Miffed Michele mangles Monckton meeting

But she never asked this expert IPCC reviewer about climate change! It was either a lost opportunity or she didn’t know what to do with it.

Today I emailed Michele Hewitson to learn whether she asked Lord Monckton anything about the climate and how he may have annoyed her. I hope she replies, but she may not, especially if she spots these comments, posted before she had a chance to reply to me. But I must comment — her journalistic behaviour was crude, unprofessional, unattractive, unfair and unworthy of Christopher Monckton. To specialise in painting a “personality” in her subject can be admired. A descent into hollow chatter and rambling, malicious gossip cheapens both subject and reader.

via Michele Hewitson interview: Christopher Monckton – NZ Herald:

There was one question I really wanted to ask Viscount Christopher Monckton, the visiting climate change sceptic, and it wasn’t about climate. It was about … giving those pesky Argies the squits … during the Falklands War…

She refuses to ask intelligent questions about his vast knowledge of climate change, which brings him here, and instead employs a 30-year-old scatalogical yarn to mock him against today’s values. To assert that this spicy question was her most important raises to a virtue either mere vapidity or a taste to scandalise, neither of which empty urges sits well with the formidable tradition of the Herald. And why does she use the inferior phrase “pesky Argies” except to diminish the gravity of the deadly peril the Argentinian cowards had brought upon the British citizens in the Falklands and thereby to diminish Monckton’s own stature?

Which is graceless journalism.

He says that when he began writing about climate change he was “immediately and very savagely attacked … in a manner which seemed to me to be disproportionate and unreasonable and unfair”. He “began talking to others who shared my doubts … and they were being subjected to the same things. So then I tried to see whether we were doing it back. And not really. Not to the same degree.”

Ahem. There was the episode with the youth activists in Copenhagen. He called them members of Hitler Youth. No, he didn’t. I didn’t happen to have the You Tube clip with me, so I amended this: He said they were being like members of Hitler Youth.

Michele strove to avoid the substance of his “writing about climate change,” instead needling him over an altercation during climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009. I revisited one of the videos. Some youthful environmental protesters, the previous evening, invaded a meeting Monckton attended and disrupted it with chanting, shouting and, according to Monckton, “shrieking.” Which were tactics adopted by the Hitler youth in the 1930s to intimidate the population.

Ben Wessell, an environmental activist, said that the science of global climate change had been “settled” for 20 years, which meant that global temperatures had been rising. Christopher asked him whether they had been rising for the last 15 years. Wessell said that the “agreed trend” was that they had been rising. He had said he “believed” temperatures were rising and made it clear that he had not bothered himself to check the facts in the global datasets.

Tempers frayed, as you might expect, as the exchanges became heated, but not noticeably. Only the petty-minded would still be criticising Christopher over this incident. Michele chose simply to bicker over the precise reference to Hitler youth and again ignored the opportunity to examine Christopher’s position on climate change.

At the very beginning I had asked what was the correct way to address him?

He said: “Well, you go down on one knee, put on your white gloves, touch your forelock, bow a little and you say: ‘My lord, would your lordship be so gracious to allow me to address your lordship?’ It’s really very informal. Ha, ha. Call me Christopher. It’s the easiest thing.”

The forelock tugging was a joke, obviously, but I can’t help thinking his lordship would have preferred a little more of that and a lot less of the pesky asking of questions. It’s only fair to say it was all my fault for mistaking an audience for an interview.

I can’t help thinking Michele prefers a little more that a well-spoken Cambridge graduate proves a vain, empty-headed fop and a lot less that he has a serious and well-intentioned message. It’s only fair to say this is my fault for mistaking a Herald writer for a journalist.

To send this woman to interview Christopher Monckton after botching so badly their introduction of him to the New Zealand public was to add abuse to insult.

Not so well done.

184 Thoughts on “Miffed Michele mangles Monckton meeting

  1. Mike Jowsey on April 7, 2013 at 9:56 am said:

    He gets ad hom from the lame-stream media wherever he goes. I’m sure the watery mud this ditzy journo is attempting to fling will in no way stick to LM, but rather soil her own reputation. (Love the alliterative title of your piece, RT).

  2. Flipper on April 7, 2013 at 12:33 pm said:

    Is this not the same ex Radio New Zealand staffer, Irish-born (nothing against the Irish), “highly intellectual, over-educated, left wing scribbler” (as WSC described such folk), [unverified allegation removed – RT]? 🙂

  3. Mike Jowsey on April 7, 2013 at 12:38 pm said:

    “who has [unverified allegation removed – RT]”
    Links? References? (please)

  4. Flipper on April 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm said:

    Sorry, cannot recall precisely, and do not have link. May have been Whale (or Kiwiblog) about a year ago. But the statement is factual, and was never denied.

  5. Flipper on April 7, 2013 at 2:40 pm said:

    Cant find the reference, but sure my memory is correct.
    It was in relation to a RNZ piece she did on UK/Europe person/event.

    If wrong, I withdraw and apologise.

    But that would not condone here actions over Monckton

  6. Flipper,

    Sorry, but I must remove your implied allegation, as you’ve provided no verification (I was waiting on you to do so following Mike’s query), and without a reference it can’t be relied on. It’s a serious charge against a professional writer. I can’t wait for proof that you’re wrong, you must provide proof that you’re right. Hope you understand.

    Cheers.

  7. patsi baker on April 7, 2013 at 3:18 pm said:

    It could well be that Michele had a whole range of questions lined up to ask about climate change.

    But perhaps she wasn’t able to because the interview was cut short by his hissy fit and walkout?

    Note: The IPCC doesn’t appoint its 3000 reviewers – they are self-selecting. So while Lord Monckton’s claims of expertise in the IPCC field look great on paper and on his CV, maybe people might be a little less impressed when they find out that he named himself as the expert reviewer?

  8. Hi Patsi, thanks for visiting. You suggest the walkout cut short the questioning, and yes, that’s possible; I’ve asked Michele about her questions so she might elaborate.

    You mention a childish-sounding “hissy fit” — so you deprecate the walkout but not its provocation (whatever it was — Michele is oddly silent on that single point). How one-sided of you.

    The IPCC themselves describe their reviewers as “expert” and that’s not Monckton’s doing. But you could test it yourself: I suggest you try registering as an expert reviewer and let me know whether they inquire about your credentials. As there are only about 3000 reviewers in a population of 7 billion I would hazard a guess that they probably are keeping out the riff-raff, I mean the unqualified and trouble-makers. What do you think?

  9. “he named himself as the expert reviewer”

    Mind you he’s also named himself as a member of the House of Lords, and suggested he could be in running for the new pope as he had all the credentials.

    And look at his pretentious letterhead!

    Oh, almost forgot – he claims he also has won a Noble Prize!

  10. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 4:48 pm said:

    Nobel Peace Laureate or Nobel Peace Prize? They are not one-and-the-same, the latter was the “joke”:-

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/nobleman-is-no-nobel-man-20100125-muky.html

    The former is this:-

    “His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA”

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010022422270/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/lord-monckton-politely-responds-to-a-qglobal-warmingq-fanatic.html

    BTW Ken, have you actually seen Monckton’s comments on AR5? There’s 104 of them and a link and selection of some of them here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/herald-apnz-play-fair/#comment-186444

    Do you have anything of substance to say about them Ken?

  11. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm said:

    >”So while Lord Monckton’s claims of expertise in the IPCC field look great on paper and on his CV, maybe people might be a little less impressed when they find out that he named himself as the expert reviewer?”

    Have you actually seen Monckton’s comments on AR5 Patsi? There’s 104 of them and a link and selection of some of them here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/herald-apnz-play-fair/#comment-186444

    That is, his claims are not without substance and rather than less impressed by claims of expertise, people are likely to be more impressed by the actual expertise don’t you think Patsi?

    Do you have anything of substance to say about Monckton’s AR5 comments Patsi? I mean at a comparable level of expertise exhibited in your responses to his commnts as opposed to your sideline criticism and denigration so far.

  12. patsi baker on April 7, 2013 at 5:17 pm said:

    *note to self* go over to the AR5, list myself as an expert reviewer, make a whole range of comments then tell the world I’m part of the IPCC.

    I’m more interested, to be honest, in where he thinks the UN-run concentration camps are going to be set up under Agenda 21. Not sure it’ll be Hamilton though – the first step they’ve taken under Agenda 21 are to set up worm farms near the car park http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8084651/Sustaining-belief Maybe the worms view these setups as concentration camps? I guess I might if I were a worm.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 5:31 pm said:

    >” *note to self* go over to the AR5, list myself as an expert reviewer, make a whole range of comments then tell the world I’m part of the IPCC.”

    Good idea. Then we can scrutinize your comments because they will all be in the public domain and your level of expertise will be on show for everyone to assess (as we can Monkton’s at this stage due to his participation).

    But until you do that, or even address Monkton’s comments (and you seem reluctant on the latter), you’ve got nothing to back yourself have you? In that case your character assassination really has no bearing on questions of climate science or the upcoming AR5.

  14. Thanks for the link, Patsi, that’s an interesting story. Have you read through Agenda 21 yourself?

  15. Niff on April 7, 2013 at 5:36 pm said:

    I read Michele’s piece and was not surprised by the ad hom, but I was surprised by the utter deflection and misdirection and that the NZH would publish such woeful meanderings. Journalism, not.

    But it continues here! Let’s ad hom bomb him rather than pay any attention to what he says. Goodness, let’s do anything we can to avoid and deflect anyone hearing him….you must be very threatened by his message?

    The same theme came out of the interview on on radio where a Greens MP spent the majority oh his time lambasting the interviewer for having the temerity to actually have Lord Monckton on the show.

    There must be something important here? I advise everyone to go along and hear what you are being strenuously deflected from hearing!

  16. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 5:38 pm said:

    Re UN power grabs, Agenda 21 and dissatisfaction about democracy among climate experts see this thread:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/herald-apnz-find-monckton-no-easy-target/#comment-186234

  17. Flipper on April 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm said:

    RT…
    Yep.
    Will come back in due course.

  18. That’s right. There’s no such thing as bad publicity, so thanks for the resistance!

  19. Alexander K on April 7, 2013 at 6:21 pm said:

    The article under discussion was so flippant to the point of utter irrelevance that it was impossible to discern the intentions of the ‘journalist’, who seemed to flounder to the point of drowning in froth of her own making.
    I suppose if one had an agenda that was determined to denigrate Lord Monckton, it could have been read as humour but, to me at least, the whole thing seemed utterly vapid, pointless and a general waste of space.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 6:31 pm said:

    Waikato Times:-

    “To be fair, the Republicans just call it a threat to sovereignty,”

    I would add – and democracy, as evidenced by dissatisfaction about democracy among climate experts.

    I wonder Patsi, who are your elite climate-expert nominees to “arbitrate” globally as our unelected “representatives”?

  21. Andy on April 7, 2013 at 6:32 pm said:

    Some people find this kind of stuff funny. Probably the same kind of people that find the Flat Earth Society heckling at his talks funny

  22. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 6:56 pm said:

    >”….to me at least, the whole thing seemed utterly vapid, pointless and a general waste of space.”

    And to me Alexander.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 6:57 pm said:

    Ironic given climate science considers a flat earth energy budget model to be realistic.

  24. Andy on April 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm said:

    As I mentioned on the other thread, this is Hewistons style of writing. I can’t help feeling Monckton needs a PR person to help him deal with the media.

  25. No, Andy – don’t say that. The Potty Peer is his own PR person. I think he is doing a fantastic job.

    Really good for a laugh! Without that he would be nothing.

  26. Very funny. Monckton and his show are just begging to be made fun of.

  27. Touch not the Monckton. He’s perfect exactly the way he is. Don’t change a thing. I hope he continues to publically represent climate deniers for a very, very long time in as many places as possible.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on April 8, 2013 at 3:02 am said:

    Good strategy Ken. Stick to your strong suits – slime, trivia, irrelevancy, denigration etc.

    Whatever you do don’t turn your attention to Monckton’s AR5 scientific comments, they’re way out of your depth and which BTW tend to be of a luke-warm nature in case you haven’t noticed i.e. he’s less a sceptic and denier than you think and he actually works within (actually participates in) the IPCC paradigms of review and RF and CS methodology, neither of which you have a clue about do you Ken?

    Or perhaps you could go through all 104 comments and point out why he is wrong in each one? That would make an interesting post but I doubt we’ll ever see it.

  29. Andy on April 8, 2013 at 6:55 am said:

    Since Monckton is an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC, he can probably claim to be a Nobel Prize winner, just like Micheal Mann has done for similar reasons.

    Presumably the Pope thing was a joke, although making long winded speeches in Latin is quite a good foot in the door. However, a Latin American pope might have got in on a misunderstanding of his native tongue.

    He is a Lord, but not entitled to sit in the house. He does seem rather keen on this. Matt Ridley is also an hereditary peer but didn’t call himself Lord until he was elected to sit.

  30. flipper on April 8, 2013 at 8:02 am said:

    RT and Mike J….

    Oops, I was wrong.
    It was Noelle McCarthy, not Hewitson. Withdraw and unreservedly apologise re plagiarism, but not in respect of the garbage approach by Hewitson and her defenders.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/738710/Radio-NZ-pulls-plug-on-Noelle-McCarthy

  31. Very good. Thanks, Flipper.

  32. Bob D on April 8, 2013 at 10:56 am said:

    Cedric:

    He’s perfect exactly the way he is. Don’t change a thing.

    While you’re trying to be ironic, I think he does a good job. I took two friends to see him when he was here in Auckland and they both enjoyed his talk very much.

    The main point to remember is that nobody on the other side of the fence dares to debate him. You’d think that if the science was settled, a debate would be easy and devastating, yet they all run for cover when he appears. And whenever the alarmists discuss him, it’s only his eccentricities they want to talk about, not what he says. Thoughtful folk notice this.

  33. Mike Jowsey on April 8, 2013 at 11:25 am said:

    Cheers Flipper

  34. Richard C (NZ) on April 8, 2013 at 11:34 am said:

    “….publically [sic] represent climate deniers”

    Except Monckton’s not a climate denier and he only represents the luke-warm position. I don’t “deny” climate or climate change either because I subscribe to natural cycle explanations without recourse to CO2 forcing so he certainly doesn’t “represent” me because he does subscribe to the IPCC’s CO2 forcing methodology.

    As for Ken above:-

    “i.e. he’s less a sceptic and denier than you think and he actually works within (actually participates in) the IPCC paradigms of review and RF and CS methodology,”

    How do you reconcile that with him being (as you imply) a “climate denier” Cedric?

    And do you completely understand and can expand on IPCC RF and CS methodology? If not, how can you even begin to criticize e.g. his AR5 comment submissions for example?

    Isn’t it just that you really don’t know anything past your superficial and distorted character-based assessment of the man but haven’t a clue (as Ken) what Monckton’s AR5 comments actually are because you’ve never read them or even understand his relative position in the climate change debate spectrum? That would explain your propensity for inane trivia.

  35. Alexander K on April 8, 2013 at 12:52 pm said:

    Ken, please define ‘climate denier’, a term that betrays both your willingness to shout infantile nonsense that has very nasty connotations and your profound ignorance of ‘climate’.
    I would suggest that the membership of the NZ Federated Farmers, who are sponsoring Monckton’s speaking tour, are quite intimately acquainted with the climate and would find the notion of denying it’s existence very strange indeed.

  36. The main point to remember is that nobody on the other side of the fence dares to debate him. You’d think that if the science was settled, a debate would be easy and devastating, yet they all run for cover when he appears.

    “Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: “Don’t do it.” The point is not, he said, whether or not you would ‘win’ the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. “There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms.” Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

    I have followed his advice ever since, and I was reminded of it again in 2001 when I was invited by a third party to take part in a debate with, among several other evolutionists and creationists, the lawyer Phillip Johnson, high priest of the ‘Intelligent Design’ sect of creationists. I refused, as usual.”

    http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

  37. And do you completely understand (…) If not, how can you even begin to criticize…

    I can’t and I don’t pretend to.
    Nor do I know much about cancer.
    However, there are scientific communties that do. I always refer to them because they do the work and have done so for decades.
    NASA springs to mind.

    How do you reconcile that with him being (as you imply) a “climate denier” Cedric?

    Well, he does stuff like this which is at odds with the scientific community.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nTUghG2Zwsk

  38. patsi baker on April 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm said:

    Well actually, if you read the article, Michele DID say what it was.

    “He says that when he began writing about climate change he was “immediately and very savagely attacked … in a manner which seemed to me to be disproportionate and unreasonable and unfair”. He “began talking to others who shared my doubts … and they were being subjected to the same things. So then I tried to see whether we were doing it back. And not really. Not to the same degree”.”

    So then Michele mentioned the Hitler Youth incident in Copenhagen, which she clearly thought might have been viewed by some as “disproportionate, unreasonable and unfair.” Monckton defended it saying some old bloke in the audience had been outraged and felt like he was back in Nazi days.

    But Michele went on to question that statement:

    “But my point was that he persisted in the Hitler Youth analogy even when one of the activists told him he was Jewish. We went back and forth on this for a bit until he said: “Let me finish. You don’t interrupt or I’ll end the interview.” And did.

    Thing is, Monckton goes on and on about academic freedom. It’s one of his mantras. But when a scientist or anyone dares to question him, or an interview isn’t going his way, he threatens them, tries to shut them down – or walks out.

    And when a journalist is asking questions, he should answer them. Sounds like she didn’t get much of an opportunity to ask him anything!

    if he wants to be taken seriously, perhaps he should keep his temper in check? Or keep his public appearances to Tea Party type affairs where everyone thinks he’s a god.

  39. patsi baker on April 8, 2013 at 3:47 pm said:

    The most laughable thing about Agenda 21 is its anodyne nature. It was cooked up at Rio to try to make it look like they were doing something. it’s been going for 20 years.

    *looks round for UN-run concentration camps* – ah, is that one? No! It’s a worm farm!

  40. patsi baker on April 8, 2013 at 3:49 pm said:

    Federated Farmers sponsoring? I don’t think so.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1304/S00051/lord-monckton-tour-of-new-zealand.htm

    “Federated Farmers of New Zealand has not invited Lord Monckton to tour. Nor is Federated Farmers of New Zealand sponsoring or organising his tour either directly or indirectly.”

  41. Magoo on April 8, 2013 at 3:58 pm said:

    Ken and the other 2 people at his blog must be getting lonely, they’ve had to come out and visit others. Wait for the attempt to lure people back to his blog, it’ll be coming anytime now.

  42. Tut, Tut, Patsi – are you saying our Potty Peer has been telling porkies??

    Never!!

  43. David on April 8, 2013 at 5:50 pm said:

    Its really good of Ken and Cedric to pop in. Their comments are a timely reminder of the difference between this blog and Hot Topic/Open Parachute/SKS. Here, their views get published but on the others, they get supressed, censored, deleted or abuse heaped upon them.
    Personally I find Gareth and Kens blogs quite amusing. Especially as their beliefs just keep getting shot down and proved wrong but they just.dont.see.it. I mean really,how are Lewandowsky and Marcott these days? As for poor old Grant Foster, living alone with his cat, blogging away. Getting so desperate he’s copying McIntyres work! Its very sad.
    What about “Rent Boy” Rob Taylor? Projection much? He needs help that one.
    You guys can make fun of Monckton. Heck, hes certainly eccentric . But as every day goes by, and all your “theories” and “Papers” get discredited and nature keeps proving you wrong, the smiles on our faces get bigger and bigger.The anger and frustration is obviously boiling over and getting more evident every day on HT and OP. I’m sorry, but I think its funny. In a laughing at you sort of way.
    http://www.myinstants.com/instant/the-simpsons-nelsons-ha-ha/

  44. Andy on April 8, 2013 at 5:55 pm said:

    Slightly off topic, whilst everyone and his dog is castigating CM for daring to say CO2 mitigation is pointless and ridiculously expensive, Bjorn Lomborg is saying the same:

    http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/04/08/attempts-to-cut-co2-are-futile-and-expensive/

  45. NASA’s views get published. Do you find NASA quite amusing? Do think NASA has “beliefs” that just keep getting shot down and proved wrong? NASA seems to be doing fairly well these days? NASA doesn’t have all that much to do with cats but they do have a blog (well, a website). NASA doesn’t copy McIntyres work!
    Have all the “theories” and “Papers” have been discredited?
    There’s an awful lot of them.
    NASA studies nature and I’m not aware of NASA being in a state of “anger and frustration”.
    NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

  46. Richard C (NZ) on April 8, 2013 at 6:38 pm said:

    >”….there are scientific communties that do. I always refer to them because they do the work”

    The inference being that climate science (still in its infancy) is the only scientific sector you defer to in regard to say AO thermodynamic processes or radiation physics? No-one else knows anything about those?

    It turns out Cedric that there are others on the planet that have done a lot of work on the heat transfer characteristics of CO2 (combustion engineering, HVAC) and the interaction of radiation with water (medical laser physics) and everything documented in the literature. Climate science does not defer to that work – why not if as you say “they do the work”?

    BTW in both cases climate science in going their own merry way are making idiots of themselves as evidenced by the standstill in GAT and now the stabilizing of OHC. They’re “puzzled by the former and no doubt will be the same for the latter as time goes on.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on April 8, 2013 at 6:45 pm said:

    >”NASA studies nature”

    Yes we know. Like for example that CO2 is a very efficient coolant in the thermosphere:-

    For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

    “Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    Strange how that energy wasn’t “trapped” isn’t it Cedric?

  48. Richard C (NZ) on April 8, 2013 at 6:51 pm said:

    Epiphanies everywhere:-

    Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?

    By Geoffrey Lean.

    Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/9974397/Global-warming-time-to-rein-back-on-doom-and-gloom.html

  49. Richard C (NZ) on April 8, 2013 at 7:47 pm said:

    Make that – “(combustion engineering, [refrigeration])?

  50. Follow Mad Monckton’s Waikato meeting onTwitter – use hashtag #MoncktonLive
    Bloody good for a laugh.

  51. Simon on April 8, 2013 at 9:13 pm said:

    A superb piece of misdirection Richard.
    Surely you are aware that CO2 absorbs only a finite amount of IR and then only at certain wavelengths? What do you think happens to the excess radiation? What would happen if it was absorbed? Discuss.

  52. Yes we know. Like for example that CO2…

    No, I’m sorry. I get my science information from NASA. Or alternatively, other major league scientific communities. I’d rather not have you interpret NASA. You might simply be wrong.
    I’d rather have NASA interpret NASA data. That seems to be the easiest and most sensible way to go.
    If the thermosphere whatnot is doing the energy thingy which radiates “X” amount of frizbees or whatever then great but…if that is vital to understanding about climate change then I’d expect it to show up in the usual place and…it doesn’t seem to.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

  53. The inference being that climate science (still in its infancy) is the only scientific sector you defer…

    Oh no. That’s not the correct inference.
    I’m happy to go to NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet for my climate change information.
    I include them all. All of the Earth Sciences. Every one. No exceptions.

  54. Bob D on April 8, 2013 at 10:39 pm said:

    It’s a convenient excuse, but in reality the reluctance to debate is rooted in fear.

  55. Bob D on April 8, 2013 at 10:56 pm said:

    Ken:

    Bloody good for a laugh.

    As are you, me old thing.

  56. Bob D on April 8, 2013 at 11:27 pm said:

    Cedric, I suspect that had you been born in the 16th century, you would have been one of those persecuting Galileo. After all, the authority of the day had clearly declared him wrong, and who are you to question authority?

    The fact is that NASA has been wrong recently in many things. Their predictions of the current solar cycle comes to mind. As does the dismal performance of their climate models in predicting anything at all, and specifically the lack of warming over the past 17 years.

    For enlightenment, I suggest you read this page (specifically the bit on Clouds) from the Authority itself, and then have a think about how definitive you are prepared to be about AGW. Is there not just a little room in your mind for healthy scientific scepticism? Or do you always just blindly follow, never daring to think for yourself?

  57. Patsi,

    You’re making funny remarks, but have you actually read Agenda 21?

  58. No, that’s unfair. Christopher didn’t organise the tour, the locals did. He heard two descriptions at different times and they sound pretty much alike: Federated Farmers and “farmers.” If you don’t know the country too well, you don’t know the important difference between them. He made a genuine mistake and was happy to have been corrected.

  59. Simon on April 8, 2013 at 11:51 pm said:

    The flaw in your analogy is that Galileo was practicing science, which is actually what NASA does.

  60. Simon on April 8, 2013 at 11:55 pm said:

    I wonder how many other genuine mistakes Christopher made and whether he will continue to be happy about being corrected.

  61. Yes, well I did read the article. Michele implies he walked out then, immediately those things were said, but she does not plainly say so, and that imprecise description would not have been caused by lack of skill. Your assumptions lead you to infer that he did walk out then, with those things as the reason, but I cannot say. I would prefer to let Michele say, if she wants to, because she hasn’t yet.

    “Thing is, Monckton goes on and on about academic freedom. It’s one of his mantras.”

    Is it not one of yours, too?

    “But when a scientist or anyone dares to question him, or an interview isn’t going his way, he threatens them, tries to shut them down – or walks out.”

    You make a rare action sound like a habit. You’re being ridiculous. You haven’t even heard one of his presentations, have you? If you had, you would have heard him dealing with awkward questions, not walking out.

  62. Simon, there are those who wonder the same about you. So don’t be slimy.

  63. Cedric, I suspect that had you been born in the 16th century, you would have been one of those persecuting Galileo.

    Oh, I’m sure I don’t persecute anyone by checking out the NASA website on climate change.
    Besides, that’s the Galileo Gambit.

    After all, the authority of the day had clearly declared him wrong…

    The authority is not important to me. It’s the work that’s important. NASA does the work. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    The fact is that NASA has been wrong recently in many things.

    Sure but that doesn’t mean that they faked the moon landings.
    You can be wrong on stuff and be completely right on other stuff.

    NASA is usually the first one to point out when they themselves get something wrong. Science is self-correcting. Peer review and lots and lots and lots of it. NASA is great that way.
    All those satellites and supercomputers and decades of cutting edge research.
    Plus there’s all the other scientific communities on the planet to pick from too. They are all good and they are all on the same page with regards to the issue of climate change and evolution and the age of the Earth and the efficacy of vaccines and the ozone layer etc.

    For enlightenment, I suggest you read this page…

    I’m not how to make myself any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. I’m mentioned this more than once. So, um, yes I’ve read that page. It’s just that I didn’t cherry pick that single page and leave it at that. I was much more thorough and fair-minded than that. I read all the rest of it too to get the full context. I started from here and read it all.
    All of it. Not just one lonely page.

    Is there not just a little room in your mind for healthy scientific scepticism?

    Oh yes but it has to be genuinely healthy. Skepticism is a process; not a position. Firmly grounded in work and the process of peer review covering decades with input from every scientific community on the planet. Plus NASA. You have to have a really good reason to turn your back on all that.

    Or do you always just blindly follow, never daring to think for yourself?

    I don’t think that checking out the NASA website qualifies as “blindly following”. I do think for myself but I have to allow for the possiblity of being wrong. Dunning-Kruger Effect and all that..

    That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what’s right”. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”
    (HIV Denial in the Internet Era)

  64. Magoo on April 9, 2013 at 11:06 am said:

    How are Hansen from NASA’s predictions working out for you Cedric?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/hansen-the-broken-record-of-spectacularly-failed-predictions/

    http://climateobserver.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/dr-james-hansens-failed-prediction.html

    And on & on it goes. No wonder you’re going down the garden path if you listen to that crackpot. You should suggest to The James Randi Educational Foundation that they investigate him for ‘pseudoscientific claims’. If you think Monckton’s funny then Hansen is hilarious.

    ‘The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.’ – Hahaha, that’s a classic one.

    Good ole NASA eh Cedric?

  65. Mike Jowsey on April 9, 2013 at 11:29 am said:

    ‘I’ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming.’ Literally: ‘I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I’m 68, and there’s still no sign of warmer weather.’ — ‘So basically, all that the global warming advocates really have, as the evidentiary basis for their theory, is that global temperatures were a little higher than usual in the late 1990s. That’s it. Which proves nothing. The climate varies, just as weather varies, and as far as we can tell, this is all well within the normal range’ — ‘A theory with this many holes in it would be have been thrown out long ago, if not for the fact that it conveniently serves the political function of indicting fossil fuels as a planet-destroying evil and allowing radical environmentalists to put a modern, scientific face on their primitivist crusade to shut down industrial civilization. But can’t we all just stop calling this ‘science’ now?’

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/the_end_of_an_illusion_117795.html

  66. Bob D on April 9, 2013 at 11:50 am said:

    Cedric:
    I’m glad to hear that you consider carefully all NASA scientists, because you should have a read of these two:
    Roy Spencer (Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. – Wikipedia)

    John Christy (1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer) – Wikipedia)

    Both of these gentlemen do not accept the hypothesis (for that’s all it is) of Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    They certainly have a point, since there has been no global warming for the past 17 years, despite rising CO2 levels, something admitted by the head of the IPCC himself. We are seeing scientists scurrying around now, some admitting that climate sensitivities are lower than they thought, others trying to find “missing heat” in the deep oceans.

    Science is indeed self-correcting, but it often takes many years for the scientists to admit they were wrong, especially those who have built careers on this sort of hypothesis.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm said:

    Not misdirection Simon but exactly the right direction

    >”What do you think happens to the excess radiation?”

    Exactly Simon, CO2 is an efficient coolant because it transfers energy very effectively. That doesn’t change from thermosphere to troposphere.

    >”What would happen if it was absorbed?”

    Once thermalized to heat capacity there’s no more absorption. From then on it’s a heat and radiation (energy) transfer medium i.e. a refrigerant, used as such, and that use is growing.

    Also once thermalized, unless there’s re-absorption the molecule emits thereby losing energy – not “trapping” it obviously. Water vapour on the other hand has a greater heat capacity by far so it acts as a heat sink but also as an energy transfer medium, surface up through atmosphere. WV therefore is what modulates temperature. Extremes of hot and cold in arid locations, less extreme in humid locations. CO2 is incapable by its thermal characteristics of an effect anywhere near WV.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 1:45 pm said:

    >”I get my science information from NASA.”

    That article was from NASA Cedric. So you got it from your preferred science source.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    >”If the thermosphere whatnot is doing the energy thingy which radiates “X” amount of frizbees or whatever then great but…if that is vital to understanding about climate change then I’d expect it to show up in the usual place and…it doesn’t seem to.”

    So you get your science from NASA but can’t make head or tail of it when you do. The reason it doesn’t show up in the “usual” place is that NASA is a very large organization but not all of it is as highly politicized as it’s climate operation (not it’s primary role note) i.e. NASA does not necessarily present information consistently and in fact contradicts itself, Langley Research Center vs Goddard Space Flight Center.

    BTW Cedric, the head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make “reaching out to
    the Muslim world” one of the space agency’s top priorities. Is that science? politics? what?

  69. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm said:

    I include them all. All of the Earth Sciences. Every one. No exceptions.”

    Great, So why doesn’t climate science act similarly?

    Examples of their non-deferral:-

    EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

    N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
    1996

    http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf

    Which verifies the Leckner CO2 pathlength curve below (273K typical of lower mid tropospere but not the IPCC’s CO2 forcing simplification on the same graph:-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

    Or the results of commercial medical laser physics study of water penetration by radiation in the GHG relevant spectrum e.g. Hale and Querry 1973:-

    http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

    That is, LWIR is not an effective water heating agent because it only penetrates 10 microns, corroborated by other papers in this compendium:-

    http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/abs/index.html

    And I note that the IPCC’s detection and attribution is specifically GHG-centric i.e. any earth science or astrophysics that is not is ignored.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 2:15 pm said:

    And,

    “The oceans will begin to boil……”

    – Dr James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

  71. I’m glad to hear that you consider carefully all NASA scientists, because you should have a read of these two…

    I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, not just two scientists.
    It’s the work that’s important, not the authority.
    Somebody may have worked in some capacity years ago for NASA and then has since retired but that doesn’t mean that they speak for NASA. I don’t need retired scientists. I can focus on the active ones and their communities.

    They certainly have a point…

    Well, I’m sure those two may think they have a point or something and that’s great but then there’s NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. Anybody may have a point to make but they have to enter the scientific area in the usual manner and do the work and defend it in front of their peers and then collect their Nobel Prize.
    Only the work counts.

    Science is indeed self-correcting, but it often takes many years for the scientists to admit they were wrong…

    That’s very true. Yet that applies to all scientists, even Spencer and Christy. No system is perfect but it’s a good idea to insist that any points or notions or objections or theories or whatever have been run past your peers and check and verified. Only the work counts.

  72. What’s with the report that the Potty Peer has announced he is throwing in the towel? Has his “Freedom Tour” in Australia and NZ disillusioned him?

  73. I include them all. All of the Earth Sciences. Every one. No exceptions.”

    Great, So why doesn’t climate science act similarly?

    I’m sorry but I don’t understand your non-deferral thing.
    What branch of the Earth sciences are you claiming is not included with climate science?
    Oceanography? Dendrochononlogy? Glaciology? etc. Which one?

  74. That article was from NASA Cedric. So you got it from your preferred science source.

    Yes, I know. I’m not sure how to make it any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. I’ve mentioned this more than once. So, um, yes I’ve read that page. It’s just that I didn’t cherry pick that single page and leave it at that. I was much more thorough and fair-minded than that. I read all the rest of it too to get the full context. I started from here and read it all.
    All of it. Not just one lonely page. Not just one article.
    I go to google and type in “NASA” and then “climate change” and the NASA climate change site pops right up.

    So you get your science from NASA but can’t make head or tail of it when you do.

    Well, I’m not a NASA scientist so I have to be very careful about what I understand or think I understand about what I read on the internet.
    Very careful.
    That’s why I go to the NASA climate change website. for example. I’m very lucky. They’ve taken the time to break things down for the layman. Other scientific communities have done the same thing and I can freely compare and contrast them. They are all on the same page.

    The reason it doesn’t show up in the “usual” place…

    I’m sure you believe that but , of course, you will understand me when I say that you are just some guy on the internet. There’s no good reason for me to trust you blindly. You may be wrong. It could well be a case of the blind leading the blind and I have no interest in going down that garden path. Dunning-Kruger Effect.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 2:42 pm said:

    Cedric, could you quote from NASA what it is exactly that you actually subscribe to in terms of AGW/climate change rather that just wave us off to their website where I see this:-

    Evidence
    Climate change: How do we know?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

    First up is this:-

    “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

    But that’s not the case in the atmosphere this century is it?

    Followed by,

    “Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere”

    The major effect being as a very efficient energy transfer medium once thermalized (especially thermosphere – see NASA, Langley article)

    Then it gets even more problematic:-

    The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

    Sea level rise [no acceleration, nothing “rapid”, everything normal and consistent with higher solar input (1930 inflexion coincides with 1930 TSI rise but not 1950 CO2 rise]

    Global temperature rise [now at standstill, certainly not “rapid”]

    Warming oceans [now stabilizing, upper Pacific and Atlantic cooling in the ARGO era but not “rapid”]

    NASA’s out-of-date on climate Cedric. Not really the best source of climate information after all.

  76. How are Hansen from NASA’s predictions working out for you Cedric?

    I know very little about Hansen.
    I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, not just two scientists nor even just from one scientist such as Hansen or whoever.
    There are no prophets in sciences. I don’t care about the personalities.
    It’s the work that’s important, not the authority.
    Somebody may have worked in some capacity for years ago at NASA but that doesn’t mean that they speak for NASA. I don’t need individual scientists. I can focus on all the active ones and their communities and the way their work has been reviewed and worked on by all their peers.
    That’s why I always check out the NASA website on climate change and all the other scientific communities.

    Good ole NASA eh Cedric?

    I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. I’m talking about NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. They do the work.

  77. Bob D on April 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm said:

    Cedric:

    it’s a good idea to insist that any points or notions or objections or theories or whatever have been run past your peers and check and verified.

    Quite correct. The difference between someone like yourself and a scientist is that “theories or whatever” are verified against predictions, using real-world data. It matters not one iota who makes a prediction, or what consensus there is to back it up. If it fails to predict, it fails. No amount of teeth-gnashing will change it.

    The climate models run by NASA-GISS and others have now failed (using NASA’s own 15-year rule) to predict the global temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing. The theory is therefore invalid.

    Now they can go back and re-do their model predictions using lower sensitivities, but since James Hansen was responsible for most of the GISS ones and he’s just resigned, I’m not sure who will do it. Whatever though, they must be re-done sometime soon, because as of right now they’re just plain wrong, and the world can make no sensible policy decisions using invalid models.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 2:50 pm said:

    Correction re “Goddard Space Flight Center”. Make that JPL or GISS.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 2:56 pm said:

    “They’ve taken the time to break things down for the layman”

    And got it wrong and internally contradictory, see this comment:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/miffed-michele-mangles-monckton-meeting/#comment-187649

  80. Cedric, could you quote from NASA what it is exactly that you actually subscribe to in terms of AGW/climate change rather that just wave us off to their website…

    Well, not really. I’m not a NASA scientist.
    It all looks pretty good to me. Now, they could be wrong on something or other but I’d expect that to be revealed in the usual way.

    …where I see this…

    I’m sure you do. But your view may be wrong. I have no reason to just blindly trust you. To me, you are just some guy on the Internet. You have your questions for NASA and you seem to think things are problematic for some reason or other and that’s great but I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    You may just be hunting for anomalies. As a skeptic, I have to take that into consideration.

    “They imagine that if they can find (broadly defined) anomalies in that data that would point to another phenomenon at work. They then commit a pair of logical fallacies. First, the confuse unexplained with unexplainable. This leads them to prematurely declare something a true anomaly, without first exhaustively trying to explain it with conventional means. Second they use the argument from ignorance, saying that because we cannot explain an anomaly that means their specific pet theory must be true. I don’t know what that fuzzy obect in the sky is – therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

    What pseudoscientists often fail to recognize is that if you take any complex natural phenomenon, historical event, object or process and you look for apparent anomalies (broadly defined), you will find them. Humans are great at pattern recognition, and so if you look for coincidence in the data you will detect them. You will also find features that resulted from a complex interplay if unique events and therefore will be impossible to prove a specific explanation.

    The JFK conspiracy theorists are masters of anomaly hunting. The events of that day were confused and panicked, on all sides. It would be amazing if you couldn’t find many unusual features.

    But the absolute king of anomaly hunting must be Richard Hoagland. He can turn anything into a conspiracy – and not just any conspiracy, but his specific bizarre belief system in alien civilizations, NASA cover ups, and tetrahedrons.

    I was recently pointed to this essay by Hoagland on the Saturnian moon Iapetus. Iapetus is genuinely a cool world, with very unusual geology. We are still in the process of exploring this moon, generating hypotheses as to what processes could have created its unique features, and then testing those hypotheses.
    (…)
    Pseudoscientists, like Hoagland, abuse the concept of anomalies in many ways. They look for apparent anomalies, then prematurely conclude they are true anomalies, and use them to confirm a conclusion they already had in mind.

    They fail to recognize that finding apparent anomalies or coincidences is not predictive that a new phenomenon is actually at work. Life is full of apparent anomalies and coincidence, and we evolved the pattern-recognition software to find them and be compelled by them. That is the ultimate cognitive pitfall of anomaly hunting, and why we need science and skepticism to ward against such pitfalls.”

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/

  81. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 3:04 pm said:

    >”I get my science information from NASA”

    And they’ve got it wrong (in the politicized aspects of climate), are out of date, and are internally contradictory, see this comment:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/miffed-michele-mangles-monckton-meeting/#comment-187649

    >”…and every single scientific community on the planet”

    No you don’t and neither does climate science. I’ve already demonstrated that here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/miffed-michele-mangles-monckton-meeting/#comment-187636

    It’s becoming clear Cedric, that you’re not paying attention.

  82. The difference between someone like yourself and a scientist is that “theories or whatever” are verified against predictions, using real-world data.

    Oh I agree. I am not a scientist. That’s why I’m very careful about where I get my science information from. I might read something scientific and think I understand and disagree with it but I might be completely wrong.

    It matters not one iota who makes a prediction, or what consensus there is to back it up.

    Consensus does not “back anything up” Consensus is a result. It doesn’t happen by magic. The scientific consensus on evolution HIV (for example) happened the boring, old-fashioned way.

    The climate models run by NASA-GISS and others have now failed…

    If this is true then I’d expect NASA to say so. It would be something impossible to hide anyway.
    There are any number of scientific communities out there who would cheerfully grab the lead in climate science research and point out how NASA is not doing a good job.

    … because as of right now they’re just plain wrong, and the world can make no sensible policy decisions using invalid models.

    Perhaps you are right but you can’t expect me to just blindly believe you. You may be wrong.

  83. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 3:11 pm said:

    >”Now, they could be wrong on something or other but I’d expect that to be revealed in the usual way.

    …where I see this…

    I’m sure you do.”

    Yes I do. The evidence they are wrong is in every climate metric now and even the MSM are picking up on it. The “usual way”, as Bob points out (quoting him):-

    “…..is that “theories or whatever” are verified against predictions, using real-world data. It matters not one iota who makes a prediction, or what consensus there is to back it up. If it fails to predict, it fails. No amount of teeth-gnashing will change it.

    The climate models run by NASA-GISS and others have now failed (using NASA’s own 15-year rule) to predict the global temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing. The theory is therefore invalid.”

    GCMs vs reality (only 2 or 3 actually mimic 21st century temperature):-

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/clip_image0042.jpg

    http://www.mutantblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dailymail.jpg

    That’s a fail for most of them Cedric, The best (blue line top link) being the RAS INM-CM4 (an institution that BTW, does not consider CO2 to be a major climate driver).

  84. And they’ve got it wrong (in the politicized aspects of climate), are out of date, and are internally contradictory, see this comment…

    So you keep saying. You are entitled to your opinion but you may be completely wrong.
    I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    They have websites and everything. It’s all written in plain English.

    No you don’t and neither does climate science. I’ve already demonstrated…

    I’m sure you feel that way but there’s no reason for me to just trust you. You may be wrong.
    I can go to the NASA webpage and read it all for myself. I’ve got no good reason not to.
    It’s there.
    NASA’s quite famous and they’ve been doing climate science for an awful long time.
    Maybe they are wrong but I’d expect some other scientific community to point that out.
    However they are all on the same pages.
    Assurances from anonymous individuals or possible contrarians don’t mean much in comparison.
    The same methodology applies to the Moon Landing, vaccines, Germ Theory, Evolution etc.

  85. Bob D on April 9, 2013 at 3:19 pm said:

    Cedric:

    If this is true then I’d expect NASA to say so. It would be something impossible to hide anyway.

    But they have said it. It is impossible to hide.

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    Source
    We’ve now had 17 years of no warming (head of IPCC said so). Therefore the models are invalidated.

  86. Yes I do. The evidence they are wrong is in every climate metric now…

    I’m sure you feel that way but you could be wrong. I can’t just take your word for it.

    … and the even the MSM are picking up on it.

    I never get my science information from the MSM. They make too many mistakes. I’m a skeptic so I only every use the best scientific sources. They have to do the work. Cancer information? I’d go to the NIH. Information on volcanos? Well, the USGS would be a good place to go. Climate Science? NASA.

    http://wattsupwithth….

    I don’t get my science information from a blog, no matter how popular. Only the work counts.
    All of it.
    From all the Earth Sciences and all the scientific communities on the planet.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm said:

    Very clear now that you’ve got nothing Cedric. Just vacuous hand waving (argument from an authority that is being proved wrong month-by-month now) and denial of the verdict that the actual climate is delivering in the DAGW case.

    As David Rose puts it “who are the deniers now?”

  88. But they have said it. It is impossible to hide.

    Then perhaps you have it wrong. There’s still the NASA website on climate change and it’s updated daily. If something happened back in 2008, I’d expect it to be factored in already.

    We’ve now had 17 years of no warming (head of IPCC said so). Therefore the models are invalidated.

    Are you sure that’s what NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is saying. I look at their websites and I don’t see it. Is it possible that there’s something else going on?

  89. Very clear now that you’ve got nothing Cedric.

    I’m not a scientist. I never claimed to have anything.
    However, I can go to the NASA website and read what they have to say.

    You have your views but maybe you are completely wrong. Maybe you are just suffering from the Dunning-Kurger Effect. I have no good reason to just blindly follow you.

    I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    I’m careful that way.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

  90. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 3:43 pm said:

    >”I look at their websites and I don’t see it”

    You’re looking in the wrong place Cedric. Look in the scientific literature that Bob cited. Peer-reviewed too for your edification.

    This is one of the big issues for AR5 to address (no hiding from It). Monckton gave the example in #1 of 104 comments in his submission and that’s entirely appropriate:-

    Comment #1: Ch. 0, from page 0, line 0, to page 0, line 0
    To restore some link between IPCC reports and observed reality, the
    report must address – but does not at present address – the now pressing
    question why the key prediction of warming in earlier IPCC
    reports have proven to be significant exaggerations.

    Reason: The IPCC’s credibility has already been damaged by its premature adoption
    and subsequent hasty abandonment of the now-discredited “hockey-stick” graph as
    its logo; by its rewriting its Second Assessment Report after submission of the
    scientists’ final draft, to state the opposite of their finding that no discernible human
    influence on climate is detectable; by its declaration that all Himalayan ice would be
    gone in 25 years; and by its use of a dishonest statistical technique in 2007 falsely to
    suggest that the rate of global warming is accelerating. But the central damage to its
    credibility arises from the absence of anything like the warming it had predicted.

    Example: In 1990 the IPCC’s central estimate was that warming would occur at 0.3
    K/decade and that by now some 0.6 K warming would have occurred. Since then
    observations show warming has occurred at 0.14 K/decade and 0.3 K warming has
    occurred. There has been no global warming for 16 years.

    >>>>>> #2 – #104

    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ar5-expertreview-cm12.pdf

  91. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm said:

    >”I get my science information from NASA”

    So you keep saying. It must be religious dogma in you view – not to to be questioned by heretics.

    >”..and every single scientific community on the planet”

    BS again as I’ve already demonstrated.

  92. I like this about Cedric: he’s consistent, dogged and courteous, though we seem to try hard to discombobulate him. If there’s a flaw, it could be an incipient reluctance to view observations and conclude something from them. But then, as he says, he’s not a scientist. Perhaps that’s where I personally go wrong, stepping over the line into practising science without a licence.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm said:

    >”I don’t get my science information from a blog, no matter how popular. Only the work counts.”

    Great because that diagram, although hosted by a blog, was actually uplifted from a submission to the US House Energy and Power Subcommittee, 20 September 2012:-

    http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/EP/20120920/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf

    The earlier but incomplete graph is here:-

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

    That was uplifted from a submission to the Senate Committee Environment & Public Works 1 August 2012:-

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-testimony-2012.pdf

    That’s the work that the US government gets its information from Cedric – like it or not. Whether the Obama administration accepts it or not is another question entirely.

  94. Bob D on April 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm said:

    I have no problem with people exhibiting sheep-like behaviour; after all, most of the planet’s people do exactly that. But I have a problem with Cedric trying to dismiss those folk who can actually use their brains, such as Lord Monckton.

    From what we now know, Lord Monckton is ten or a hundred times the thinker that Cedric is – Cedric knows nothing, and is happy that way. Good on him, but having a conversation with someone who just keeps repeating a mantra is somewhat tedious.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm said:

    “I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet”

    Do you get it from, for example, the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Buenos Aires?

    ‘Sudden transitions and grand variations in the solar dynamo,
    past and future’

    Cornelis De Jager1,* and Silvia Duhau2
    1 Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, PO Box 59, 1790 AB Den Burg, The Netherlands

    2 Departamento de Fı´sica, Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1428 Buenos Aires, Argentina.

    Received 21 February 2012 / Accepted 11 June 2012

    http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-sudden-trans-JSWSC-2-A073.pdf

    “…while the path in the right-hand diagram indicates that around 2008 a
    Grand Minimum episode might start, the left-hand diagram
    indicates that the new episode will be of the Regular type,
    and so only a Dalton-type Minimum might then develop.”

    Dalton Minimum? That doesn’t seem like warming to me Cedric:-

    Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. During that period, there was a variation of temperature of about 1°C.[2]

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

    Wait, what’s this? A NASA link?

    Wilson, Robert M. (nd) “Volcanism, Cold Temperature, and Paucity of Sunspot Observing Days (1818-1858): A Connection?”, The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, accessed February 2009.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998nasa.reptY….W

    Authors:
    Wilson, Robert M.
    Affiliation:
    AA(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center)
    Publication:
    Technical Report, NASA/TP-1998-208592; M-889; NAS 1.60:208592

    Abstract
    During the interval of 1818-1858, several curious decreases in the number of sunspot observing days per year are noted in the observing record of Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, the discoverer of the sunspot cycle, and in the reconstructed record of Rudolf Wolf, the founder of the now familiar relative sunspot number. These decreases appear to be nonrandom in nature and often extended for 13 yr (or more). Comparison of these decreases with equivalent annual mean temperature (both annual means and 4-yr moving averages). as recorded at Armagh Observatory (Northern Ireland), indicates that the temperature during the years of decreased number of observing days trended downward near the start of’ each decrease and upward (suggesting some sort of recovery) just before the end of each decrease. The drop in equivalent annual mean temperature associated with each decrease, as determined from the moving averages, measured about 0.1-0.7 C. The decreases in number of observing days are found to be closely related to the occurrences of large, cataclysmic volcanic eruptions in the tropics or northern hemisphere. In particular, the interval of increasing number of observing days at the beginning of the record (i.e., 1818-1819) may be related to the improving atmospheric conditions in Europe following the 1815 eruption of Tambora (Indonesia; 8 deg. S), which previously, has been linked to “the year without a summer” (in 1816) and which is the strongest eruption in recent history, while the decreases associated with the years of 1824, 1837, and 1847 may, be linked, respectively, to the large, catacivsmic volcanic eruptions of Galunggung (Indonesia; 7 deg. S) in 1822, Cosiguina (Nicaragua) in 1835, and, perhaps, Hekla (Iceland; 64 deg. N) in 1845. Surprisingly, the number of observing days per year, as recorded specifically b), SchAabe (from Dessau, Germany), is found to be linearly correlated against the yearly mean temperature at Armagh Observatory (r = 0.5 at the 2 percent level of significance); thus. years of fewer sunspot observing days in the historical record seem to indicate years of probable cooler clime, while years (if many sunspot observing days seem to indicate years of probable warmer clime (and Vice versa). Presuming this relationship to be real, one infers that the observed decrease in the number of observing days near 1830 (i.e., during “the lost record years” of 1825 to 1833) provides a strong indication that temperatures at Armagh (and, perhaps, most of Europe, as well) were correspondingly cooler. If true, then, the inferred cooling may have resulted from the eruption of Kliuchevsoi(Russia; 56 deg. N) in 1829.

    + + +

    NASA says: “thus. years of fewer sunspot observing days in the historical record seem to indicate years of probable cooler clime, while years (if many sunspot observing days seem to indicate years of probable warmer clime (and Vice versa).”

    Given there’s now fewer sunspots than in the recent past, NASA is implying cooling in the near future Cedric. Unless NASA is wrong and an unreliable source of scientific information of course.

  96. Magoo on April 9, 2013 at 5:07 pm said:

    How about this scientific community Cedric?:

    ‘To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.’ (IPCC 2007).
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-2.html

    ‘In summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979-2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.’ (2012)
    (Section 9.4.1.3.2, p. 9-27, lines 31-33)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/116938885/Ch9-Models-WG1AR5-SOD-Ch09-All-Final

    If that’s true it means there’s no tropospheric hotspot, and if there’s no tropospheric hot spot there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, and if there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour the AGW theory fails.

    That’s the AGW theory as outlined by the IPCC and those are the observations according to the IPCC. After all, who are we mere mortals to question the IPCC?

  97. “I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet”

    Do you get it from, for example, the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad de Buenos Aires?

    I don’t see why not. What’s their official position on climate change?

    Dalton Minimum? That doesn’t seem like warming to me Cedric…

    i accept that you don’t think something about something but…I’m not a scientist and you are just some person over the internet.
    I get my science from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    I have no reason just to blindly follow you.
    You may simply be wrong.

    Wait, what’s this? A NASA link?

    Which is great but if whatever article you find from 2009 from some NASA site is relevent to the NASA climate change website then it’s probably already factored in by now.

    Given there’s now fewer sunspots than in the recent past, NASA is implying…

    No, it’s you that is doing the implying. I don’t rely on interpretations from anonymous people from the internet for my science information.
    I rely upon NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    I don’t even rely upon their “implying” anything.
    I prefer what they have to say in blunt, plain English on their website.

    Unless NASA is wrong and an unreliable source of scientific information of course.

    I don’t have any reason to think that NASA (of all orgainisations) is wrong or an unreliable source of information. I’m sure they sometimes do get thing wrong. Nobody’s perfect. Yet they have a good track record of being responsible and issuing corrections where needed. If they didn’t, other scientific communities would be more that happy to correct them.

    It must be religious dogma in you view – not to to be questioned by heretics.

    No, there’s nothing religious about going to the NASA website or any other website run by all the other scientific communities on the planet.

    “Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,

    “There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”

    Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion.

    Deniers also paint themselves as skeptics working to break down a misguided and deeply rooted belief. They argue that when mainstream scientists speak out against the scientific “orthodoxy,” they are persecuted and dismissed. For example, HIV deniers make much of the demise of Peter Duesberg’s career, claiming that when he began speaking out against HIV as the cause of AIDS, he was “ignored and discredited” because of his dissidence . South African President Mbeki went even further, stating: “In an earlier period in human history, these [dissidents] would be heretics that would be burnt at the stake!”

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256

  98. If there’s a flaw, it could be an incipient reluctance to view observations and conclude something from them. But then, as he says, he’s not a scientist.

    On the other hand, NASA is full of scientists. Scientists working across different disciplines using multiple, independent lines of evidence and successfully defending their work in the peer reveiwed literature. They are in a position to view observations and make conclusions.
    Other scientific communities are in a position to do the same.

    Perhaps that’s where I personally go wrong, stepping over the line into practising science without a licence.

    It’s not the “licence”.
    That’s not how science works.
    Anyone might have a breakthrough even without a degree. It does happen.
    But…
    Various individuals have been mentioned here by others. I’m sure you could say that they have a “licence” based on their Phd or their accolades recieved from yesteryear or because they have a blog…but only the work count. Sitting in your armchair and blogging does not count as practicing science. You could simply be wrong. You could be under the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    Whatever methodology you use to get at the truth has to take the Dunning-Kruger Effect into consideration, otherwise you are not really being a genuine skeptic.

  99. I have no problem with people exhibiting sheep-like behaviour…

    My behaviour is to go to google and type in “NASA” and then type in “climate change”.
    I don’t see how that makes me a sheep.

    But I have a problem with Cedric trying to dismiss those folk who can actually use their brains, such as Lord Monckton.

    I have a choice. I can either check out NASA and every single scientific community on the planet or…I can meekly follow some anonymous guy on the internet or some blog or some link to a paper that he picked out for some reason.

    From what we now know, Lord Monckton is ten or a hundred times the thinker that Cedric is…

    Maybe Monckton is a “thinker”. Maybe he’s a hundred and twenty-two times the “thinker” I am.
    However, I’m not just going to blindly follow him.
    He could be wrong.
    Only the work counts.
    You are offering Monckton. I, however, am checking out NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    My methodology seems the safer and more reasonable course.
    There’s nothing particularly “mantra-ish” or “sheep-like” about it.

    You could (for example) choose Duesberg over the NIH on the issue of HIV but I don’t recommend it.

    NASA: Climate Change; A Warming World (HD)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68E3SubjFY

  100. You’re looking in the wrong place Cedric. Look in the scientific literature that Bob cited. Peer-reviewed too for your edification.

    That’s great. But I’m not a scientist. I don’t read that much peer-reviewed scientific literature.
    It would be a pity if I made a mistake just because some anonymous person waved something technical in my face and tried to emotionally manipulate me into pretending that I understood it and accepted it.
    Even worse if I thought I really did understand it and then leapt to a false conclusion and became wedded to it.
    Far better to be wary of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and get as much independent verification as humanly possible.
    However, NASA does understand peer-review and is heavily involved in the scientific literature.
    If there’s something really important that changes everything on climate change then I would expect it to pop up in the usual manner and be right there on the NASA climate change website. No need for me to go hunting for it. If NASA didn’t keep their climate change webpage up-to-date and miss something super important then I’d expect some other scientific community to mention it on their webpage for the benefit of those who are not scientists.

    Reason: The IPCC’s credibility has already been damaged…

    I’m sure you feel that is the case. However, NASA does not agree with you.

    Great because that diagram…

    What diagram? Did I link to a diagram?

    That’s the work that the US government gets its information from Cedric…

    What about NASA or the NAAS or the AAAS? Seems a bit strange for the US government to support those scientific communities to get information from and then not use them at all when it’s important.

  101. How about this scientific community Cedric?

    Which one?
    Oh you mean the IPCC?

    If that’s true it means there’s no tropospheric hotspot, and if there’s…

    Yes, I’m sure you have you interpretation on things. Yet you may be wrong.
    The strength of your conviction and all the links in the world do not mean that I should just blindly accept what you say.
    Dunning-Kruger Effect, you have to allow for it and make it part of your methodology.
    I don’t get my scientific information from some anonymous person on the internet.
    It doesn’t happen.
    I don’t get my cancer information that way either.

    After all, who are we mere mortals to question the IPCC?

    Who are we mere mortals to question the NIH?
    Who are we mere mortals to question the USGS?
    Who are we mere mortals to question the CDC?

    Science does not work like that. Science is the study of reality.
    There are people out there that will not accept the science on a particular topic.
    Some of these people are simply being unreasonable. That’s where methodology comes in.
    Your methodology and the way you argue must be a world apart from the genuine kooks out there.

  102. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 7:01 pm said:

    >”NASA does not agree with you.”

    Actually it does:-

    ‘Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead? NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a “Mini-Maunder” Event.’

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/nasa-we-may-be-on-the-verge-of-a-mini-maunder-event-is-a-planetary-cooling-spell-straight-ahead/5318725

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/

    ‘Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate’

    Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

    There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

    […]

    Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

    Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center [NASA] described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.

    […]

    Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

    “If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

    […]

    Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

    Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

    The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.

    # # #

    Basically there understanding of solar change and its effects is still in its infancy. Given solar output is plummeting right now, NASA will have ample opportunity to study the effects real-time.

    They could research a little history to speed things up, those who lived through the Maunder Minimum (or Dalton) knew the effects first hand and it’s all been documented.

  103. David on April 9, 2013 at 7:08 pm said:

    Ken
    Judging by the way ever increasing numbers of newspapers and voters (eg UK/Germany/Australia)are turning away from alarmist views, I would say Moncktons work is pretty much done. And what a good job he has done too.
    Still you had an opportunity. You could have set up a debate with him through Sci Blogs. If you are so sure of your views, why didn’t you?

    I suspect you are going to be even more bitter over the next few years as you and Gareth slide into irrelevance.
    Except of course for the Psychological studies to be done on your behaviour and how Group Think almost ended the Age of Reason. Maybe then your star will shine again. But not in a good way….

  104. >”NASA does not agree with you.”

    Actually it does…

    No, you are not getting this.
    I don’t get my science information from anonymous individuals on the internet.
    I’m sure you believe that but , of course, you will understand me when I say that you are just some guy on the internet. There’s no good reason for me to trust you blindly. You may be wrong. It could well be a case of the blind leading the blind and I have no interest in going down that garden path. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
    NASA seems to be fine with the IPCC.

  105. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 7:24 pm said:

    >”Science is the study of reality”

    Something the IPCC is becoming increasingly at odds with month-by-month now.

    But as Magoo points out, they do at least acknowledge some problematic deficiencies in their diagnostics. Maybe one day collectively they will be able to bring themselves to concede their scientific assessment and attribution of climate change was not focussed on the climate drivers that actually do bring about observed change i.e. the IPCC has not been studying reality but a preconceived misconception of it.

    In other words, they have proceeded on the assumption that their theory was rock-solid but the reality test is proving otherwise and they’re puzzled by that:-

    ‘Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled ‘

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

    No puzzlement for those of us acquainted with natural cyclicity on the other hand.

  106. “Science is the study of reality”

    Something the IPCC is becoming increasingly at odds with month-by-month now.

    I’m sure that you personally believe that. Yet you can’t just expect me to take your word for it.
    I’m a skeptic.
    Skepticism is a process; not a position.
    I’m sure that any scientific community (including the IPCC) do get things wrong. Nobody’s perfect. Yet they have a good track record of being responsible and issuing corrections where needed. If they didn’t, other scientific communities would be more that happy to correct them.
    I check out NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet and they all seem to be pretty much on the same page.
    I’m not a scientist but those scientific communities have taken a lot of time and effort to communicate their findings to the average layman.
    It’s not a good methodology to allow some anonymous person to “help” me understand what they are “implying” or whatever. You may simply be wrong.

  107. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 7:39 pm said:

    >”I don’t get my science information from anonymous individuals on the internet.”

    The citations were your preferred information source Cedric – NASA, not me:-

    SABER

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    ‘Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate’

    Author: Dr. Tony Phillips |Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/

    Wilson, Robert M. (nd) “Volcanism, Cold Temperature, and Paucity of Sunspot Observing Days (1818-1858): A Connection?”, The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, accessed February 2009.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998nasa.reptY….W

    Authors:
    Wilson, Robert M.
    Affiliation:
    AA(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center)
    Publication:
    Technical Report, NASA/TP-1998-208592; M-889; NAS 1.60:208592

    # # #

    That’s starting to become a lengthy NASA compendium Cedric, are you denying NASA science too now?

  108. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 7:53 pm said:

    >”I check out NASA”

    Have you checked out NASA’s GISTEMP last decade?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend

    Even Dr James Hansen (now retired from NASA) acknowledged the standstill while in the employ of NASA:-

    Global Temperature Update Through 2012
    15 January 2013
    J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy

    “Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf

    How about you Cedric? Do you concede the “Global Warming Standstill” and “The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade”?

    Or are you in denial?

  109. Hi Ken. Could you give a reference, please?

  110. David, sloppy work there. I have no executive function at SciBlogs. My role is completely passive through syndication of my blog – a similar situation with Secular News. You should have known that. Did you guys even approach SciBlogs with any proposal?

    I did actually debate with the Potty Peer in the Waikato. I thought I won and I am sure he thought he won. But the experience showed me he is not a scientist – he’s a politician. For example not reasoning to a point that is made by his opponent, but rephrasing the point to his own advantage. Not honest. But then what do you expect from debates, especially with scoundrels. My impression of him is briefly in my last blog post (see http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/potty-peer-in-waikato/). I think one word describes him accurately – narcissist.

    As a scientist my views are not a matter faith, they change with evidence. And especially in the extremely complex area of climate, which we still have to learn a terrific amount about, and where the science is not settled (whenever is it?), I am happy to change my ideas as new evidence comes in. And as the specialists in the area reveal more of their discoveries.

    I abhor dishonest slandering of scientists that local climate change deniers go in for. Despite them being shown malicious by the High Court they refuse to accept that rejection and continue the slander. (Have they paid NIWA’s expense yet?). They are the ones committed to their views, who have shown a complete inability to respond honestly to new information. Perhaps you should be talking to them.

    For example, the current slow down in land surface temperatures could indicate that there is a fundamental flaw in our understanding about the role of greenhouse gases. I can’t imagine what it could be as it is such a fundamental property of these molecules – and it would also mean we have to revise a lot of our chemistry. But if this was shown to be the case I am happy to accept the new knowledge. No skin off my nose. I don’t rely on faith and have often had to change my views during my research career. It’s an experience common in scientific research – and I must say an exhilarating one. Lawrence Krauss often makes the point that everyone training in science hauls experience having to change their mind on an important belief because if evidence.

    I personally suspect the problem is nowhere near as fundamental as misunderstanding if greenhouse gases – especially as we have observed such “pauses” in the past. And there are a number if far more reasonable candidates for explanation. I am sure we will learn a lot from it and you can be sure our models are going to improve as a result. It is this very sort if thing which helps advance science.

    But I will listen to the experts on this, not a group of politically motivated slanderers. That is of course the objective and sensible thing to do.

    You have a funny attitude on this question – seemingly committed to a mantra whatever the evidence and whatever the experts tell us. Oh, I do mean the real experts, not the pretenders. This phenomena does interest me as a psychological effect, and also as an example of the irrationality of our species. That’s basically the only reason I sometimes glance over the comments here, and do a bit of stirring to observe the reactions. I am starting to feel as if I know the personality of some of the players here.

  111. Bloody hell, did the Waikato Times learn about Mad Monckton throwing in the towel before you guys were told?

    Apparently it’s something to do with money – as in he is not being paid enough.

  112. Have you checked out NASA’s GISTEMP last decade?

    No I have not.
    However, I’m sure that NASA has.

    Even Dr James Hansen (now retired from NASA) acknowledged…

    I’m not sure how to make myself clearer on this subject of personalities but I’ll try again.
    I know very little about Hansen.
    I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, not just two scientists nor even just from one scientist such as Hansen or whoever.
    There are no prophets in sciences. I don’t care about the personalities.
    It’s the work that’s important, not the authority.
    Somebody may have worked in some capacity for years ago at NASA but that doesn’t mean that they speak for NASA. I don’t need individual scientists. I can focus on all the active ones and their communities and the way their work has been reviewed and worked on by all their peers.
    That’s why I always check out the NASA website on climate change and all the other scientific communities.

    How about you Cedric? Do you concede the…

    Hmm. We seem to have a failure to communicate.
    I’m not a scientist. I never claimed to have anything.
    However, I can go to the NASA website and read what they have to say.

    Or are you in denial?

    I have no good reason to believe that NASA is in denial about anything nor is there any reason to think that just by going to the NASA website makes one a denier.
    Methodology is important.

  113. The citations were your preferred information source Cedric – NASA, not me.

    Which is great but if whatever article you find from some NASA site is relevent to the NASA climate change website then it’s probably already factored in by now. Otherwise, they risk being embarassed by some other scientific community.

    That’s starting to become a lengthy NASA compendium Cedric, are you denying NASA science too now?

    Oh no. I check out their website all the time. NASA is a great place for climate science information.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/

  114. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 8:45 pm said:

    >”For example, the current slow down in land surface temperatures could indicate that there is a fundamental flaw in our understanding about the role of greenhouse gases.”

    THANK YOU Ken Perrott, EXACTLY what we’re saying.

    >”I can’t imagine what it could be as it is such a fundamental property of these molecules”

    Simply that the “fundamental property” has been misunderstood by climate science. Not so other sciences and industrial applications where CO2 is employed as a refrigerant (coolant). Rather than “trapping” heat, CO2 is actually a very efficient energy transfer medium e.g. in the thermosphere.

    Quoting NASA source:-

    For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

    “Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    >” – and it would also mean we have to revise a lot of our chemistry.”

    Well no, only climate science/IPCC radiant heat transfer and their oversimplification of CO2 radiant heat absorption (a simplification of a simplification):-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

    The IPCC curve is log, the Leckner curve is log-log and verified in this paper:-

    EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

    N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber
    1996

    http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf

    There are other simplifications assessed and verified in that paper (from combustion engineering), the IPCC over-simplification is not one of them. In other words, the IPCC curve does not conform to established radiant heat transfer science – their “fundamental flaw”.

  115. You could be under the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

    Really? That sounds quite interesting. Or important, so I might even look it up.

  116. That’s not a reference.

  117. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 8:55 pm said:

    Here’s the reference RT:-

    “However, Monckton is planning to wind up his role of climate change speaker shortly.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8524043/Monckton-tilting-at-windmills

    Not sure that means “throwing in the towel” (Thomas at HT) do you Richard?

    He can rest, the climate has taken over now.

  118. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 8:59 pm said:

    >”…probably already factored in by now”

    Not even close Cedric and they explicitly state otherwise. If you’d read the NASA report you would have seen that.

  119. Simon on April 9, 2013 at 9:50 pm said:

    The bit that interested me was “Monckton is on the record as saying that human-emitted carbon emissions were not warming the planet and that increased sun activity accounted for recent higher temperatures.”
    I thought he had a bit more sense than that. The upswing in temperature has occurred during a period when solar irradiance has decreased. If you don’t believe me, read Foster and Rahmstorf (2011).

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation