d start asking yourself questions about where all that heat went instead of just throwing up your arms, giving up and say its not right. (I can infer something about Ralph’s deductive reasoning skills.)

Most heat isn’t visible to us.  Its in the oceans, and most of it is destined for our crysphere.

So… we have 5 degrees of surface temperature increase in the arctic; (This is a healthy ten times the world average… as predicted.)

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

And look at that ice melt.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp

Icegraph 1.03
Canadian Arctic
Plot Trendline
Generate Graphs

Under
Historical Total Accumulated Ice Coverage 1971 - 2011, 0514 - 1015
Pick “Stage of Development”

Now… just look at that graph…  Imagine how much heat that took.  There is a reason water is our favorite coolant.  It stores sooo much heat.  The most ice reduction takes place right in the middle of your ‘cooling cycle’ for the world.

Here’s Greenland through GRACE’s eyes;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/latest-grace-data-record-ice-loss-in-2010.html

Check that out… 200 billion tons of ice converted to water each year… what a change.  I wonder how much heat THAT took.

Is the ocean Cooling? No its heat has in fact jumped way up.  AND its where most of our world’s heat is stored.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html

Any further questions?

It’s funny how deniers take out of context pieces of information & create a whole new story about them.

Ralph, I know why you don’t include links/urls/citations with your statements. Because everytime i check, they turn out to be bogus. Your Hansens comments above are case in point. When I looked for that text, it started at climate depot, who referenced WUWT, who referenced Marc Morano, who referenced another denier blog. Eventually I found the real statement.

Please show where Hansen “admits the Hottest year on record is a political statement.

What denier blogs are doing , is creating dog whistle commentary designed to attract the attention of partisans & have them believe like Rick James has previously stated, that it was all designed as a hoax to attack conservatives.

If you check my statement above regarding Phil Jones, he says “this trend is positive”. Hansen also mentions the same thing, except denier blogs have mixed & matched & created whole new stories from his statement, which is here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Let’s examine your out of context & highly edited comment above with the rest of what Hansen said:

“Invariably, a great deal of attention centers on each year’s ranking, but it is critical to focus on the decade-long trends that matter more, the GISS scientists emphasize. On that time scale, the three records are unequivocal: the last decade has been the warmest on record. “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” said Hansen. “It is the underlying trend that is important.”

Ouch Ralphy.

I notice all those denier sites were very keen to leave this bit out though.

“One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.

For example, while GISS previously ranked 2005 warmest, the Met Office listed 1998 warmest. The discrepancy helped fuel the misperception that findings from the three groups vary sharply or contain large amounts of uncertainty. It also fueled the misperception that global warming stopped in 1998.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth,” said Hansen. Global temperatures have continued to rise steadily.”

Ouch X 2 Ralph.

If you like we can look at another small trend, using 4 of the majors for the last 15 years from now.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/best-upper/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/trend

You will notice it’s all up.

“Since the temperature is not rising”

You can only derive that conclusion if you cherry pick & take things out of context.

“You have to start looking at the data analyticaly instead of being led around by PR firms with an adgenda to push the warming scare.”

NASA, Hadley, NOAA, Met, CSIRO etc are all PR firms? Well why does WUWT & Roy Spencer refer to them for their data then?

 

Graph showing the reality of rising temperatures:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

From:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm

Thats why you shouldn’t get your information from warmist blogs. See the graph below from the Hadcrut. The fact that there has been no statistically signifigant warming is not in debate even the hardcore climate scientists recognize that the lack of warming is a fact.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0154335fd537970c-pi

In regards to the timelines you may have a point but 10 years was all James hansen needed to make his debunked predictions of massive warming. In a period of record c02 emissions we have many predictions that the temperature would be much higher, yet we see no warming at all. The only logical conclusion you can draw is that C02 is a minor factor that is drowned out within all the other variables that make up climate.

Time to put on the big boy pants and face reality, climate change is not a big issue. We should be concentrating resources on real environmental issues like promoting Fracking and reducing species loss due to habitat destruction.

“Thats why you shouldn’t get your information from warmist blogs. See the graph below from the Hadcrut.”

Wow Ralph. Are you playing a game of credibility limbo, where you progressively produce lower & lower references of repute?

This new one is a beauty. Again, not by any of the actual institutes, but by some obscure blog, where the author doesn’t add his name, but adds a lot of photo shop.

As i pointed out above , two of the authors you have mentioned have said the trend is positve. You can use the same data & time series using a linear trend & see it quite clearly.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2010/trend

“yet we see no warming at all”

You might be entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.

 

It’s humorous to watch the two of you, contradict each other and run around in circles to keep your ideological beliefs untouched with reality. One says “Yeah it hasn’t warmed in 15 years but that statement was made nearly 2 years ago”, the other says the heat is trapped in the deep oceans.

Which is exactly what the AGW game is about , bob and weave around the multitude of false positives and inacurate predictions.

I don’t remember anything being said about deep ocean heat sinks when the science was settled, but Hansens asertions that the climate would be a over a degree warmer than it is today is proudly displayed within the congressional record and is really symbolic of the whole AGW movement. Much ado about nothing.

The question you have to ask yourself is at what point does the lack of confimatory evidence require me to rethink my beliefs? When we see no warming in 20, 25, 30 years. How many predictions must be debunked before I give my head a shake.

When 2013 comes and goes and the arctic still has sea ice? When the Himalayan glaciers are still standing, when the oceans do not rise any faster than they have for centuries etc…

My opinion changes with the facts does yours or is it a question of faith? Do you follow the cult of personality of Al gore and Jim Hansen or do you follow the evidence? Right now the evidence is not what is required to validate the AGW theory. What the evidence does tell us is that AGW is a non issue.

 

You’ve picked a single graph line for extreme temperature drift, when there were 3.

You debunked one, blindly and erroneously.

I’ve also noticed that a box of oranges is different from a box of apples.

“One says “Yeah it hasn’t warmed in 15 years but that statement was made nearly 2 years ago”“

In true denier & liar fashion, you quoted me, but the quote doesn’t exist.

“I don’t remember anything being said about deep ocean heat sinks”

I can’t conceive it, so therfore, it doesn’t exist.

“When we see no warming in 20, 25, 30 years.”

You are just trolling now Ralph. Not even Watts, Monckton, Singer, Ball, Carter or Plimer would say something so verifiably wrong. You are also seeking as usual to derail threads.

“My opinion changes with the facts”

Great! So start looking at some, as you havn’t brought any of your own to the table as yet.

“Do you follow the cult of personality of Al gore and Jim Hansen”

That doesn’t even make sense.

 

… but not deep ones.   Ralph must have pulled that out of the wrong compartment in his memory.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I do find it funny the amount of hate directed at Al Gore.  (I wonder what George Orwell would make of someone like Ralph.)

Yeah I watched to movie.  Yeah I though it was good.  But that didn’t really get me concerned about Climate Change.  (I didn’t know anything but it seemed like we should do something about it.)

It was about 2 years later when I was talking to an Environmental Engineer (card carrying Conservative, with a picture of him shaking hands with Stephen Harper) in the oil patch, and I mentioned ‘Climate Change’.

He almost went off the rails.  Al Gore has it all wrong. Al Gore doesn’t know anything.  There is no Climate Change… Then I mentioned that Al Gore isn’t a scientist, and I wouldn’t trust Al either…. Then he told me he knew all about green house gases, and Carbon wasn’t the worst of them, NOX was. Therefore Kyoto was a stupid waste of time because it was all about Carbon.  Oh, and the last 5 years were the coldest on record.

So I decided to look up what he said.  (You can read the Kyoto Protocol don’t you know.) And every single thing he said was wrong.  Carbon is the unit of measure, they apply a unit measured in Carbon’s impact for the other gases.  I have no idea where he got his temperature information from.

I did… but here’s a summary for you;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm

Looks spot on to me.  Scenario C looks like a match to Hadcrut.

Looking at your graph…  “c3headlines.typepad.com” must be an authority on this stuff…

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0154335fd537970c-pi

Hmm… Very Very Very short time lines again.  I thought I told you not to do that.

You are again debunking your own self created science which is wrong. And concluding that it is indeed wrong.  Congrats, but I don’t think you should share.

Can you find a graph that isn’t in monthly increments?  Try at least 20 years, although I’d be a bit leary about that…  I’m sure you guys could invent something.

 

Next Ralph will be using 2 year trends & of course picking a hot year, with a cool year the next & declaring “look, I’ve found another downward trend! It’s down!”.

 

… it will be graphs from 2 years ago…

RickJames, you must be paid to comment here, or why would you waste time exposing your ignorance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

Noun

Wikipedia has an article on:

Lord

lord (plural lords)

  1. (obsolete) The master of a household.
  2. A person having formal authority over others, a ruler.
  3. A person enjoying great respect in a community.  [quotations ▼]
  4. An aristocrat, a man of high rank in a feudal society or in one that retains feudal forms and institutions.
  5. An owner, a master.
  6. A titled nobleman or aristocrat
  7. (familiar, dated) An affectionate term for one’s boyfriend or husband.

Funny stuff - it turns out that the lord has obtained a legal opinion that he is indeed a member of the “house of lords”

Turns out reality doesn’t always conform to lefty logic and membership in the “house of lords” is not limited to voting members. Too funny. Read it on Watts.

“Funny stuff - it turns out that the lord has obtained a legal opinion that he is indeed a member of the “house of lords”

Ahaha, yes, it is funny Rick, because you have fallen for it again & missed the most important key word. Didn’t see it? Here it is again bolded & underlined.

“Funny stuff - it turns out that the lord has obtained a legal opinion that he is indeed a member of the “house of lords”“

Has it been ratified Rick?

“Turns out reality doesn’t always conform to lefty logic”

Many look on incredulously at how easily right wingers are duped.

 

come to an end?

Yes it will and we can both be part of that

The title of this thread needs correcting from Heights to Depths.

Last word.

Pages