Monckton on the loose again

"Non-lord Christopher Monkton"
Actually, he is a "Lord" but not a member of the "House of Lords".

Really? He's still using the Pink Portcullis of the House of Lord? Or is that old footage?

no, his is using it again (sorry can't find a citation)

I see, it is right.

So if that cartoon is justified we must see clear and present evidence that the globe has warmed substantially since Hansen promised Congress it would be 0.2 C a decade and that the sea has risien by a significant fraction of the 20 ft Gore promised. In fact, of course, neither have happened. Perhaps, rather than falsely denying Monckton's title yoy should acknowledge that Hansen, Mann & other liars aren't scientists.
[spam snipped]

Oh for godsakes . . .

Heads up, Coby:

Neil has completely devolved into kamikaze-troll mode, zombie pasting his own stupidity and ignoring all responses. The man is unstable and we support this public implosion at the price of our own souls.

Er, it's Monckton, not Monkton.

The basic problem is that Mr Delingpole is like the slightly smart boy who has noted that sceptism and a refusal to accept authority is an essential part of science. He still does not understand that this also demands that your sceptical posture requires PROOF. Science is one of the areas in life least susceptible to group think and appeal to authority.

Monckton is a prime target for the Jon Stewart sign "You're not helping."

Poop. Yes, "Monckton"

Neil, this time I will remove only the cut and paste portion of your comment, next time the whole comment. You already got a thread of your own...

How do you respond to the observation in this figure that there appears to be no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes?

http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg

seamus

Who says there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the graph you provided?

The answer to your question has been provided thousands of times, and is so simple. CO2 is not the only driver of climate, and no-one has ever claimed it is. You have to consider other drivers - such as TSI, oceanic transport, orbital factors, etc, etc. If you remove those factors from your figures, you will find an excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

That is the point - the influence of all those other drivers is absent from current warming. All that is left is atmospheric chemistry.

coby

And to continue with the pedantry (I mean, correcting grammar and spelling) raised by JG, the title of the thread should be "Monckton on the LOOSE again", not 'lose'.

mandas, I disagree, though Monckton is on the loose, he's also definitely on the lose too. Even Watts is taking a step away.

Oh come on Mandas seamus maguire asked a very good question which requires a bit more than a "shut idiot" response.

crakar, while it may seem like a good question to you, the fact is the answer really is very boring. CO2 is not the only driver of surface temprature changes. End of story.

There is no reason to expect a continuous close correlation between CO2 and temperature over geologic timeframes. We could draw a similar graph of temperature and solar irradiance and the corelation would be worse. Does that lead you to believe that the sun has no influence on the earth's surface temperature?

Exactly as coby has pointed out crakar - I did answer the question.

Just because you failed to understand it (or did you just deny it as usual?) doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

Coby,

I am sure it seemed like a good question to SM only to be face palmed by Mandas in his usual way.

A more appropriate way for Mandas to respond would have been to produce a study which removes drivers "such as TSI, oceanic transport, orbital factors, etc, etc" leaving us with a very good correlation between CO2 and temp presumably showing CO2 leading temp just as Mandas claimed to be in existence. I suspect no such study exists and everything Mandas claims is simply opinion hence the face palm. This is just another example of the mans arrogance.

But while you are here how is everything, the new baby must be quite big by now is she 12 months old yet?

OK Mandas time to call you on your bullshit.

Lets call the co2 and temp data in SM's post as the "unadjusted data", now if you are correct in post 12 then you should be able to provide a graph which spans the precambrian period to present that has all drivers being taken into consideration thus leaving is with a true correlation between co2 and temp.

If you cant then kindly retract your bullshit in post 12, now hurry along with the google search, im waiting...........

crakar, careful with the bait and switch here. seamus presented a graph with the implication that it proves CO2 does not move global surface temperature. We tell him plainly a simple truth that is apparent in any study of climate forcings you care to check (ie CO2 is just one of many forcings). Now, you are implying that unless we can use this same graph to prove the opposite, well seamus must at least have a good point.

No. There are plenty of other lines of evidence that clearly show CO2 influences temperature. We don't need to create a single earth-history-spanning plot of temperature and all forcings.

Now, it would be fantastic if it were, or were to become, possible. But the plain fact is there were no thermometers, no CO2 monitoring stations, no orbiting solar observatories, no field expeditions to the arctic and antarctic netherlands (when they even existed), no aeresol monitoring. We are looking back through *very* foggy glasses.

Hell, you don't even except paleoclimatolgy going back 1000yrs, you expect us to believe if we could come up with one study going back 4,000 million yrs you would finally be convinced?

There are plenty of particular geologic events that support the basic theory of climate, in fact so far every one where there is enough data to figure out what was going on provides more evidence that the current scientific picture is basically right. Plenty of material for refining models and understanding, but no "oh my God, Monckton was right!" moments...

Julia is 10 months now and she is a delightful and happy baby, thanks for asking!

Coby,

I would not say that your answer is 100% correct (in relation to SM's post)but it would go along way to answering SM's question or if you like statement, now compare your response with the arrogant reply from Mandas.

His first mistake was to assume SM's intention, therefore his response was inadequate.

Of course it would be impossible to accurately subtract all other drivers to come up with a final CO2 V temp graph however reading the Mandas response one could be fooled into believing one exists which is why i challanged Mandas to produce one because i know he will not be able to bring himself to admit he had erred.

Glad to hear all is well, my Ella is now 26 months old (the terrible two's as they say) but the good far out weighs the bad.

By the way Coby i briefly mentioned to Mandas and Adelaidy about the documentary Gasland (as they both come from Adelaide), the doco was about hydraulic fracturing to get access to the gas but it was really just another example of how the US government have rogered its people, it had the usual suspects with Bush, Cheney and Haliburton and included circumventing ALL EPA regulations, the result of course was inevtiable...............environmental destruction on a grand scale (add this to the Gulf of Toxico)not to mention the near future mass deaths caused by 596 chemicals in the water table and the air.

As you are a lot closer than me, if you have any knowledge of this method/destruction could you please say a few words about it, this doco was the most heart breaking and depressing doco i have ever seen. The stupidty of the greedy few knows no bounds.

Cheers

coby,

Don't bother to try and answer crakar or seamus on this issue. I did a little more research into the graph, and found that it is complete bullshit. Made up. Not real.

It is a denier site misinterpreting and cherry picking data, and completely misusing a couple of science papers, then filling in the gaps with made up information from a couple of denier books.

It is brought to you by a guy called Nasif S Nahle, another lunatic with wacky theories, including "The Eternally Replicating Universe", and his explanation of why CO2 is not affecting climate is.... wait for this:

"....By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws. The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor. By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth...."

source: http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html

So - how's it going with your research and reading on paleoclimatology there crakar? Any other nut-jobs that you want to link to? Or do you think it may be important to actually read what they say and do some basic research before making a complete fool of yourself (again!).

"Actually, he is a "Lord" but not a member of the "House of Lords"."

He's a Viscount, Bob.

A lord is a lower grade of noble and hence wouldn't be used.

So he's not Lord Monckton, he's Viscount Monckton or, if you're being REALLY formal, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Bletchley, but you cannot separate the two parts out like you can with surnames and first names.

Calling Vic Monckton "Lord" would be like calling your doctor "Mister" (or, in the reverse, calling your Drill Sergeant "sir").

Nahle also has strange ideas on how GCR's travel inward at the same speed as the solar wind travels out.

And he ALWAYS drops the "per second" bit if it helps him prove that CO2 has no warming effect (see, unlike his latest thing where he's trying to call CO2 a coolant, he had previously worked out that CO2 could only warm the atmosphere by 0.02C at most (or some similar small number) by judicious use of "ignore the rate" and calling the warming rate the warming full stop).

I note, yet again, that the only answer alarmists here can give to serious questions about thei alleged beliefs is censorship. Clearly that is necessary only when they know their claims cannot face the facts.

What censorship?

The analogy of the cancer diagnosis could mislead if one were not careful.
It is clear that climate science is very good at tracking climate change, and that observation had made a strong case that said change is associated with the byproducts of humanity.
It is another thing to claim that scientists (and policy makers) are to be trusted with "correcting" the situation, something in which they have zero experience.

Uh, policy makers HAVE to be trusted with correcting the situation.

Every country-scale situation that has been successfully dealt with was dealt with by policies made by policy makers. And you CANNOT drop in the sideswipe half-statement that policy makers have no experience in making policy.

Scientists aren't making policy, however.

Despite so many people insisting they are trying to do so.

There are many reasons to expect that climate policy currently is and will be driven by politics. Especially as there is no clear path from climate observations to some action that will lead to optimal weather.
Just look at the economy, a policy driven disaster in an area where the remedies are well known.

"Just look at the economy, a policy driven disaster in an area where the remedies are well known."

Nothing to do with unregulated free-marketeers & profit-hungry speculators then.

The path is clear.

What isn't clear is the leadership to make the change.

I.e. all those alarmists who INSIST that undergoing AGW mitigation will cause the ruination of the Western World.

The economy policy causing the disaster was the ultra-right Free Market capitalism where control of the markets were taken FROM politicians and put into the hands of the market itself.

Again, the remedy is clear (place restrictions back and double-down them on the markets) but what isn't clear is who the hell would be brave enough to vote for them with all the wingnuts crazy about "One World Government" being armed.

Walt, you need to be careful about seperating politics from science. You are allowed your own political opinions, but not your own scientific reality!

Yes, climate policy is and will be driven by politics, to the shame and hardship of us all. However, no one is trying to take "some action that will lead to optimal weather". We are trying to stop current actions that are changing the current climate. Just as politics /= science, weather /= climate.

Cheers,

Coby,

I'm only trying to say that politicians and government policy are not likely to steer the mass of humanity towards a favorable climate.

We really have no practical way to convince billions of people to abandon the necessities of the short term for a better life in the uncertain future (this includes, of course, politicians facing the next election).

It may be true that only the relatively rich can afford to take the long view and that our best hope is to encourage world-wide wealth. I do feel this must be part of the solution.

As to "stopping current actions that are changing the current climate", I am certainly in favor of stopping the various government subsidies of energy production as they distort the real costs and incentives, although our elected will do whatever earns them office.

Neil @24:

Only in the mind of a true conspiracy nut can having an entire thread dedicated to your (spammed) questions be evidence of censorship. Puh-leeze!

"I'm only trying to say that politicians and government policy are not likely to steer the mass of humanity towards a favorable climate."

That isn't what you SAID, though:

"It is another thing to claim that scientists (and policy makers) are to be trusted with "correcting" the situation, something in which they have zero experience."

Is what you SAID.

"We really have no practical way to convince billions of people to abandon the necessities of the short term for a better life in the uncertain future"

Uhm, we could try. Shall we at least TRY, dearie? You know, the good old "can do" attitude you americans were so famous for in the past?

"although our elected will do whatever earns them office."

So don't vote for them. Vote Green Party and tell your previous party why you changed.

Tell your current MP why you will vote differently.

Tell your councillor.

Change yourself.

If 30% of the people reduced their use 50% (no problem for the west), then that would reduce pollution by anything up to 15%. That would be less than a billion people easy. Probably less than a half.

"So don't vote for them. Vote Green Party and tell your previous party why you changed."

Thank you, Wow! This simple measure has worked so well in the past.

It got Sufferagettes their vote.

The USSR members got their independence from it.

It got the Liberals reduced to a third-party also-ran for most of the 20th century and gave Labour the boost into second/first place.

So, yes, it has worked so well in the past.

It's just the "can't do" attitude of today's inactivists way of being in denial of AGW yet refusing to be shown in denial.

I would also note that saying you said something that was different from what you ACTUALLY said has never worked before, yet you still tried it.

So why the different attitude between the two?

I AM NOT in denial!
Wait, that came out wrong...

The statements:

"scientists (and policy makers) are [not] to be trusted with "correcting" the situation [climate change], something in which they have zero experience"

and

"politicians and government policy are not likely to steer the mass of humanity towards a favorable climate"

express the same sentiment from different angles.

I'm not sure what your point is but I sense it's veering off topic.

Mandas in 22,

Thank you Mandas, the longer i stared at that graph the less correlation i saw and i could feel my faith being sapped from me, obviously this graph is the work of the Devil.

Mandas could you please show me a graph made by the hand of God, a graph that shows CO2 leading temp in a merry dance, is without misinterpreting and cherry picking data, and completely misusing a couple of science papers, then filling in the gaps with made up information from a couple of denier books?

I feel as though i need to see this graph of which you speak as i travel the lonely path of spiritual enlightenment and keep the nasty denier Devil at bay.

TIA

Crakar

PS, i know you have issued Coby with a ban on responding to my post and i dont want to get anyone in trouble but i did also ask Coby if he had thoughts on hydraulic fracturing. Would it be OK if Coby was allowed to talk to me about it?

Yours

A mere dumb non-scientist

Crakar

Might I suggest the curious listen to Richard Alley's presentation at the 2009 AGU which goes through the history of Climate and the role of CO2.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

Lots of good science on display

Phi

It looks as though the wheels are falling off the Monckton applecart:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-mon…

However, Mad Lord Monkfish is merely repeating that he IS a member of the HoL and then getting furious about all the ad hominem attacks.

He forgets of course, that asking about his membership of the HoL is a relevant question when someone claims to be a member.

It would only be a (minor) ad hom if someone were to say "You're not a member of the House of Lords, therefore you don't know anything about the climate." and then only because lack of membership is no proof of the contested item.

Hi, maybe it's a stupid question but I would like to know what are the unit of measurements for CO2 and temperature (ppm,°C)????thaks!

Those are the SI units for them.

ppm can be either by volume (ppmv) or mass (ppmw).