Ice ages can be ended by volcanoes. Greenhouse runaways can’t.

He does talk about a repeat of the runaway greenhouse effect we once had on Earth:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/james-hansens-motivation.html

Read all on this next link, but go to the subheading runaway greenshouse effect first to see that there once was a runaway greenhouse effect some 55 million years ago. The IPCC said that it took 20000 years for it to happen, but now because of CO2 emissions, it will take about 100 years.

Foster, I like how you never give up your devotion to climate disinfo sources and love to quote them.

http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf

Everybody knows he’s a quack–king of the quacks. He makes Monckton look like Einstein. Only complete idiots accept him as an authority. En tierra de ciegos el tuerto es rey. –AGF

You accusing others of being psuedoscience prumulgators is a classic case of projection. Look in the mirror. You’ll see who ithe psuedoscience prumulgator is.

I don’t know much about the new world order NWO or Monckton’s connections to it, so would you please explain both to me.

I saw a video of Monckton with a bunch of college students around him. One of them put a kick me sign on his back. Even though that’s an old trick, it was still very funny to see him unaware that the kick me sign was stuck to the back of his suit jacket.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/15/426174/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-confirms-heartland-weather-stations-project/

The markets say global warming is a huge problem; denialists will deny their deepest beliefs to stick to their denial of global warming: http://t.co/UWbJdJl7ur

Hell no, I don’t read Hansen’s papers . . .

Yeah, we know.

That’s the problem.

AGF already said nobody pays him to post, so let’s just take his word for it unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/climate-change-denial-gcca_b_1397534.html

Here’s another link mentioning Whats up with that and it’s mainly about all climate denial books are being funded by conservative thinks tanks, as you might be Foster. You never give up spreading climate disinfo, and I would rather think that you might be a paid blogger rather than think that you are gullible enough to believe all of this climate denial trash when you have to whole internet to search through for the truth about the climate change science and the sites that show how climate change denial is funded. Very interesting that this link is called whatsupwiththat.blogspot. It seems they hijacked the Watts brand name, maybe because they want to trick Watts loyal readers to go up to a site that will tell some climate truth.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/05/research-reveals-almost-all-climate.html

These conspriacy talkers often refer their listeners to the internet to search for conspiracy stuff.

It doesn’t get any sillier than that. FYI this whole climate hysteria started under Thatcher’s initiative. And as kindergarten lesson #1 of your climate education I recommend: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/why-the-parrotfish-should-be-the-national-bird/

–AGF

Your posts go to the moderation queue if you put links in them, so they don’t appear until I get a chance to check my e-mail and click the mouse a few times. I have it set up that way to catch spammers.

Christopher Monckton was Margaret Thatchers’ policy adviser.
Did Monckton go to the Bilderburg with Thatcher?
Did Monckton advise Thatcher to attend Bilderburg conference?
Did Monckton ever criticise Thatcher for attending Bilderburg?
If not, why not?
Given that Bilderburg are pro industry/manufacturing/business, then it stands to reason that Monckton, Thatcher
and Bilderburgers are all on the same side.
The same side who claim there is no climate change because pollution equals business profit.

Monckton is a climate change fraud and a tool of the Satanist / Scientologist NWO.

DeBrane’s link says:
“The good news is, Kevin C. [John Cook crossed out] from Skeptical Science has created a nice, short video showing just why this claim is such a whopper.”
====================================================
1) Don’t click on the graph; it will disappear.
2) Don’t bother that I started with SS’s laughable incompetence–they are the people who used the absurd definition of consensus that brought me over here in the first place.
3) Don’t bother that the graph cherry picks endpoints. For honest, scientific data see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
and: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/10/the-ultimate-skeptical-science-cherry-pick/

There’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate alarm seriously. And the notion that I’m spreading Big Oil propaganda is most laughable of all. Am I to assume that climate alarm is preventing DeBrane from driving and heating or cooling his house.

Neither is there an intelligent layman who takes this climate alarm seriously. I may safely wager that DeBrane does not, but he’s not smart enough to recognize it.

And may I take a moment to extol Bickmore’s press freedom. SS would never allow such open discussion. Neither would Real Climate, among others. –AGF

Have you ever noticed that conservative and conspiratorial talk show hosts, blogger deniers, deniers who write opinion pieces for the WSJ or Forbes never quote a real climatologist? And you don’t either. The worst thing that ever happened to radio and TV was the elimination of the fairness doctrine, where all views had to be aired by law, at least as far as political campaigns were concerned. I wish that we could bring the fairness doctrine back and make it stronger by outlawing any climate disinfo propaganda. It should be illegal, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal. And climate denial propaganda is worse that yelling fire in a theater. If people believe that nothing needs to be done about the climate then they are put to sleep by big oil and coal, and worse than that, the Republicans put their constituents to sleep by denying the climate science and they get paid well by big oil and oil and coal to not only deny the problem, but also to block any climate regulations from passing in Congress.

Here’s a link to big oil and Republican Congressmen bribery.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/04/joe-barton-r-tx-and-buy-bull.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html

Here’s another sampling of a more sensational nature–snow will be a thing of the past:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Here’s the same in German:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/winter-ade-nie-wieder-schnee-a-71456.html
NOBODY (except the skeptics, maybe) tried to counter these rash predictions.

And Hansen’s sea level predictions are the most preposterous of all, and are even now being disclaimed by slightly cooler heads–fanatical Reuters is having to come over just a few inches in the direction of the real world:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/climate-ice-idUSL6N0DV2V420130514

Hottest in recording history? Another fool’s argument–true but irrelevant. Thermometer history is short, and begins in the LIA, since which the planet has been steadily warming, fortunately. Earlier than thermometer history we have the MWP, which Mann (and Bickmore) are at pains to make disappear. But no, as observation fills more of the gaps it is becoming increasingly clear that the MWP was substantially warmer than the present. From China to the Aral Sea, proxies point to medieval warmth that we have yet to match. As do cartography investigations attempting to explain medieval familiarity with the Arctic coast of Eurasia.

North Africa thrived during that blessed warmth, and dried up with the LIA while Europe froze. And it could happen again. That’s why current warming is such good news to all but fools. SLR holding steady at one inch per decade. Beach front property values continue to rise, along with the deltas and atolls. Coral grows ten times as fast as SLR. Only quacks preach doom. –AGF

We’re ahead of predictions, not behind. The “hiatus” you claim has not cooled the planet enough to get us back to the average of the 1990s, which were warmer than most of the 20th century. What you claim as cooling is still hotter than any time in recorded history, across more of the planet that has ever been affected by so much heat for such a long time.

If that’s cooling, all our geese are cooked.

Were you even alive in the 1990s?

Hansen said, in off-hand comments (not a scientific paper, not a hard scientific prediction), that he expected the West Side Highway would be underwater sometime before 2038. You’re right that he erred — it came 26 years early.

You’ve read his papers, so you know he provided a broad set of causes. So you’re ready to admit error, now?

You did read the papers, right?

Do you need someone to show you which threads to attach your nose ring to, to be led to the papers?

If a weatherman tells you a tornado or a hurricane is about to hit, would you ignore it? If not, then why ignore what thousands of climatologists from about 100 different countries that warn us about the long term devastating consequences of global warming? So it’s long term forecast compared to a short term weather forecast. Why would you ignore it? Short term forecast and long term forecast is the only difference between weather predictions and climate predictions worth mentioning. The big difference between weathermen and climatologists us that climatologists have a much more tough degree plan to get through in college than weathermen do.

And the big difference between deniers like Monckton and climatologists is that the deniers never had a single piece of peer reviewed climate research papers published, not one! And now the deniers say they are purposefully blocked from publication. Boo Hoo! Go cry in your beer! They aint published because the crap the peddle is pseudo science, not real science.

I read on the net someplace that a number of TV weathermen are also climate science deniers. Well, they are in the media, and worthwhile for the oil and coal industry to buy off.

I also read on the net that one of the Koch Brothers commented that “we’ve changed the whole conversation about the climate”. Yeah with a millions of $$$ going into climate science deniers pockets and misinformed and uninformed gullible people that buy into their bought and paid for BS. Money talks and BS walks goes the saying.

Could the argument get any more inane? By such reasoning you yourself are funding denialism by buying gas. Or don’t you buy gas? See, when trying to convince believers we are immediately reduced to a litany of idiocies. They simply can’t think. –AGF

So no, I don’t think your climate ignorance, which borders on perfection, is very funny either. There is nothing scientific about your approach–all is emotional, all is suckering for propaganda. –AGF

Perhaps you could point us to the papers claiming an acceleration in SLR by pasting together satellite and tidal gauge readings. I am sure they are out there, but I haven’t read them.

But hmmmm, if it were me doing such a study, what would I do? Well, I think I would use the tidal gauge readings in the same period as the satellite readings, and make sure they are calibrated to give comparable answers. In fact, I really doubt you could even HAVE satellite SL measurements without calibrating on the tidal gauges. If that’s the case, then you really aren’t comparing “apples and oranges,” are you? You’re just using a couple different measurement methods that you already know give you reasonably similar answers.

So look up some of those “quack” papers, and let’s see whether they’re quite as ridiculous as you claim. I’m betting that you haven’t actually read those papers, either, and that you are too unfamiliar with scientific methods to really make such a judgement.

http://www.aworldtowin.net/blog/climate-change-deniers-trade-on.html

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/how-much-does-it-take-buy-climate-denial

Read Jack Barton’s comment on this link. It’s about climate denial bloggers.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/14/1446081/slate-climate-change-denial-is-purely-100-made-up-political-and-corporate-sponsored-crap/?mobile=nc

1. I looked at Hansen’s video. He says it’s “conceivable” that the Earth could get into a runaway greenhouse mode. Personally, I doubt it, and I tend to think James Hansen emphasizes worst-case scenarios too much. But let’s not exaggerate his claims. He didn’t say it was certainly going to happen, or even that it was likely. He just said it was “conceivable,” and that he doesn’t want to do the experiment to find out whether it would actually happen.

2. Central England is not the globe. Local temperatures randomly fluctuate more than global temperature.

3. If you think global temperature “shows little or no secular correlation to CO2 levels,” you are badly mistaken. The argument (among the experts–not schlubs like Watts) has never been about whether there was a good correlation, or whether CO2 was the ONLY thing driving the changes (it wasn’t). The real argument was about the exact timing–i.e., in Antarctic ice cores, it appears that the temperature rises preceded the CO2 rises by a few hundred years. This wasn’t a deal-killer, because the CO2 effect was supposed to be a feedback, anyway, but some scientists decided to make a more global paleotemperature and CO2 record by looking at ocean sediment cores, and the like, since the last glacial maximum. The result? In Antarctica, the temperature rise preceded CO2, but GLOBALLY, it was the reverse. Here’s the paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

4. Look around my site. You won’t see me launching into impassioned defenses of James Hansen or Al Gore, because I don’t agree with the way they focus on worst-case scenarios. On the other hand, if those scenarios are possible, even if unlikely, I don’t get too worked up about these guys, because at least they usually add some qualifiers (“possible,” “conceivable,” “could”). You, on the other hand, defend Monckton because he is “countering” people like Hansen or Gore. But if you would bother to click some of the links on this page, you would find out that much of Monckton’s info is blatant lies. Oh, I don’t know whether he knows he’s lying–he might be less than sane–but they are often easily checked falsehoods. You, apparently, think that’s fine.

You ridicule James Hansen for saying the West Side Highway would be covered in water. It WAS covered in water, and it’s costing you and me billions of dollars to fix. I don’t think you joke on storm victims is funny.

You think “skeptics” “won” that argument? With skeptics like that, who needs war, famine and pestilence, you know?

This blog isn’t about argument from authority. Watts’s blog often is — we’re supposed to believe people are honest and right in their wacky ideas denying the evidence God gives us because those people have advanced degrees — not because they’ve got scientific research to back their claims (they don’t), but because they’re not part of the Borg.

Of course, neither is anyone else part of the Borg — but that doesn’t seem to cut a lot of mustard with you.

Actually, the enrichment of many of the people on the denialist side, especially the public relations arms in the Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, and other astro-turf programs, is well documented. You just need to look at the IRS forms to see the facts.

A million times as much money goes into denial as goes into climate research. The Chevron ad campaign is annually greater than all the NSF funding for climate research. Exxon-Mobils’ profits for one quarter would pay for all the climate research done in the last decade, perhaps in the 20th century.

Gore became a rich man from Google and Apple.

It’s not that one is rich, it is the source of the money. To figure that out, one needs to have facts. Facts show the planet is warming dangerously, that plants and animals are suffering, and human structures and economies are threatened. But if you think, contrary to all the evidence, that Al Gore got rich off of a movie from which he donated of of his proceeds, then you’ve got a serious issue with figuring out how the world works.

Facts are stubborn things, Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting John Adams. Facts are the milk of science. Got facts?

Not at Watts’s site. Not from Monckton.

Darrell says: “Are you willing to go on record saying that you’re certain CO2 has not gone beyond 250 ppm on average…”

My hell, where does this idiocy come from? Last I heard we just broke 400ppm–after 15 years of temperature stabilization.

Darrell continues: “…that the past decade was not, each and every month, above the 20th century average temperature…”

Every month? I’m not sure about February. The oldest thermometer record (from central England — http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/) shows a climb since 1880 (and showing little correlation with CO2 — for a better record see — http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0028.jpg), and even this is hardly significant compared to the Pleistocene history of radical T variation: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/

which record shows little or no secular correlation to CO2 levels:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/

But if you don’t want to look at the work of all these scientists at WUWT you can check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

So you defenders of Hansen are defending the most unscientific peddler of climate doom who ever was, and the reason you are defending him is you have been duped by his nonsense and other such quackery. None of you know the first thing about climate science. You can vilify Monckton all you want, but at least as far as global warming is concerned, he’s helping to counter the encyclopedia of BS that Gore and Hansen have done so much to promote. Monckton is a thousand times better than Gore, and Gore depended on Hansen’s BS.

Once more, there is not a competent scientist on the planet who falls for this nonsense of climate doom. Warmer is better. Warmer is safer. The Little Ice Age was the kicker. Do any of you quacks think you know what caused it?

Oh, I forgot about sea level rise. All the predicted doom is once again based on the quackery of CO2 warming–not on observation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png

and
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

where you may witness generally linear increases, where any claimed acceleration is based on a comparison of sat measurement and tide gauge records. That is, you have to compare apples and oranges, but that’s pretty much what the hysterical doom sayers do. And SLR pays no attention to CO2, or even to temperature for that matter. And why should it. T pays no attention to CO2 either. –AGF

But the sorry part is I have to lead you by the nose and explain every little detail, while you engage in confused or deliberate subterfuge telling me I haven’t read articles that I never referred to, and don’t know or care where Monckton did.

Calm down. Quit trying to win the snark award for the blog. You’re not leading anyone here, and that you think you are is a sign of delusion, to everyone else. Which means you need to slow down and absorb information for a while.

Listen to the experts: Most of what Monckton says is wrong. He’s wrong on the science, and he invents whole cloth, fantabulous tales to make it sound as if he knows what he’s talking about. He’s a performer, an actor, an unintentional comedian (though he makes plenty of effort to ridicule science and scientists, in ways that really are not funny).

So stop referring to Monckton as if he’s anything more than the winner of a local book club’s fiction award.

As to Hansen: Do you know what Hansen actually said about Venus? Please make a reference to an actual paper, and be sure you’re not erroneously making a claim for what he did not, in fact say or write.

You may want to think about Hansen’s actual reputation — take a look at this story about his retirement, for example — and consider whether anyone could become as high ranking as he was at NASA, or so well cited as he is, were he doing junk science.

Are you claiming that Hansen said the Earth would be as hot as Venus? Are you claiming that Hansen said the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere would dramatically change to the same composition as Venus’s atmosphere? Are you claiming Hansen said the Earth’s atmosphere could warm beyond human habitation limits in a display of “Venus Syndrome?”

Do you know the difference between those claims?

Are you willing to go on record saying that you’re certain CO2 has not gone beyond 250 ppm on average, that the past decade was not, each and every month, above the 20th century average temperature, and that, as Monckton claims, Rachel Carson pulled a miracle, and got EPA to ban DDT in 1972, THEN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME to use that ban to stop DDT use in Africa in 1965, AND that the dumping of DDT by U.S. manufacturers in Africa didn’t do anything at all to put DDT into the hands of African malaria fighters, AND that mosquitoes then migrated from the U.S. to Africa, to spread malaria?

Or, perhaps, do you think discussion might better be advanced with less accusation, and more attempts to understand science, history and public policy?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Here’s a link to a YouTube video showing how the Koch Brothers have spent millions of $$$ funneling climate science denail through front groups think tanks etc. The have spent so much money that the climate denial message has even gotten into church group meeting. The Kochs grew the Tea Party and held nationwide Tea Party meetings. Ask a Tea Partier if man made global warming is for real.

.

You’re losing me here, bud. My link, repeated here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/

contains this quote: “Its definition of the ‘consensus’ it claimed to have found was imprecise: that ‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current anthropogenic global warming.’”

Which unless invented by Monckton, all by itself exposes SK and ERL as perfect idiots. Now if Monckton invented this, and is telling nothing but lies, it should have been easy to show immediately. I didn’t bother to check his sources immediately. When I did check I found the phrase slightly altered (as little as possible) with the caveat, “Corrections were made to this article on 31 May 2013. A data file was added to the supplementary data,” leading me to suppose that Monckton was in fact telling it straight and ERL was cleaning up the crime scene.

But the sorry part is I have to lead you by the nose and explain every little detail, while you engage in confused or deliberate subterfuge telling me I haven’t read articles that I never referred to, and don’t know or care where Monckton did. Did SK and ERL accept such a definition of consensus or didn’t they? If they had would you continue to defend their collective competence?

And I repeat, are you willing to go on record either accepting or rejecting Hansen’s warnings of the real possibility of GHG’s leading to a Venusian atmosphere? I say you are steeped in irrational dogma, with which breaking ranks to any degree is taboo. –AGF

As far as sea level rise goes, everything I’ve read about climate change info, not disinfo, say that the scientists were way too conservative in their estimates about a number of things. Now I see you said that the IPCC modeled without sea ice loss dynamics. Ok, it’s uncertain as you say, but they could have given a range and let us know what is the least case and worst case senarios.

Regarding sea level rise, what am I supposed to say? It is quite uncertain, because it’s so difficult to model ice dynamics. The IPCC took the approach that they would ignore ice loss, and reported a minimum value of sea level rise for a given amount of warming, noting that it could be much more, but how much was hard to predict. I don’t know, specifically, what Hansen said about sea level rise, so perhaps you could enlighten us. My guess is that he warned about the non-negligible possibility of several meters of sea level rise. I say it’s non-negligible because various geological and geochemical estimates of sea level and temperature indicate that we eventually probably will get that much rise.

Regarding Monckton’s article you linked, it’s stupid. Monckton’s endocrinologist, Schulte, didn’t have the expertise to rate the authors’ perspectives of the articles he read. The SkS team, however, went so far as to poll the authors about whether the article expressed a particular perspective, or not. Have you actually read the SkS article? I find it hard to believe that you would find Monckton’s nonsense convincing if you had.

timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/climate-insanity/

That wasn’t much of a critique of the standard models, it seems to me.

It sounded like a critique of the politics against the standard models.