Posted by: Barry Bickmore | July 21, 2014

The Monckton Files: A Hero Has Fallen!

Hang around the Watt’s Up With That? blog for any length of time, and it will become apparent that His Lordship, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, is all but worshipped by many of the regulars there.  No matter how absurd Monckton’s intellectual flagellations, Anthony Watts will post them, and hordes of credulous commenters will heap adulation upon His Lordship.  One of Monckton’s long-time fans is Willis Eschenbach–construction manager, climate hobbyist, and frequent contributor to both the blog and the Heartland disinformation conference.  Willis, unfortunately, learned what happens if you express strong disagreement with anything Monckton says, i.e., Monckton threatens to sue you.  Yes, Monckton has turned yet another corner, and has begun threatening his fellow climate change contrarians, in addition to the typical academics and reporters.  Witness poor Willis begging his fallen hero to reconsider!

Christopher, please, I implore you as a friend, cease with the legal threats. Every time you make such a threat of legal action against some scientist that you disagree with, your credibility sinks another notch.

Yes, you have the means and the position and the title and the power and the friends and the money to cause trouble for people … do you truly not understand that your threats to use your power and money and advantages and hereditary title against some poor skeptical shlub like myself because you don’t like his claims just makes you look like an insecure bully? Is there truly no other way to defend yourself? Dang, dude, you can strip the hide off a buffalo with your unmatchable eloquence, or have half the world laughing at someone’s foolishness with your irascible wit … you don’t need legal means to set things straight, your intellect and your words are more than enough to do that.

Alas, Willis’s struggle isn’t merely against a momentary lapse in judgement by his hero.  He is fighting INVIOLATE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE–Bickmore’s First and Second Laws of Monckton.

Bickmore’s First Law of Monckton 

For every person who publicly endorses Lord Monckton’s climate pronouncements for merely irrational reasons, there exists a threshold in Monckton’s behavior which, if crossed, will cause said person to regret their association.

Bickmore’s Second Law of Monckton

Any behavioral threshold posited by Bickmore’s First Law of Monckton will eventually be crossed by Lord Monckton.

Let’s back up and examine the series of events that led to this curious juncture, so that we might recognize the inexorable march of fate, driven by the Invisible Hand of Bickmore’s Laws of Monckton.

A Pebble in the Pond

Our story begins with Dr. David Evans, an electrical engineer who goes about inexplicably calling himself a “Rocket Scientist”, and a conspiracy theorist who makes Jews uncomfortable by going on and on about an international banking conspiracy involving the Rothschilds.  Evans is in the running for the Next Climate Galileo for his new “theory”, which posits a mysterious “Force X” from the Sun that influences the Earth’s climate with an 11-year delay.  And it involves math.  Jo Nova, Lord Monckton, and some other prominent contrarians immediately jumped on the bandwagon, but others (i.e., the ones who don’t think the Sun can possibly the culprit for recent warming) weren’t so sure.  Among them were Willis Eschenbach and Leif Svalgaard.  Svalgaard appears to be a solar physicist, and doesn’t buy the idea that the Sun explains everything, but I’ve heard he is some kind of “lukewarmer“.  He comments regularly at WUWT, to the extent that Anthony Watts calls him “WUWT’s resident solar expert”.

The usual protocol at WUWT is that Anthony will put up a guest post by some wing nut, even if he knows it is utter nonsense.  (Check out some of my favorite examples here.)  Some commenters will jump right on the bandwagon, but others will disagree.  A few hardy souls from Reality might pop in to take a swipe at it, and will get dog-piled.  Watts and all the regulars will pat themselves on the back for being so open-minded, in contrast to the “alarmists” who are always trying to stifle such scintillating intellectual exchanges.  It’s all good, as long as the conclusion to any argument (no matter how ridiculous) is that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, or doesn’t exist, etc.

The problem is that some of the contrarians–even the sort who hang about WUWT–still have some minimal intellectual standards.  Both Eschenbach and Svalgaard were able to recognize that much of Evans’s work relied on a bizarre hodgepodge of solar data sets that was apparently corrupted by some improper data processing techniques.  They spoke up, and lots of angry back-and-forth ensued, most notably with the following comment by Svalgaard.

It is worse than I thought. The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif

Apart from the use of the obsolete Lean TSI for the early years, the most blatant error is the statement that TSI has had a sharp unprecedented drop starting in 2003-2005 to now. This is complete nonsense. Here is TSI since 2003

http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png

There is no such drop. If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003. As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent - as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with. This concludes my comments as the prediction is worthless on its face.

Monckton Escalates

The “almost fraudulent” comment angered His Lordship, who called it “libelous”.  Svalgaard returned fire, calling one of Monckton’s comments “outright stupid“, and advising, “You do yourself no favours by pretending to be so dumb.”  Monckton insisted he was right, and pronounced Svalgaard’s scientific career to be over.

He is a quack, not a scientist. This was not inadvertence on his part: it was plain wickedness. Nothing he ever says again on any scientific subject can or will be taken seriously. He is finished, dead by his own hand.

Willis Eschenbach was chiming in, meanwhile, and getting a little hot under the collar when Monckton defended Evans’s refusal to make his data and code available to others.  “Ooooh, bad Lord Moncton [sic], no cookies, logical fail.”

Monckton, in his usual fashion, started throwing out threats.

I have given Mr Svalgaard every opportunity to apologize to Dr Evans but he has chosen not to take it. I shall now consult the statistician, verify Mr Svalgaard’s employment status and, if any academic institution is employing him, refer his allegation against Dr Evans to the appropriate authorities as an instance of gross and persisting research misconduct.

Which really ticked off Svalgaard.  “Good luck with that. I can’t wait.”  Monckton then went into some detail about his plans.

I do not speak for Dr Evans in any way, and I have no idea of whether he will decide to sue. As a first step, he might request Anthony to allow him to answer the allegations in a head posting, which would go some way towards expunging Mr Svalgaard’s nastly libel of him in his calling as a scientist.

Perhaps in the United States, as one thoughtful commenter has suggested, persistently and falsely calling someone “almost fraudulent” for allegedly “fabricating” scientific data is thought acceptable. Not in Australia. There, as in any British-law jurisdiction, such a libel is taken very seriously indeed. I had hoped I had made that plain to Mr Svalgaard, so as to give him the chance to get himself off the hook.

For my part, I am referring Mr Svalgaard’s long list of malicious comments about Dr Evans (but not about me: I give as good as I get) to his university, which will know best how to handle the matter, for there is a rather delicate aspect that I am not at liberty to discuss here. The university will most certainly realize that the do-nothing option is not an option. The libel is too grave and too persistent. My lawyers are looking at it tomorrow to see whether malice is present, in which case the damages would triple, to say nothing of the costs. Their corresponding lawyers in the U.S. will be giving advice on whether Dr Evans would count in U.S. law as a “public figure”, Probably not, from what I know of the “public-figure” test, in which event, in order to enforce the judgement of the Australian courts in the U.S., it would not be necessary to prove malice (for, though malice seems evident, the test in Australian law is high).

It would also be open to Dr Evans simply to apply to the court for a declaration (in Scotland, declarator) that he had not fabricated anything or engaged in any of the other varieties of scientific misconduct of which Mr Svalgaard has seen fit to accuse him with such vicious and unbecoming persistence. Given the sensitivity to which I shall be drawing the university’s attention, that might be the kindest course.

And there, I think, we had better leave it and let the appropriate authorities take over. I have only been as explicit as this because this posting will also go some little way towards expunging the libel and minimizing the damage to Dr Evans’ reputation that Mr Svalgaard seems to have intended.

What His Lordship forgot to mention was that the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the USA, unless they are compliant with the First Amendment.  Oh, and the allegedly libelous statements must be provably false.  Given that Svalgaard only said that Evans’s mistakes were “almost fraudulent,” whatever that means, good luck with that.

The Olive Branch Gets Torched

Willis felt bad that he had let his temper get the best of him, and he regretted Svalgaard’s “almost fraudulent” comment, so he wrote another blog post called “Mending Fences“, in which he apologized for any rhetorical excesses, but defended his position.  He also said that, while he disagreed with Svalgaard’s characterization, he thought it was “understandable” that he would float the idea, given the sheer number of mistakes Evans had made.  Monckton showed up in the comments, once again, demanded further apologies, and hinted that he was following through on his threats against Svalgaard.

Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”. It was irresponsible and inappropriate…. There was no basis whatsoever for accusing Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”, and the person who made that allegation and regrettably failed to withdraw it is now in considerable trouble over it. There are plenty of fraudsters in the climate scam, but Dr Evans is most certainly not one of them.

Well, Svalgaard wasn’t having any of that, and responded with the Big Guns, namely, my own Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet!!!!

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am
“There are plenty of fraudsters in the climate scam,”

Like this one: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
or this one:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/comment-page-11/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=0

Ouch.  Monckton couldn’t let that go.

I note that another commenter here has accused me of fraud, and has cited a particular website much of whose contents I had not previously seen. My lawyers will be visiting me early next week to deal with some of the allegations on that website.

So apparently now he’s going to lob some legal threats my way, too, unless he was talking about Gavin Schmidt’s piece at the Realclimate site.  If he wants to threaten me, it won’t be the first time.  I am now opening a betting pool in the comments, so my readers can weigh in about 1) whether Monckton will actually follow through on his threats, and 2) if so, whether his objections will include his oft repeated claim that he is a member of Parliament, no matter what Parliament says.

Willis chastised His Lordship for his hypocritical behavior.

Finally, you advocate “greater civility all around”, while at the same time you said you are paying your lawyers to find out if David and Jo can claim triple monetary damages from Leif and unspecified “others” (perhaps including myself) for some imagined damage to their reputations … perhaps it’s just me, but I find resorting to threats of legal action and triple monetary damages in a scientific discussion, however fractious, to be … well … not all that civil …

Monckton shot back:

That commenter finally presumes to give me legal advice. With respect, that is not a matter for him, nor am I aware that he has legal qualifications. I had not until recently realized the extent to which websites all over the place were accusing me of falsehoods and fabrications of which I was not guilty. One of these accusations was so effective that even our kind host here was initially taken in by it. However, unlike the commenter who has made such an uncommon nuisance of himself here, he quietly investigated the allegation in question, found it to have been entirely unmeritorious, and was good enough to publish the results of his researches. It will now be necessary for me to have that and other libels retracted and apologized for, so that no one else is taken in.

[NOTE:  That's why I'm betting that Monckton might bring up his claim to be a member of Parliament.  Anthony Watts ("our kind host") once posted an explanation by a lawyer Monckton hired, about why he is really a member, no matter what Parliament says.  I responded with a post about how ridiculous the lawyer's claims were. ]

Which brings us back to Willis’s plea to his fallen hero.

Christopher, please, I implore you as a friend, cease with the legal threats. Every time you make such a threat of legal action against some scientist that you disagree with, your credibility sinks another notch.

Yes, you have the means and the position and the title and the power and the friends and the money to cause trouble for people … do you truly not understand that your threats to use your power and money and advantages and hereditary title against some poor skeptical shlub like myself because you don’t like his claims just makes you look like an insecure bully? Is there truly no other way to defend yourself? Dang, dude, you can strip the hide off a buffalo with your unmatchable eloquence, or have half the world laughing at someone’s foolishness with your irascible wit … you don’t need legal means to set things straight, your intellect and your words are more than enough to do that.

Alas, Willis may still fail to realize that every time someone has bothered to look beyond Monckton’s “unmatchable eloquence” (translation:  “bombastic nonsense calculated to impress the credulous”) they have found the “intellect” lacking and the “words” misleading.  And they have very often become the target of his threats.  Lest any of us forget the history, I include here the “Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him” section of Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet.  I’ll have to update it, now.  [NOTE:  I did update it, and have pasted in the updates below.]

1. Monckton has threatened to instigate academic misconduct investigations and/or libel suits against several professors who have exposed his misrepresentations.  The list so far includes Naomi Oreskes, John Abraham, and myself.  He has even threatened a libel suit against John Abraham.  UPDATE:  Monckton has now threatened to extend the libel suit to include Scott Mandia.  Here is Scott’s reply.  UPDATE:  John Abraham tells me that Monckton has threatened lawsuits against him several more times, and Monckton has also threatened me, once again.  He also wrote my university administration to tell them I was mentally imbalanced, and that I had been sending him “hate mail”.  Well, at least the second part is false.  ;-)  UPDATE:  He also tried to get Tony Press (U. Tasmania) fired.  UPDATE:  Monckton also lodged a complaint at a New Zealand university against professors Jonathan Boston, David Frame, and Jim Renwick for “academic fraud” and libel.  The university investigated the complaint, then blew it off.  But before the verdict was in, Monckton threatened to sic the police on the university if they were to… you know… blow him off.  I’m sure the police have an entire unit on the case as I write this.  UPDATE:  When a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Lawrence Torcello, wrote an article saying it ought to be against the law to knowingly spread disinformation about climate change for profit, Monckton led the charge to send letters to the university administration asking for Torcello to be disciplined/fired because Torcello was allegedly attacking free speech and academic freedom.  The funny part about this one is Monckton’s flagrant hypocrisy.  Not too long ago, he  threatened to have IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri jailed for fraud (see #9 below) and whipped up an Australian crowd, chanting about having all the corrupt climate scientists jailed.  UPDATE:  Now Monckton is even threatening his fellow climate contrarians (Leif Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach) with lawsuits and trying to get them fired from academic jobs.  And he’s probably threatening to threaten me, again.  We’ll see.

2. He launched a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission in the UK against The Guardian because of a column George Monbiot wrote about Monckton’s antics.  The PCC threw out the complaint. In a bizarre twist, George Monbiot reported that someone claiming to be Monckton and using Monckton’s IP address had tried to edit his Wikipedia page to falsely claim that he had won a £50,000 settlement from The Guardian because of Monbiot’s article.

3. Monckton lobbed threats against Arthur Smith after Arthur objected that Monckton (and the Science and Public Policy Institute) had violated copyright.  Smith had written a rebuttal of one of Monckton’s articles, and was trying to get it published.  Monckton put the entire thing up on the web along with his comments, and altered the article to imply that Smith had written it at the behest of his employer, the American Physical Society, which was not true.  Arthur prevailed after threatening legal action, because he was clearly in the right.

4. John Mashey pointed out an instance where one contrarian had plagiarized from Monckton (and cited papers that had been challenged and withdrawn), and then Monckton turned around and praised the work.  When Richard Littlemore reported this, Monckton left a comment on the page saying that Mashey was “under investigation” for breaching “doctor-patient confidentiality,” and that he was guilty of “interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere.”  To this day, I don’t think anyone has any idea what Monckton was talking about.

5. George Monbiot chronicled how Monckton has threatened several times to sue The Guardian for libel.  The U.K. has libel laws that are absurdly in favor of plaintiffs, and yet, these lawsuits have never materialized.

6. Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe wrote an open letter to Exxon-Mobile, urging them to stop funding climate-contrarian “think-tanks,” whose tactics resemble those of the tobacco industry, Lord Monckton wrote an open letter to the senators, in which he said, “In the circumstances, your comparison of Exxon’s funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold.”  Ok, so this isn’t really a threat, but Monckton’s language is so bombastic and filled with fake moral outrage that it almost feels like a threat.  I should note that 1) in his letter, Monckton falsely claimed to be a member of Parliament, and 2) Naomi Oreskes, a prominent science historian, and Erik Conway, have shown that not only do the most prominent organizations fighting mainstream climate science follow the same playbook as the tobacco industry, but it’s often the SAME organizations and people doing the fighting on both fronts!

7. Monckton launched yet another complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against New Scientist magazine, which had the temerity to point out that Monckton’s article on climate sensitivity in an American Physical Society newsletter was not peer-reviewed, among other things.  Of course, the editor had specifically noted that the newsletter is not a peer-reviewed publication, but Monckton said he had the article critiqued by a “Professor of Physics,” i.e., someone who isn’t a climate specialist.   The complaint was not upheld.

8. His Lordship complained to Ofcom, the British regulator for TV and radio programming, that he had been unfairly treated by the producers of the BBC documentary, Earth:  The Climate Wars.  Ofcom found that the show’s producers should have given more information to Monckton upfront about the nature of the program (even though Monckton expressed familiarity with how the BBC had covered the issue in the past.)  However, they found that the lack of informed consent did not result in any misrepresentation of Monckton’s views by unfair editing.  The complaint summary linked above is a fascinating read, if you have about 15 minutes.

9. Monckton threatened to have IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri jailed for fraud because he used an IPCC graph that turns out to be correct, but misleading.  In his letter to Pachauri, however, His Lordship used a temperature graph that had already been shown by several scientists to be blatantly fabricated.  I’m sure Monckton is on his way to Scotland Yard right now to give himself up.

10. The BBC aired a documentary called “Meet the Climate Sceptics” which apparently focused largely on Lord Monckton.  (Click here to see the trailer.)  In fact Monckton unsuccessfully attempted to have the courts stop the BBC from airing it unless they allowed him to insert a 3 minute video rebuttal into the program.

11. The ABC (Australia) aired a rather stunning gutting of Monckton and his crowd.  Journalist Wendy Carlisle brought up several instances where Monckton’s sources contradicted him, the fact that he falsely claims to be a member of Parliament, his miracle cure-all, and more.  So of course, Monckton threatened to sue unless given airtime to reply.  They blew him off, and Monckton filed a complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, but the ACMA found that the ABC report did not violate its standards for impartiality and factual accuracy.

12. Monckton threatened to have Al Gore jailed when Gore gave a speech in Gibraltar .  “If you come to any British territory and you talk the rubbish you’ve been talking elsewhere, then you will be arrested and prosecuted.”

13. The Gibraltar Chronicle printed a redacted version of a letter Monckton wrote.  When Monckton’s PR guy threatened them with legal action unless they printed an unredacted version, the Chronicle told them to shove off, because the parts they took out were probably libelous.  The Chronicle article about the bullying incident seems to have been taken down, now, but I have a PDF copy.)

About these ads

Responses

  1. I’m impressed by your dedication to chronicling M. For my part, that legal envelope still hasn’t landed on my doorstep, despite as you say the UK laws.

    Re WE imploring M to drop the libel stick: that seems less “noble” than implied; AFAIK, those comments only apply to the proposed actions against LS. I don’t think WE will implore M in your defence, or mine, or anyone else WE doesn’t like: this is no “defend to the death your freedom” stuff.

    > And it involves math

    I think there is fun to be had with that, if you could bear it. Its the wonderfully back-patting way they have over there: all the E Eng, or wannabees, congratulating each other that they understand Big Sums.

    • The worst is when EE people start talking about “feedback”. They usually don’t understand that climate people use a different baseline for that than you would on a circuit, and proclaim that the climatologists don’t know that positive feedback would necessarily lead to unstable behavior. True for a circuit, but not when the Planck response is included in the baseline, rather than as a negative feedback.

  2. Like WC, I’m still waiting on LM. I gave him both email and snail mail addresses. I asked for his in return, but he never responded.

    • Maybe we should have a contest to see who can give the best reason for Monckton to threaten them?

      • I’ve tried many times to elicit a threat of lawsuit from Mr Monckton based on the close resemblance of his behaviour regarding the publicity around his first Eternity puzzle and fraudulent claims (associated with his having to sell his house to fund the prize) but so far I have been unsuccessful.

        Either I haven’t made enough noise to garner his attention or the subject is, for some reason, something he wishes to avoid…

  3. Reblogged this on uknowispeaksense and commented:
    pfffttt. I can imagine any letter of his Lordship’s sent to a university would end up stuck on a tearoom fridge for everyone to chuckle at. For Willis to grovel so publicly to his Lordship is vomit-inducing sycophanticy of the highest order and really speaks volumes to his judgment about anything. Monckton is an idiot.

  4. Barry Bickmore, you forgot to explain the second part of your title: “A Hero Has Fallen!” If a scientist would behave like this in the scientific community he would be dead, here it would be trivial, but I am not so sure in this political pressure group that opposes science. Did you see signs that the WUWT regulars object to Monckton’s behavior?

    If I were Willis, I would at least make Watts chose whether he would like to keep the Willis guest posts or the ones of Monckton.

    • Some people at WUWT sided with Monckton, and others with Svalgaard and Eschenbach. I don’t know all the regulars there, so I can’t completely answer that question.

  5. This has made my day. I have a big grin more just thinking of Monckton and has wacky ways.

  6. I just reposted on twitter. why does this remind me of a shakespeare farce?

  7. This is a tempest in a teapot. The believers have their sue-happy Michael Mann and the skeptics have their Monckton. But the fact remains we are dealing with junk science, with the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen. The link I posted on the 19th http://www.climatecentral.org/news/summer-temperatures-co2-emissions-1001-cities-16583
    asking regulars to comment on, doesn’t work today. Funny, last week,through its inscrutable algorithms, it showed every U.S. city warming by 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 if GHG’s continue as is. Every city. Pure hype. Typically exaggerated GW BS. Today it seems to be out of order.

    But no, we’re dealing with honest, settled science, we are told. The truth is there is not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this crap seriously. Let me give just one little argument: LOD, length of day, earth rotation.

    The earth slows down 2.3 milliseconds per century due to tidal braking. Over the historical record, including Chinese and Babylonian eclipse observations, it has slowed 1.7ms/century, the difference of 0.6ms/century being attributed to post glacial rebound. But since the invention of the atomic clock over half a century ago earth rotation has held even after some ups and downs. It hasn’t decelerated since 1960.

    What does that mean? Polar ice sits near the axis of rotation. When it melts it spreads over the ocean and slows the earth down, like a spinning skater letting her arms out. After the ice melts the ground rises to compensate and the earth speeds back up, enough to offset some of the tidal braking (as it has been doing since the earliest Babylonian records). So when we see such acceleration we know that ice loss less rebound is lower now than it has been over the last 3000 years. We are apparently recovering from the Little Ice Age.

    The only deus ex machinus to be invoked by the hysterical is that core/mantle coupling can affect LOD in cycles, but it can only be invoked for so long. Fifty lucky years in the desired direction is pushing the limits. Oceanographers as poles apart as Munk and Axel-Morner posit a deceleration of 0.1ms (per day) per cm of sea level rise, but if the ice doesn’t melt the sea won’t rise and the earth won’t slow down. And it’s not slowing down these days.

    Nor all your hype nor ignorance can change the earth clock. LOD says BS.
    –AGF

    • Given that you are a retired engineer, I don’t have much confidence in your pronouncements about who is a “competent scientist”.

      Mike Mann isn’t even on the same planet as Monckton in terms of being litigious. Mann has sued a couple times in cases where he had been accused of specific criminal behavior that had already been investigated and dismissed by public institutions like the National Academy of Science. Monckton goes about threatening anyone who insults him or even politely points out that his sources contradict his claims.

      Plus Monckton is way more entertaining.

  8. “Retired engineer?” That’s news to me. I think a reasonably defining trait of competence is not ignoring obviously constraining and conflicting data, such as I have just posted and you have just ignored. You also ignored Climate Central’s BS: 11F warmer everywhere! Uniformly! After 15 years of no warming! Peer reviewed? Ha ha. –AGF

    • Sorry, I thought I remembered you saying you analyzed circuits, so I assumed you were an EE.

      As for the Climate Central thing, what am I supposed to do with it? According to you, they took it down, so if there was some mistake maybe they realized it. I don’t know anything about the study they were talking about, and you don’t give any particular reason to doubt it. Since I never brought it up, I feel no responsibility to address it.

      Finally, there have not been 15 years of no warming. The trend is positive. The slope is statistically indistinguishable from both zero and from the longer-term trend over the past several decades.

  9. I must admit that I was hypnotized by the logic of ag’s “length of day” argument. Thankfully, the “no warming in x years” meme broke the spell.

    As for the good Lord’s antics, it begins to feel like laughing at the mentally ill.

    • I know what you mean. I periodically feel bad about it, but then I remember that Monckton’s narcissism won’t let him feel embarrassed or even acknowledge he has made any mistakes. The only ones who I hope feel stupid are the people who fall for his schtick. Some of them, at least, are capable of changing their minds.

    • “corey” has probably never seen a temperature graph–recent or otherwise, and he apparently paid no attention to BB’s adjacent comment: “The slope is statistically indistinguishable from both zero and from the longer-term trend over the past several decades.”

      Can anyone make sense out of that? BB is apparently claiming no statistically non-zero warming “over the past several decades”! We’ll await clarification on that.

      As for the Climate Central thing, no they didn’t take it down; it’s still there (the interactive feature only works intermittently), as it was when I first mentioned it on BB’s last June blog. He doesn’t want to acknowledge it: a predicted warming of 11F for U.S. cities generally, from a Climate Organization which claims funding from a number of government agencies, NOAA, NASA, etc. If BB had bothered to look he could have read this at any time: “Summers in Helena, Mont., will warm by nearly 12°F [by 2100], making it feel like Riverside, Calif.”

      It may or may not be useful to speculate on BB’s silence here; this is more a job for a psychologist than a scientist. But here is the essence of the problem:
      1) Climate Central’s claim goes way beyond the IPCC or any peer reviewed literature in attributing such a high climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2.
      2) Every city I checked with the interactive function warmed by 11 degrees F. No cooling nowhere. No mitigated warming nowhere. 11 plus degrees everywhere. So it’s obvious that their prediction is not based on any model with the slightest sophistication, or any model at all differing from the simple formula T2100=T2014+11.x F (eleven point x Fahrenheit).
      3) Accordingly CC may be accurately and honestly characterized as an organization dedicated to climate propaganda.

      These are the facts. For Bickmore to admit these facts he would have to admit that there is an element of exaggeration, of falsehood in the climate alarm machine, and if he were to admit such at any level, he would open a floodgate of possibility: the question becomes not whether but how much of the climate scare is fraudulent. And for him to allow that this percentage is non-zero is to attribute an element of reason and truth to the arch enemies at WUWT he so despises. The “deniers” are allowed at least a little credibility, at least as much as the con artists at Climate Central.

      Well, before I take this psychoanalysis any further I’ll give BB a third chance to respond. Come on, BB, let’s hear your take on CC’s BS.
      –AGF

      • The thread is about Christopher Monckton. Any chance you could stay on topic?

        • On topic? What is the topic? Monckton is an idiot? Watts is an idiot? Eschenbach is an idiot? Let’s see: Eschenbach is a “… construction manager, climate hobbyist, and frequent contributor to both the blog and the Heartland disinformation conference…”
          And Monckton’s “eloquence” is really “bombastic nonsense calculated to impress the credulous.” The “contrarians” are painted with a pretty broad brush, wouldn’t you say?

          Like I said, this is a tempest in a teapot, and Bickmore is the gossip moderator, and more: he is your quintessential Pharisee, straining at gnats and swallowing camels. He dwells on contrarian squabbles and ignores suicidal junk science. He complains about un-level tables on the Titanic. He is an emotional crybaby and an irrational ideologue.

          So, 97% of the experts agree: fluoride in your drinking water is good for your teeth. Now it’s the doctors’ turn: fluoride in the drinking water lowers your childrens’ IQ: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/14/fluoride-effects-in-children.aspx

          So as far as fluoride is concerned, the doubters were right, probably–we’ve been voluntarily poisoning our drinking water for 40 years. Damn them experts.

          And now, as Germany closes its nuclear plants and builds coal stations, to run on lignite, while Obama closes our coal plants and even coal mines poised to export to Europe, it’s still “settled science.” China can build coal stations a whole lot faster than we can close ours, and they really don’t take the climate scare seriously any more than Germany policy makers do. In fact no competent scientist does. Anywhere.
          –AGF

          • Yes, the topic is that Monckton is well, deranged, and yet many “skeptics” still follow him.

            Now you go off another one, fluoride. What’s next, DDT?

            • How about mercury? Break a prescribed light bulb nowadays and they’ll evacuate the building. Should we go back to tungsten or ignore PPB’s? I don’t care one way or another–both scares are bogus. –AGF

      • AG said: “Can anyone make sense out of that? BB is apparently claiming no statistically non-zero warming “over the past several decades”! We’ll await clarification on that.”

        Read what I said again.

        • How many times should I read it? ” The slope is statistically indistinguishable from both zero and from the longer-term trend over the past several decades.” Sounds like diehard denial to me. –AGF

          • Do you understand what it means? The trend over that period is positive. However, there is enough noise that the trend is statistically (at 95% confidence) indistinguishable from zero. What the dishonest fail to mention, however, is that it is also statistically indistinguishable from the longer-term trend of about 0.16 °C per decade. WHAT THIS MEANS, AG, is that the noise is dominant enough over the shorter time period that honest people (at least those who know how to interpret statistics like this) can’t really use it to say ANYTHING about whether the trend is the same as it has been for a while, or flat.

            Now that you know, I’m sure you will stop talking about how there has been no warming trend in x years, until you actually have the goods.

            • When you equate recent and not quite recent trends, calling one statistically not different from zero, you only acknowledge that the longer term trend is also insignificant. I agree. –AGF

            • Wrong. The longer-term trend is statistically distinct from zero by a longshot.

        • BB (on the Pause): “The slope is statistically indistinguishable from both zero and from the longer-term trend over the past several decades.”
          BB: “The longer-term trend is statistically distinct from zero by a longshot.”

          BB, a college professor, sees no contradiction here. I rest my case. –AGF

          • There is no contradiction for anyone who understands confidence intervals.

            • βυλλσηιτ. –AGF

            • κρακποτ

            • Oh, and besides not understanding statistics, you don’t know your greek letters. What you spelled would be pronounced something like “billseit”. If you want to be a truly effective crackpot, you need to learn how to drop some Latin and Greek like Monckton.

            • σκατά ταύρου

              Why transliterate when you can translate?

          • Let me see if I can explain it for you, AG. I’m going from memory, and they would differ from data set to data set, but the following numbers are in the ballpark.

            1. Suppose we calculate a slope for the global mean temperature over the last 15 years, including the 95% confidence interval, and it comes out to be something like 0.10 +/- 0.12 °C/decade. Why are the error bars so huge (plus or minus 0.12)? Because over that short of a time period, the random noise is quite significant in comparison with the overall temperature change.

            2. In any case, this means we are 95% confident that the “real” slope (if we could remove the random noise) is somewhere between -0.02 and +0.22. Do you see how that range overlaps zero? If it overlaps zero, then we say the slope is “not statistically significant,” or more precisely, “not statistically distinguishable from zero”.

            3. Now suppose we calculate a longer-term slope, say about 40-50 years, and we get a value something like 0.16 +/- 0.03 °C/decade. Thus, we are 95% confident that the “real” slope is somewhere between +0.13 and +0.19. This does NOT overlap with zero, so we can say that it IS statistically distinguishable from zero. Why are the error bars so small? Because the random noise is rather small compared to the total temperature change over that long of a period.

            4. If we compare the short-term (15 year) slope with the long-term (40-50 year) one, we can see that the error bars on the short-term slope overlap with +0.16, which is the long-term slope. Therefore, we can say that the short-term slope is not statistically distinguishable from the long-term slope.

            Does that make sense?

            • Upsilon is named for its sound, ‘u,’ not ‘i.’ And since there is no ‘sh’ sound in Greek I took the closest thing to an ‘h’ –eta, which derives from the Semitic ‘het,’ which in LXX is transliterated as ‘X’ –‘chi.’ Think you can render BS better? Go for it.

              Your statistics are just as bad–you use them to obfuscate rather than elucidate. Over the last 15 years or so, depending on which T data set we use (and only Spencer’s shows any warming), T goes flat. For the previous two decades there was a sharp rise, comparable to that in the 30’s and 40’s–i.e., nothing out of the ordinary. The planet has been warming since the LIA for which we are fortunate. But the warming has stalled on both a secular and a decadal scale, so the Pause and the flat LOD. You think 11F by 2100 is in the ball park? You are κλυελεσς. –AGF

            • No, upsilon has a sound that is similar to the German ü (u-umlaut), so it’s more like a cross between a u and a short i. And no, I don’t think I could render it better. I think you are a bizarre person for trying in the first place, given that there is no sh sound in Greek.

              Then you say my statistics are bad, but what is wrong with them? You can’t say. Because you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • AG said: “These are the facts. For Bickmore to admit these facts he would have to admit that there is an element of exaggeration, of falsehood in the climate alarm machine, and if he were to admit such at any level, he would open a floodgate of possibility: the question becomes not whether but how much of the climate scare is fraudulent.”

        AG, I don’t know what you are talking about. I even did a post one time about how I thought Al Gore sometimes exaggerates, or at least dwells on worst-case scenarios. You keep bringing up the Climate Central thing, but I don’t know anything about the study they were going on about. It seems a little far-fetched to me, but you gave no reason why you didn’t believe it, and I’m not that motivated to check into it at the moment.

        I was wondering why the @#$! you were going on about that, when I certainly didn’t ever bring such a thing up. It now seems clear that you just wanted to try to force me to admit that sometimes people who are worried about climate change exaggerate the problem, but it didn’t occur to me that’s what you were after, because the point seems so painfully obvious to me. Of course some of them do, whether or not that study reported by Climate Central is credible.

        OH NOOOOOoooooooooo!!!!! The floodgates are OPEN!!!!! I am at a loss about what to do with all this newfound ambiguity! I guess my only option is to become a conspiracy theorist wacko!

        • “Far fetched.” That’s better than nothing. But would you care to quantify? How far fetched? If we fail to cut back on CO2 emissions globally, how much will U.S. cities warm by 2100, in your opinion? Is that not a fair question to ask of someone who thinks skeptics are out in left field? You have just shown a wee bit of skepticism yourself, you know.

          And Gore goes overboard? Good, good. What about his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”? Was that science or propaganda? Maybe we can agree on something. –AGF

          • this is something I have never understood about climate deniers.
            I periodically get Lovelock thrown in my face, usually with the thoroughly ridiculous “Hansen-west-side-highway-underwater” and scientists said arctic would be “ice free by 2013″.
            I have always considered Lovelocks pronouncements ridiculous unscientific posturing. Some of An Inconvenient Truth was misleading or distorted. The Hansen thing is just an out and out lie, and only a couple of arctic experts made the 2013 claim and did so based on extrapolation, not science, .I will not support policy based on the methane calthrate alarmists, and, maybe you should sir down for this, I do not support any policy that will destroy amerces economy and force all the poor people of the world to starve while liberals drink cocktails in their upper east ice apartments getting rich from investments in subsidized renewables.
            I consider the small fraction of climate scientists who exaggerate beyond the science with a little more respect than the deniers, but they do not control an entire party that fashions policy based on ideology.
            In 1935 I would similarly have dismissed alarmists who insisted that Hitler as going to take over Europe next year. Certainly, it might have been conceivable, but all the evidence in every area made that extremely unlikely. but I would consider them much less dangerous than the ones who insisted Hitler was no problem and never would be a problem, and in fact he would make the world much better by preventing bolshevik takeover.

          • The thing is, AG, that I already said I don’t know anything about the study. I have an idea about what the projections are for global mean temperatures, and I would expect the USA to be a little higher than the mean, but I don’t really know how much. I would expect cities to be higher than that, but I don’t really know how much. What’s more, cities would be the easiest place to do some adaptation, like using lighter-colored road materials and planting more trees. In any case, 11 °C sounds pretty extreme to me, but I don’t have anything up my sleeve to refute it. You haven’t produced anything, either. I’m not really motivated to go further than that, and you don’t seem to be, either. So given that neither of us seems to want to dig in to this one, why don’t we just agree that it sounds high to both of us, and move on?

            As for Al Gore, here’s what I wrote about him:

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/

            • No, it’s 11 °F, not 11 °C, and this is worst case (IPCC RCP8.5).

              Perhaps this deserves its own thread?

            • If it’s 11 °F, and it’s a worst-case scenario, then that doesn’t seem so far-fetched to me.

            • RE: By: TrueSceptic on July 30, 2014
              at 6:05 am
              and By: Barry Bickmore on July 30, 2014
              at 7:34 am

              The 11F supposes an untenable climate sensitivity, untenable because it would have precluded “the Pause.” We would be warming by 1F per decade now, not 0.16C or zero, or anything like what we are seeing. IPCC at least inserts a caveat: “The RCPs were chosen to represent a broad range of climate outcomes, based on a literature review, and are neither forecasts nor policy recommendations*,” but Climate Central has no interest in caution. They are in the business of alarm.
              –AGF

              * http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html

            • Exactly. I don’t know if AGF is deliberately misrepresenting what ClimateCentral is saying or just couldn’t be bothered to read beyond the “headlines” but I notice that he hasn’t commented there to complain. He said “Climate Central’s claim goes way beyond the IPCC or any peer reviewed literature” but this is not true; they are using the worst-case scenario, admittedly, but this *is* a scenario used in IPCC reports. I’ve commented at CC asking if the interactive feature could include an option to use other RCPs (and also include other countries!).

            • Re By: TrueSceptic on July 30, 2014
              at 9:09 am

              I put this comment in at CC a few hours ago but it hasn’t posted:

              “I see this model has Miami warming by 6F, while most of the country warms by 11F. Presumably polar warming would be amplified, leading to ice melting and sea level rise. If the West Antarctic goes any time soon that should put Miami under water, which ought to cool it a little. Still beach property values rise–everyone’s a skeptic. Except Al Gore, who has wisely bought his $9M beach house on the CA coast, high above the ocean. –AGF”

              I don’t spend a lot of time on alarmist sites–few of them accept critical comments. Obviously this one does as seen by all the skeptical wisecracks. But your post is naïve. Like all alarmists they want to scare you, and your request from their perspective is that of a skeptic–a skeptic who thinks they are concerned with keeping things honest. You have a hell of a lot to learn.

              To BB’s credit he lets us contrarians have our say. He’s a rare bird. –AGF

            • It took a while for my comment to appear. I can’t see why yours won’t given the other comments already there.

              Re “critical comments”, you are simply wrong. What they don’t accept is the sort of offensive, ignorant drivel that dominates cesspits like WUWT. Our host has been very patient in dealing with your obvious ignorance and delusions but he hasn’t banned you, has he?

              I’ve been following this for a long time, and been commenting in forums and blogs since the ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle” appeared on C4 in the UK so I please don’t say I have anything to learn about who’s “keeping things honest”. What’s it like living a world where all these people “want to scare you”?

            • Oh, and earlier you said

              it showed every U.S. city warming by 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 if GHG’s continue as is. Every city. Pure hype.

              You even said “every” twice to emphasise how thorough you had been. You later came up with a simple equation.

              Every city I checked with the interactive function warmed by 11 degrees F. No cooling nowhere. No mitigated warming nowhere. 11 plus degrees everywhere. So it’s obvious that their prediction is not based on any model with the slightest sophistication, or any model at all differing from the simple formula T2100=T2014+11.x F (eleven point x Fahrenheit).

              All along the site has said

              On average, summer heat is projected to warm 7-10°F, though some cities will have summers 12°F warmer than they are now.”

              You now say it’s 6 °F for Miami, which is correct.

              Given the way you just make stuff up, can we we trust anything you say?

            • Touché. Here’s what I suggest: ask CC for the code used to calculate the city T’s. BTW they still haven’t posted my comment. Maybe they detect a mocking attitude. –AGF

            • So, in typical denialist fashion, you refuse to admit that you made stuff up and now you try to change the subject again.

              Your comment is no more mocking than many others at CC.

            • TrueSceptic on July 31, 2014
              at 8:40 am

              No, you moron, I didn’t make stuff up. I tried a number of U.S. cities and got 11F. Only later did I get curious about coastal cities, wondering how much they thought SST would rise. Not only is there not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate crap seriously, but no layman who has had an intelligent thought in his life does either. –AGF

            • Oh yeah, they finally posted my comment.

            • Others will, of course, have their own view, but I wouldn’t trust anything that AGF says without looking it up myself. Deliberate misrepresentation or simple carelessness? Only he knows, but the result is the same: you don’t get the true story.

            • Yes, I was careless. I represented CC a little better than it really is. The truth is CC presented a worst case scenario–one explicitly intended as NOT to be a prediction–as a prediction. And on top of that this is a worst case emissions scenario combined with worst case climate sensitivity–not really worst case CS but thoroughly debunked CS–debunked by nature. The pause has been sufficient to disprove a high climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling.

              This is a repeat of the old “no more snow in 20 years” BS. CC never learns. Neither does BB or our “TrueSceptic.” –AGF

            • Wait, wait… I thought all models were crap and that no one had any idea how climate works except that it changes.

              But now you’re telling me that some climate scientist somewhere knows that The Pause provides climate is insensitive to CO2?

              The self-contradictions here grow ever larger!

  10. Barry,

    There are 2 distinct threats-to-sue threads in this story, although they both originated from the Evans theory being launched at Jo Nova’s site (Evans is Nova’s other half, of course).

    The first one is the one you describe, where Eschenbach objected to Evans keeping his “code” secret and Svalgaard objected to Evans’s use of incorrect solar data in “proving” his theory. Svalgaard takes no prisoners when it comes to solar data and made it very clear that he considered Evans’s data to be invalid if not fraudulent, so any theory based on it is necessarily wrong. Monckton is a good friend of Nova/Evans (he’s stayed with them during his Australian lecture tours) so he was unlikely not to support Evans. This escalated to threats of suing for libel when Eschenbach and Svalgaard refused to back down and apologise to Evans.

    The second begins with the use of a graphic in Evans’s post at jonova which was spotted by William Connolley as being used in an article by Monckton some years ago in the Sunday Telegraph (UK newspaper). The graphic is a misrepresentation and Evans/Nova replaced it with a valid one when William pointed this out. This, however, led to a discussion at Stoat and WUWT about the Monckton graphic. Monckton said it was nothing to do with him but something inserted into his article by the Telegraph without his prior consent and he would sue William if he continued to claim that Monckton was responsible for it. In addition Monckton claimed that a further graph he included in his reference PDF for the Telegraph article was sourced from an IPCC report. When Kevin O’Neill pointed out that this graph was a fabrication and not the IPCC one, Monckton threatened to sue him.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/27/battle-of-the-graphs/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/about-that-graph/

    So, I think you have even more to add to the Rap Sheet.

  11. one incredible point is that Monckton was called to testify to the US Senate as a “climate expert.” He is so transparently off the wall, that it takes a complete lack of knowledge to accept anything that he says. AS bad as Ian Plimer, who is actually a professor in Australia. The we have James Taylor and others of the Heartland Institute who are so good at mocking science and scientists and misleading with half truths that I have no doubt that they are “deceiving” on purpose. Yet, certain Congressmen and others in our government actually quote these people. I once had a Facebook conversation with a GOP congressman with an MD degree I assumed that he knew enough about science and data that he would see that he was wrong in many of his posts if he only looked at the long term data. But alas, I could not get him to look at the data and he still believed that James Taylor was a credible source.

  12. I know you are slightly obsessed with Monckton, but I personally would have preferred you critiqued the work by Dr Evans instead of this silly little sideshow.

    • Does that need any critique when even many “skeptics” think it’s rubbish? All the same, Stoat did a piece about it.

      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/18/force-x-from-outer-space/

      • Thanks for the link. Now do you have one that is sensible?

        Sorry, I’m trying to follow the logic here. If some sceptics think work by fellow sceptics is rubbish, then accept and ask no questions.

        But if some sceptics think work by “believers” is rubbish, then hang on! They are denying the science and no doubt funded by big oil, tobacco, Koch bros etc etc, believe NASA faked the moon landing and branded criminals.

        • Why would you expect anything sensible about the Evans theory? It’s not even at the ‘Energy & Environment’ level. Mockery is all it will ever receive from any sensible person who knows anything at all about the subject.

          I don’t get what you’re saying. Do you understand why I put “skeptics” in quotes?

          • I’m sure you get exactly what I’m saying. Do you understand why I put “believers” in quotes?

            • No, not really, unless you are saying that there are 2 “sides” to this and that they are somehow equivalent. If so, I cannot agree.

            • Now it is me that doesn’t get what you are saying.

              “..2 “sides” to this and that they are somehow equivalent.”

              Are you about to invoke the “97%” rule whereby arguments from sceptics should never be aired? False balance and all that.

          • Genuine scepticism is an inherent part of the scientific process, and is already represented in the published literature. Are you saying that fake scepticism (jonova, WUWT, etc.) should be given equal credence with the science?

            • Not sure what fake scepticism is supposed to mean. Being the true sceptic I guess you would though.

              It appears you have confused science with scientists. Big difference.

            • You clearly can’t understand simple English. I described the scientific process. Where did I even mention scientists? Fake scepticism is any old tripe that disagrees with the established science, regardless of how dishonest or incompetent it is. This is what you seem to prefer to the real thing.

            • You didn’t mention scientists anywhere, that’s why I said you were confused. Get it now?

              Disagreeing with the establishment was it? Maybe there should be a clause that separates church from climate science.

            • It is you who is confused, not to say unintelligible. Do you have any idea about the subject, or even what you are saying?

              But why waste your time here when you can contribute to something “sensible” at Jo Nova’s site?

            • Sadly, the answer to my “get it now?” question is still a no. But that’s okay, I’m sure it’ll come to you eventually.

              Sorry, my second sentence may have been a touch too crytic and off subject, especially for someone who appears to be British.

        • TS is right, Colin. A quick look at what Evans is doing should convince anyone that it’s simple curve-fitting. (Well, maybe not so simple. Some of it is truly bizarre.) I mean, we can measure the radiation coming from the Sun, and unless the Sun is changing mass all the time, we probably have a handle on the gravitational forces. What’s left? His “Force X” can’t have anything to do with nuclear strong or weak forces, so it must be a NEW FUNDAMENTAL FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE!!! Well, I certainly don’t want to simply dismiss the idea that we could discover new fundamental forces, but I just don’t buy that we will find such a thing by messing around with curve-fits relating solar radiation to global temperature using unbelievably long lag times and such. Especially when Leif Svalgaard (who is a solar physicist, at least) tells us the solar data Evans is using is crap.

          Do YOU think anyone should take it seriously?

          • Now that wasn’t so hard, now was it? (:

            I guess it could have been worse, they could have stated the missing heat X had mysteriously gone to the deep oceans.

            • Do you honestly equate the two? In the case you mention, someone postulates a physical process that is known to happen, but we don’t have the measurements to get a good estimate of the magnitude. In Evans’s case, he postulates some unknown force that can’t be anything anyone has heard of.

              There is a difference between reasonable conjecture and crackpot nut-jobbery.

            • My comment was mischievous on purpose. Perhaps your “a physical process that is known to happen” was also.

            • No, thermal mixing is known to happen in water… really. What’s more, they can do “reanalysis” runs of AOGCMs that are driven by actual weather data, and estimate how much heat is getting shoved down into the deep water that way. Not as good as measurements, but that’s expensive.

              See the “… really” in the first sentence above. That was meant to be mischievous. ;-)

            • Ahhhh okay, if the models say it is so then it must be true.

              I get it now, no, “really” I do. :-)

            • Colin, what was wrong with Stoat’s piece on this? Barry has said something very similar.

            • Come on now, Colin. Setting aside our little contest of snark subtlety, thinking models are infallible is not the same thing as thinking models are a reasonable way of going about answering a particular question, given current limitations.

              What do you think of Evans’s work? Is it really worth bothering with? Can you see why I consider it crack-pottery?

            • Fair enough. Mine were mainly said in jest.

              I guess the broad issue I have with climate models is the uncertainly is understated and the projections overstated.

              I have no doubt that models are essential for climate research but with the obvious focus on CO2, it seems a case of the tail wagging the dog.

              As to evaluating Dr Evan’s work, well I’ll leave that to people more proficient in Fourier transforms than me.

            • As to evaluating Dr Evan’s work, well I’ll leave that to people more proficient in Fourier transforms than me.

              Now you really are being ironic.

              If you’re not, why not join in at
              http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/notching-up-open-review-improvements-a-correction-to-part-iii/ , where it seems some major amendments have been announced?

            • Thanks for the sensible link.

              Actually I wasn’t being ironic but it appears after reading it, as you state, there are to be some improvements to the model.

              You have to give credit to Dr Evans though who appears a little embarrassed by the error and possibly puts it down to confirmation bias.

            • “I have no doubt that models are essential for climate research but with the obvious focus on CO2, it seems a case of the tail wagging the dog.

              What should we focus on? CO2 is changing rapidly and is having a strong effect on climate. Would you prefer us to study current volcano activity which has been fairly subdued the past few years? Or maybe we can concentrate on changes in how the earth orbits the sun, which … hasn’t changed much in the past few years. Or we can concentrate on solar radiance variation, which … has’t changed much in the past few years.

              So we should concentrate really hard on all the stuff that isn’t changing and ignore the one thing that is changing? That will help us better understand our current circumstances?

          • If that is “sensible” then I don’t know what to say, other than, why did I need to tell you about it?

            I give credit to Evans for being sincere, if deluded.

            • Well considering the post from Professor Bickmore was basically having a wee moan about another blogger and it’s contributors, who, as it happens, were in disagreement regarding a recent theory.

              Therefore I would say a link to a site whereby the creator of this new theory actually explains and discusses it, is sensible. Wouldn’t you?

            • Actually, the post was about the antics of Christopher Monckton but some have chosen to take it way off topic.

              Anyway, please report back in a few months on the progress of the Force X model. You can even download the whole thing and help develop it. ;)

            • Nice of them not to hide the data. How very open.

            • Entertaining antics in the blogosphere. Real scientists are busy enough keeping up with the published literature to even read, much less reply to “theories” by Evans and other unpublished tribble. The only problem is that there are still people who take the likes of Evans, Monckton and Nova (and also Watts seriously, and not as pure entertainment.

    • Don’t minimize my Monckton obsession, Colin. I feel slighted. ;-)

      • Have you read the Hot Topic stories, BTW (I listed them in an earlier comment)? I’m sure any Monckton obsessive would enjoy them.

  13. Sorry Barry, but I think it’s time for an Intervention.

  14. No amount of Monckton bashing will negate the facts of the weather that are counter to the IPCC global warming CO2 driven model. Summer Arctic temperatures in 2014 are BELOW average. Arctic Ice has returned in 2013 and 2014. Satellite measured global temperatures have done a U-Turn and are headed down, while CO2 continues to rise. Winters are getting longer and more record cold temperatures occur than record warm temperatures, EVEN in Summer! The actual facts of weather have proven over the last ten years that the IPCC based model has failed. The next two years will be so cold that it will be obvious to everyone the actual weather is opposite, yes opposite to the IPCC predictions. Who are the Deniers now? To see the facts, see inconveniencetruth.com.

    • Below what average? And are you really talking about a 3-year trend in a climate discussion?

      • Yes, I am. Look at what has happened in the last two years regarding arctic ice and arctic temperatures and global temperatures. See the links at the beginning of my blog at http://paullitely.wordpress.com. This is the end of the flat, slightly downward profile and the beginning of serious cooling. Look especially at the arctic ice jump up in 2013, with the very definite jump up in the recent months of 2014.

    • “The next two years will be so cold…”. You seem so certain, so perhaps you could tell us more. Does the 2 year period start now or next January, and will it be a global drop or just in some regions? Could you put some figures on “so cold”? What are you basing this on?

      • The solar minimum is heading for a new trough so global cloud cover will rise further causing cooling into a little ice age.
        Upper atmosphere water vapor (97% of greenhouse gas effects) continues to decline rapidly, greenhouse effect on Earth, counter to CO2 “Amplification” theory. CO2 only responsible for 1/2% of greenhouse effect. Upper atmosphere drying supports increased cloud cover as water vapor condenses.
        Atlantic Ocean decadal oscillation now makes North Atlantic cooling. Pacific Decadal Oscillation has stayed in La Niña mode. With warm spot off Alaska. And cold equatorial Pacific. This means Colder still North America for couple years at least and most likely ten years.

        • I see. We aren’t in a solar minimum. We’re currently on an upswing in the TSI and sunspot cycle, so I’m guessing that you are expecting something like the Maunder Minimum to start in a few years?

          That would be around 2020, assuming the roughly 11-year cycle. I don’t see that that’s likely and in any case that’s not the “next 2 years”. BTW Leif Svalgaard thinks the reconstructions are wrong and there is much less variation in the solar minima than is currently assumed. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png

          The rest is just assertion.

          Again, care to put some figures on your guesses for average global temperatures over the next few years?

    • Let’s check the claims:
      1. summer arctic temperatures below average. True. But why do you leave out that winter arctic temperatures were muuuuuuuch higher than average?

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

      is it
      a) “because it is inconvenient for my narrative”
      b) “answer a, but I can’t say that, because it would make me look like an ideologue, and I am surely not such a person, no sirree!”

      2. “Arctic Ice has returned in 2013 and 2014″. Well, it also “returned” in 2009 and 2010 compared to 2008. Then 2011 was only a little bit lowe than 2008r, and then 2012 happened…
      Conclusion: rather weak evidence of anything. Also, 2014 is currently at 2013 levels.

      3. “Satellite measured global temperatures have done a U-Turn and are headed down”
      Which satellite measurements would that be? Not UAH if you take your 3-year trend:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

      Not RSS either:

      http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

      But maybe I am missing a satellite series?

      4. ” Winters are getting longer”. What does this mean, and where? Not here, that’s for sure. We had our 5th warmest winter, with the 4th highest low temperature ever recorded during winter.

      5. “more record cold temperatures occur than record warm temperatures, EVEN in Summer”. Again, where? Not where I live! Are you perhaps focusing a wee bit too much on that little part of the world called “part of the US”? If indeed “US”, then for 2014 you actually have to look solely at July 2014, because if you’d include June, your claim doesn’t work so well, now, doesn’t it?

      • 1. It is important that arctic temperatures in 2014 are below the historic mean because Summer Temperatures are the only time temperatures rise above freezing, allowing ice to melt.

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

        2. 2014 Arctic Ice is almost back to the Mean, way above 2013 levels, and 2013 levels were half way back to the Mean from the 2012 levels.

        3. Global Temperatures from HADCRUT that now uses satellite data shows a distinctive curve down with a best fit polynomial curve. http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif

        4. Cold Records are Lower than warm records are higher

        5. July set hundreds of Cold temperature records all across the USA from coast to coast. A Climate Central Post

        http://www.climatecentral.org/news/july-record-lows-eastern-us-17831

        • 1. You might want to check the summer temperature for the years since 2006. You will find several years, one can even argue most years, where the temperature was below the mean. Even 2012 isn’t very special for the period temperatures are above zero. Hmmm…maybe the correlation is not as good as you think.

          2. And a few weeks ago it was more than a standard deviation lower. “way” above the 2013 level it isn’t, it lies practically on top of the 2013 level.

          3. LOL! I know some people are easily impressed, but Humlum’s 5th order polynomal fits are as unscientific as they get. Ask anyone who knows how to analyze this type of data, and they’ll be shocked anyone can seriously use a 5th order polynomal without even the slightest attempt to provide a rationale. And no, a better r2 is not a good rationale (because then the 7th order is better again, just not as good for your claim). His fit is also extremely dependent on start and end values, so it goes from “OMG we are all going to die tomorrow because of heat!” to “OMG we are all going to die tomorrow because of cold!”
          Also, I’m not sure what satellite data you think HADCRUT4 uses. Not for the land-based temperatures (no, they have not implemented Cowtan and Way just yet, which would make Humlum’s fit quite different, too).
          Sorry, but this one shows you do not even have the mathematical skills to see how deceptive Humlum’s fit is

          4. That graph does not show winters are getting longer.

          5. As I thought, you focus solely on the US and ignore June (where, on aggregate, there were more record warm than record cools). Perhaps you can explain why temperatures in the US are supposed to be representative of the whole world?

        • LEP,

          1. Yes, you would think that the temperatures above freezing are the only ones allowing ice to melt (there’s even a 0 °C line on the chart) but it doesn’t work like that. Compare
          http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php with
          http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ or http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
          and you will see that minimum ice extent occurs in mid-late Sep (after about day 260). Look at 2007-2011. After the 2007 record for minimum extent, it looked like things might level off for a while, or even return towards the average, but then we had 2012. The trend is strongly downward and it’s likely that 2012 will be beaten in the next few years. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

          2. No, as Marco said, 2014 is *very* similar to 2013 and still below the average.

          3. You can get a great fit by choosing a polynomial of the right order but it has no predictive power. Try it with earlier end-points and see what happened afterwards in each case.

          4&5. Marco said it all, really.

    • So, no response from paullitely. He makes claims that are, shall we say, economical with the truth. When questioned, he seems unable to offer any defence.

      • TrueSeptic,

        Look again, i did respond when I found this blog again.

  15. Barry, you are going to love this one:

    http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/scroll-bar-defeats-lord-monckton/

    • The News Room peel-back in the top right corner must have really freaked him out. What’s hiding under the rest of that page? More New World Order shenanigans, of course!

  16. Stein has submitted a brief of amicus curiae to the DC Superior Court:

    http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6514.pdf

    as always landing two blows on Mann for every jab Monckton ever had to deflect.

    Question for all believers: why does CO2 track CH4 in the ice cores?
    –AGF

    • “Question for all believers: why does CO2 track CH4 in the ice cores?”

      1. Maybe because warming causes the release of both gases from various reservoirs.

      2. Maybe because CH4 reacts with O2 in the atmosphere to form CO2 and H2O.

      Question for anyone who thinks AG’s question is relevant to anything. Why did the C-14/C-12 (correcting for radioactive decay) and C-13/C-12 ratios both drop precipitously in ice and snow core records since the Industrial Revolution?

      • There is an established explanation for the low C14/C12 and C13/C12 ratios since the industrial revolution. It follows the activity of the sun inversely. We have had an extended warming period during since the industrial revolution because the Sun has been very active. The way this works is not intuitive, and therefore it has escaped understanding until about ten to fifteen years ago.
        An active sun (measured by sunspots for the layman) also has an active magnetic field that extends past the Earth. This magnetic field shields the Earth from Cosmic rays that are basically high speed protons and neutrons released by violent events in space. Positively charged protons are deflected away by the sun’s active magnetic field.

        Cosmic rays are responsible for conversion of C12 to heaver C13 and C14. The reduced proton cosmic rays then reduce the conversion of C12 to C14. It is this very mechanism that fooled the best climate scientists all over the world who thought the Sun had little effect because its radiance changes very little with sunspot activity. When the C14 and C13 curves were compared to the Sunspot curves, they were almost a perfect inverse match. More sunspots, less C14 and C13. Less sunspots, More C14 and C13. So, this shielding effect by the Sun’s magnetic field when the Sun is active prevents proton cosmic rays from reaching Earth.

        How Climate scientists were fooled is that they did not realize that an inactive Sun allows cosmic rays to hit the Earth;s atmosphere, and when they do, they stimulate water vapor to condense and make clouds. Clouds are very reflective and send the Sun’s energy back out into space. This conversion of Water Vapor, the most important Greenhouse gas, responsible for 97% of the Earth’s atmospheric greenhouse effect….. into clouds, causes cooling. At any one time, the Earth is covered 62% to 70% with clouds. Variations in this global cloud cover varies the reflectivity of the Earth like a venetian blind.

        Basically, clouds cause cooling by reflection, and precipitation. Precipitation is a negative feedback function. As water vapor condenses, it releases heat. That heat gets radiated into space as well, leaving the condensed water as cool clouds and cool rain, causing further cooling. Unless the cloud cover moves out of the way so the water can absorb the Sun’s energy, is stays as water or snow or ice. If the clouds move out of the way, then the water absorbs the heat, evaporating. This has a cooling effect, but the heat is stored in the water vapor. This is another negative feedback effect. The combination of the two negative feedbacks keeps the system from runaway.

        The conversion of water vapor to clouds is the ultimate negative feedback, keeping water vapor from getting denser and denser by heating and evaporation. At some point, the Water Vapor condenses, releasing the heat as radiation into space, and forming clouds that shade it from the Sun. Thus, there is no additional heat from the Sun to be absorbed. This dual negative feedback is very effective in keeping an even temperature.

        With an inactive Sun, cosmic rays stimulate early condensation of the water vapor, releasing heat early and forming clouds early, exaggerating the cooling effect.

        It is this cooling effect that is deemed to be responsible for the lack of amplification for CO2 greenhouse effects, and for the lowered humidity we are seeing at higher altitudes. Water Vapor simply cannot hold as much heat and condenses when Cosmic Rays are abundant and the Sun is in a low activity mode. This is why the CO2 model never worked. The Sun fooled us into thinking it was only directly heating with a small variation in radiance.

        The indirect effect of the Sun is so huge, it even drowns out the Greenhouse effect. It does this because water vapor is convertible into water, now and ice, with huge loss or gain of heat. This indirect effect of the Sun is so powerful that we are entering a deep cooling, based on historical periods when the Sun;s activity as measures by sunspots was very low. No matter what we say or do, we are cooling here on Earth, and it will be more and more obvious with each year as winters get longer and deeper.

        The Sun is now headed back down to nearly zero sunspot activity as it was four to five years ago. We are actually at a peak that is 50% lower than the peak in 2000, and that one was 30% lower than 1998. It is bad. We are going into a very cold period. It has already begun. The arctic ice extent has returned almost back to the normal mean, from the lowest period in 2012. It only took two years, 2013 and 2014. The cooling will accelerate as the current sunspot maximum dives down to zero again, as it was for about two years in 2009-2010. The sun’s poles are flipping. There is no reason o believe the Sun’s activity will rebound quickly, if it does at all for one or two normal cycles. There will be no warming until the flip is completed and gets established. It may take 20 to 40 years.

        We have been preparing for exactly the wrong thing because the CO2 climate model was trumped up with amplification that water vapor cold never provide since it changes state into water, snow and ice and goes back again within the normal seasonal weather temperature ranges we have on Earth. One of these states is as clouds in the atmosphere, shading the area underneath and very effectively reflecting infrared back into space. Clouds, it turns out, are indirectly controlled by the Sun’s magnetic field that varies in cycles of about 20 years, with longer cycles of about 160 years and 210 years, and those longer cycles are having a concident miniumum right now.

        Earth’s inhabitants are not getting much notice. within the next two years, this dramatic dive in temperatures will be so obvious, another panic will set in. You see, Global Cooling is a mortal danger. Freezing temperatures kill. Cold short growing seasons prevent growing plants and animals for food. The predictions for Global Warming were bad, but the predictions for Global Cooling are far worse. Millions, perhaps Billions of humans could die if we cannot adapt.

        • Wrong. C-13 is a stable isotope, not cosmogenic. You also just pulled the part about the C-13 and C-14 curves being almost a perfect match with sunspot activity out of you-know-where. Science isn’t your thing.

          • We will both watch the weather over the next few years.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.figures-only

            • And whatever happens to the weather, C-13 will still be a stable, non-cosmogenic isotope.

            • considerthisinfo, yes, we will all watch the weather (as if we don’t already).

              Care to put some numbers to your temperature prediction? We only have to wait 2 years to find out if you’re right.

              It’s odd that someone else was here very recently making similar claims about imminent catastrophic cooling.

        • Wow! Where does considerthisinfo get this from? Some links might be “interesting”.

        • “The arctic ice extent has returned almost back to the normal mean, from the lowest period in 2012.”

          Good to know: being over two standard deviations away from the mean is “almost back to the normal mean”.

          Apparently an IQ of 69 is nearly the same as an IQ of 100.

      • Barry Bickmore on August 12, 2014
        at 8:41 pm
        “1. Maybe because warming causes the release of both gases from various reservoirs.
        “2. Maybe because CH4 reacts with O2 in the atmosphere to form CO2 and H2O.”

        Number one is right: CO2 and CH4 are controlled by temperature. Or rather all three are controlled by albedo, that is, ice sheet area. And of course Gore was dead wrong on his key claim, one universally accepted by the believers.

        As for number two, that doesn’t help, since because of the noted reaction CH4 has only a 10 year residence in the air. Both gasses must be continually emitted when the ice melts, at a fairly constant ratio. Accordingly the evidence for GHG amplification is zilch, which is to be expected seeing as orbital forcing varies by 100W/m^2 TOA (mid June, 65°N) amplified by delayed albedo feedback (ice area) while GHG’s add 1 or 2 watts. And ‘amplification’ is a bit of a misnomer, since it is clearly albedo rather than insolation which governs T, CO2 and CH4. Milankovitch cycles trigger melting; ice area runs the show. –AGF

        • You can’t directly compare orbital forcing at a very high northern latitude in June to global forcing by GHGs. Comparing the total orbital forcing to the GHG forcing is reasonable.

          In any case, does anyone dispute that albedo feedback is the big player in the Pleistocene? Well, actually yes. It’s Roy Spencer.

          • Wrong as always. We could as well use 50°N; or 90°N. 65 is preferred by most; N Calder likes 50. The crucial factor is insolation at the melting edge of the ice, and when the parameters are lined up the temperate zone gets up to 100W/m^2 of extra insolation, TOA. On a clear day at noon that raises the ground temperature enough to melt the ice faster than it snowed the previous year. So the ice cap recedes. I doubt that Spencer or anyone else denies that loss of ice cover will not dramatically increase local T. And when albedo goes from near one to near zero over 20% of the earth’s surface over a few thousand years, that’s where you get a 10°C rise in global T. It’s comical to claim that GHG’s can beat that, and of course the core evidence disproves your claim: CO2 and CH4 (and T) track well because all three are responding to albedo–not each other.

            That’s how Milankovitch cycles govern ice ages–by alternating summer sunshine between hemispheres. Grade school science that Hansen and Gore never learned. –AGF

            • You are missing my point. Changes in insolation at a certain latitude are not directly comparable to a global forcing. You are right that the big dog on the block is changes in albedo, but that does not amount to 100 W/m2 total forcing. Get it? When people like Hansen calculate the magnitude of the ice-albedo feedback, they do it properly, and find that it is insufficient to explain the temperature change.

              And no, Roy Spencer doesn’t believe Milankovitch cycles are driving the cycles. See my review of The Great Global Warming Blunder.

            • For Hansen or any to calculate albedo less miniscule GHG forcing they would have to know cloud response precisely, which they don’t. Hansen has not a clue whether ice albedo feedback is sufficient to explain T change. –AGF

            • Spencer (2009): ” If one assumes it is the length of summer in the Southern Hemisphere (rather than average yearly solar intensity) which is the main driving force for changing the Antarctic ice sheet, and also accounts for the fact that it takes many thousands of years for the ice sheet (and thus the temperature) to change in response to that summertime forcing, then the Southern Hemisphere Milankovitch cycles really do line up pretty well in time with the smaller Vostok events (but still not the huge 100,000 year events), and the “forcing” involved also becomes larger.”

              http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/ice-ages-or-20th-century-warming-it-all-comes-down-to-causation/

              Did Spencer backtrack from this? I don’t have his book. But Spencer notes how Hansen uses irrelevant annual averages while Huybers and Denton stress summer length as the link between M cycles and ice melt. It’s hard to believe Hansen didn’t know better. –AGF

            • I think you have the wrong idea of what Hansen did in this kind of calculation. Both the albedo estimates and the GHG forcing are lumped together to get a total forcing. (Both are actually feedbacks, but you can treat them like forcings for an equilibrium calculation.) Then you use the temperature change and the total forcing to estimate the sensitivity.

            • Also, for Spencer’s backtracking see Part 2 of my review of his book. (Click the Roy Spencer tab above to find it.) He said he doesn’t think we have a clue what caused the glacial-interglacial cycles.

            • The question is what melts the ice. The answer is peak summer insolation, which varies at the edge of the ice at noon by nearly 100W/m^2 TOA due to orbital forcing. Using daily averages obscures the picture–the ice doesn’t melt much at night. Using annual averages obscures the picture even further. The ice doesn’t melt in winter. The ice melts in the middle of a clear summer day, and that’s the insolation difference we are concerned with, and it’s nearly two orders of magnitude greater than any GHG feedback. Likewise the albedo feedback is on the order of 30W/m^2 in the middle of a summer day, an order of magnitude greater than GHG feedback.

              By absurdly using insolation annual averages Hansen is able to bring down orbital forced insolation into the range of GHG feedback, and thereby claim very high climate sensitivity. It isn’t 5W that melts the ice, it’s the 80W on a clear summer day. Insolation plus albedo feedback render GHG’s moot. Cloud feedback is probably much greater, and we don’t know much about it. Local and regional winds at the ice edge produce feedback that has only lately been studied.

              As for the sudden change in glaciation frequency, that remains a mystery, which is to say we still don’t understand ice age cycles very well. We don’t even know what caused the LIA. –AGF

  17. And of course the carbon isotope ratios don’t leave much room for doubt as to the cause of the current CO2 increase–that’s not in question here. We’re talking about the Pleistocene. –AGF

  18. […] few weeks ago, I noted that Lord Monckton had even started threatening fellow climate contrarians, including solar physicist Leif Svaalgard and Willis Eschenbach. He claimed he was writing to […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 315 other followers

%d bloggers like this: