It’s Official: Global Warming ‘Pause’ or Standstill extends to over 18 years – ‘Pause’ has ‘endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record’


By: - Climate DepotOctober 3, 2014 9:45 AM with 813 comments

Special to Climate Depot

Global Temperature Update

It’s official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly for September 2014 is in, and the Great Pause is now two months longer than it was last month. Would this year’s el Niño bite soon enough to stop the psychologically-significant 18-year threshold from being crossed? The official answer is No.

Globally, September was scarcely warmer than August, which was itself some distance below the 18-year trend-line. Therefore, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, there has now been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

Dr Benny Peiser, our good friend at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, had anticipated the official crossing of the 18-year threshold by a day or two with an interesting note circulated to supporters on the ever-lengthening period without any global warming, and featuring our 17-years-11-months graph from last month.

The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to September 2014, showing no trend for 18 years 1 month.

The hiatus period of 18 years 1 month, or 217 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, has a long and intriguing discussion of the Pause, and of the widening divergence between the models’ excitable predictions and the mundane reality in the RSS blog, at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures.

Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. 2:

clip_image004

Figure 2. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears’ regrettable use of the word “denialists”, with its deliberate overtones of comparison with Holocaust deniers, reveals Dr Mears as what we may call a “liarist” – one who is prone to push the evidence in the profitable direction of greater alarm than is scientifically justified.

Interestingly, therefore, the RSS data, which show less recent warming than all other datasets, are under the management of a liarist, while the UAH data, which (until v. 6 becomes available at any rate) continue to show more warming than the others, are managed by sceptics.

Dr Mears admits the discrepancy between the RSS data and the models’ exaggerations, but he echoes various trolls here in alleging the supposed “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

It is time to deal with this nonsense about start-dates very firmly. The spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself.

To demonstrate this, I replaced all the monthly RSS anomalies for 1998 with the mean anomaly value of 0.55 K that obtained during the 2010 el Niño. Then I recalculated the trend from September 1996 [not Dr Mears’ “1997”] to September 2014. All that happened is that the trend values “–0.00 C° (–0.00 C°/century)” shown in the unaltered data (Fig. 1) became “+0.00 C° (+0.00 C°/century)” in the recalculated graph. Not exactly a major difference. That is the end of that climate-liarist canard.

The length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to August 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Dr Mears, rightly, says the Pause is probably attributable to several factors rather than one. But the one factor he hastily rules out is any major error in the physics of the models.

Though more than 50 more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.

Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).

clip_image008

Figure 4. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to August 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 4 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.

The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, though. The temperature spikes of the 1998, 2007, and 2010 el Niños are evident in Figs. 1-4.

El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña that is one of the excuses for the Pause.

The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015 . Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.

Key facts about global temperature

 

  • The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 217 months from September 1996 to September 2014. That is more than half the 429-month satellite record.

 

  • The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

 

  • The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

 

  • Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

 

  • The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

 

  • In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

 

  • The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

 

  • Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

 

  • The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

 

  • The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

 

  • From August 2001 to August 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 1 month.

 

  • Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

 

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 217 months September 1996 to September 2014 – just over half the 429-month satellite record. This is as far back as it is possible to go in the global instrumental record and find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño: it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

Furthermore, the length of the pause in global warming, combined with the offsetting effect of the 2010 el Niño on the calculation, ensures that the distortion of the trend caused by the proximity of the 1998 el Niño to the 1996 start date for the trend is barely discernible.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Related Links:

 


  • planet8788

    Devastating… absolutely devastating to CAGW except to the brainwashed…

  • del

    Bush clearly broke global warming. That said, damn the torpedoes! Tax coal! Tax CO2! Tax Americans! It could come back!

  • powers2be

    Amen planet8788. The brainwashed attend the Church of
    the United Nations and kneel at the altar of the Global Warming Gods praying to
    false prophets James Hansen, Al Gore, et. al. and erect statues in their honor
    i.e. Oscar Awards for documentaries that have been rejected for their
    falsehoods by courts of law in England, Nobel prizes for scaring the
    uninformed half to death with mythological tales of future destruction and
    demise. I am an agnostic for, despite all their might be, possibly, could
    be, we believe, future prognostications, they have yet to deliver proof of
    their Gods’ existence. The consequences of their proposed, faith-based,
    actions are much more dangerous to the human condition and our children’s’ quality
    of life than a climate that has been changing (cycling) since the inception of
    planet earth.

    • RealMrTea

      “The main attribute of the church of science is that it is correct”

      • powers2be

        Let me say once more. We are talking about the Church of the United Nations which is often called the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Religion. it is faith based because all declarations start with possibly, might be, could be… Science isn’t faith based. It isn’t decided by consensus and it never considers itself settled. It is always open to debate and challenges to theories are never shouted down.

  • Dorian

    Well, well, well … what can we say this month. 18 years and 1 month, and still there is no global warming. The kids are all grown up, and are in college or university, doing their level best to understand the dogma and doctrine those delusional professorspriests are spouting from their pulpits, and where only a showing of how good a fervent disciple you are will you earn be rewarded with the bliss that is sought that will give you a passing grade! Hmmm, all of a sudden I see a similarity with that once well known TV Sci-Fi series, V, what a scary thought, you’d think that global warming was a good thing, eh, … but I digress. Back to sad reality and firm facts.

    I would like to touch upon, by commenting further, on how the Delusionists like Carl Mears like to distort, nay, to all out lie about their position and their data, as if its on some sort of gospel footing for all to believe and exalt in. Dr Carl Mears, shame on you! Shame, shame, shame, I say. You are a disgrace, to whatever profession you think you are part of. I shall use your own words to justify these accusations. Note this is not an aspersive but expostulative exercise, since, Carl Mears you seem to show no scientific common sense at all, it beholds for those with some common sense to expose your stupid, and bordering on moronic, ways. To the facts people:

    – Exhibit A:

    Mears states: “Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?’ While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, …. “;

    Let’s first put Mears’ ignorance of the English language into pitiful perspective. The term ‘cherry-picked’, means to selectively choose, and I emphasize the word ‘selectively’. To claim that the honourable Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, has been selectively choosing his data, is firstly, accusing him of fraud, and secondly of deception. Well, Mears, look up any dictionary to see what ‘cherry-picked’ means, it will say to be selective in choice, how can you be selective in picking 207 contiguous months of data! That is not selectively picking, it is called data subsetting, which is something you have done Mears, after all, why is it that you have your data from 1979 only? Why not go back to another starting point say, 1940! Here let me do that for you Mears, I know how hard it is for liars to face their lies, Earlier Temperature Trend. As you can see, it appears that Mears and his Delusionists, have, how did you put it Mears, cherry-picked their data to illustrate an AGW phenomenon.

    – Exhibit B:

    Mears states: “Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

    So there is no problem with your models and that “the long-term sensitivity of the climate” is well understood by current “thought” chosen beliefs by the Delusionalists. Well Mears, you call yourself a “data scientist”, a glorified term for a statistician wannabe scientist, but you fail here, fail, like, you’re an idiot! You have models on that chart of yours that show these models starting from 1979. Do the math, data scientist, 1979 to 2014 is 36 years genius!! Do you understand what means? OF COURSE YOU DON’T. Cause you are an idiot!.

    Let me spell it out to you dude! Physicist to glorified statistician wannabe scientist, it means that with NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR 18 YEARS AND 1 MONTH, that the data for the last 18 years and 1 month, HAS MORE WEIGHT than your data. Ok here comes the really difficult equation genius, 36 years MINUS 18 years and 1 month, means that you and your cronies have LOST. Because there is now 18 years and 1 month of data to show that there is no global warming compared to only 17 years and 11 months of data, that was cherry picked, to support global warming!

    HEY MEARS YOU IDIOT…THE HALF WAY POINT HAS NOW BEEN REACHED, YOU ARE NOW IN THE MINORITY AS FAR AS DATA SUPPORTING YOU!

    Do you get that Mears! Talk about rolling on the floor and laughing my head off! You guys don’t see it! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    There are several more exhibits I would like to share with all you people reading, but considering Exhibit B is such a killer, I’ll end it there.

    So here its for all you Delusionalists Global Warming Morons:

    THERE IS NOW MORE REAL WORLD DATA TO SHOW THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING THAN THAT THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING!

    QED

    • Dorian

      Just a comment on my post above. I spent 11/2 hours writing, with 30 minutes of writing, and 1 hour of hysterics! To think that something so simple as a preponderance of data, has now swung to supporting No AGW, has escaped all those Delusional AGWs is to me incredibly ludicrous. I know money and politics is more germane to the life-support of AGW than science is. But when the evidence is so cold (no pun intended) and obvious, how stupid and ridiculous must things get before the Emperors of AGW are pointed out, publicly, with no clothes?

      AGW IS A LIE: PROVEN WITH HARD CORE DATA

      AGW Delusionalists Get Over it!

      We have bigger problems on this Earth to deal with. Enough of this idiocy, and lets get back to real life, real problems, and of course, real science!

      • CB

        The vast majority of the Earth’s climate system warmed over the last 18 years:

        http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

        …so why did Mr. Monckton claim it didn’t?

        • monckton

          The furtively pseudonynous “CD” – actually a paid troll for the Communist Party of the United States – is presumably incapable of either downloading the monthly data from the RSS satellite observation network or determining the least-squares linear-regression trend on it. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Get over it.

          As to the Communist Party’s dopey diagram, we have no means of telling whether the ocean is warmer or cooler, because we don’t have enough measurements. Besides, the temperature of ice, by definition, is below zero Celsius. So “CD”‘s graph tells us nothing real or useful. Like much of the rest of the climate liarist case, it is fiction dressed up as fact. Furthermore, the rate of warming since the UN’s climate panel first made a prediction in 1990 is exactly half of what they then predicted. End of problem.

          • Michael Stone

            Nobody pays me to post replies to global warming deniers. If any believe there has been a pause in global warming they have not been keeping up with the news about the Arctic Region of the planet.

            http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/08/horrific-methane-eruptions-in-east-siberian-sea.

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

          • monckton

            Standard site policy does not permit the use of multiple email addresses or identities by the same person. If Michael Stone is the paid Communist troll “CD” (and I note that though he denies being paid he does not deny being a Communist), then he is in breach of that policy. He is in further breach by using the word “deniers”, with its deliberate and malicious overtones of odious comparison with Holocaust denial. In Scotland and in Austria, such offensive remarks constitute hate crime and are punishable by hefty terms of imprisonment.

            And he is in breach of the principles of elementary logic not only in suggesting that whether there has been any global warming recently is a matter of belief rather than of observation but also in arguing inappropriately from the particular to the general in suggesting that the warming of the Arctic (a small region of the planet) is to be taken as evidence that the globe as a whole is warming. In fact, the extent of sea ice in the Antarctic was recently at its highest in the entire 35-year history of satellite observation, as – a couple of months ago – was the global extent of sea ice. The Antarctic as a whole has not warmed during that period, so that, stricto sensu, there has been no warming that is truly global for 35 years.

            Arguing inappropriately from the particular to the general constitutes the logical fallacy of converse accident, excoriated by Aristotle in his Refutations of the Sophists 2350 years ago. Assuming that the decline in Arctic sea ice is caused by global rather than by regional factors in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary is the logical fallacy of argument from false cause and, insofar as the causes of Arctic ice loss are unknown, the logical fallacy of argument from false cause.

            The recent rebound in Arctic sea ice extent restored it to approximately what it was in 1974. Of course, facts such as this are unlikely to appear in blog postings or in Communist newspapers such as the inaptly-named and now near-bankrupt “Independent”.

            Finally, the Communist Party’s largely fictitious diagram shows quite plainly that the atmosphere has barely warmed over the period of the graph. The rate of global warming since 1990 (for at least there has been some since that date, though the extent of the anthropogenic contribution to it is not known) has proven to be half what the UN’s climate panel then predicted with what it mistakenly called “substantial confidence”. The Left, it seems, will have to learn the hard way that its temporarily successful attempt to poison even science herself by politicization is doomed to failure – and, at that, an earlier and more abject failure than those who had started this futile scare had ever imagined.

          • Michael Stone

            You obviously are a pro global warming deniers…

            Oh, btw; not being a communist I saw no reason to deny being one… You are also an obtuse ignorant assuming idiot.

            Sue me. The perfect defense against a libel suit is the truth. I am not concerned. F/Off.

            CB does her thing,,, I do mine. 99% of the time I agree with what she writes. I’m a man, she’s a lady.

          • monckton

            If global warming were to resume, my graphs would faithfully record that fact. At present, like it or not, global warming is not occurring. It is also generally accepted that a further 1.1 C of warming would be likely to be net-beneficial.

            Using the word “denier” of one who merely reports the data when they become available is not adult.

            And if people post under pseudonyms it is fair game to make any assumption one likes about them. Let them be honest about who they are: otherwise, let them be silent.

          • CB

            “If global warming were to resume, my graphs would faithfully record that fact.”

            Global warming never stopped.

            Your graphs are of the atmosphere, which holds a tiny fraction of the energy in the climate system.

            Why are you ignoring the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system, which has been warming for decades?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

          • monckton

            The IPCC, in 1990, made specific forecasts of the rate at which atmospheric temperature would increase. The atmospheric temperature has increased since 1990 at half the central rate that was then predicted. If the upper strata of the ocean were appreciably warming, then the atmosphere would be warming too. it is not currently warming, and has not been warming in a statistically significant sense for up to a quarter of a century. If the benthic strata of the ocean are warming (and we have no means of knowing this, for the steric resolution of our measuring system is wholly insufficient) that would not be of any great concern, since well-understood thermoclines would severely limit the rate at which such sub-oceanic warming occurred.

            While it is true that the official theory suggests that the coupled earth-atmosphere system ought to be warming, the importance of the atmospheric temperature is that it would be bound to reflect that warming, if it were occurring, but it does not reflect it, casting grave doubt on whether it is happening. Too many of the records are being interpreted in a manner repugnant to the strictly limited resolution of the data. The most likely position is that the coupled ocean/atmosphere system might be warming to some small degree were it not for a decline in solar activity. However, there is nothing in the current data that gives any genuine cause for alarm at the impact of Man on global temperatures. The oceans, for instance, are warming at about one-sixth of the predicted rate (insofar as we are able to measure temperature anomalies throughout so vast a volume).

            A less excitable approach is, therefore, necessary. There is no doubt now: the models have been and are overstating the rate of global warming, and we should not shut down the West unless and until the causes of the discrepancy between unexciting observed reality and over-hyped predictions has been resolved. I hope to publish a paper shortly that will go some way towards explaining that now-gaping and no-longer-deniable discrepancy,

          • CB

            “The oceans, for instance, are warming”

            The oceans hold the vast majority of the energy in the Earth’s climate system.

            If you understand they are warming, why did you claim the Earth’s climate system is not warming?

          • Michael Stone

            Well “Lord” Monckton is not actually a graduate scientist CB; so it is likely he is having difficulty with the actual science.
            Christopher Monckton actually has only a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism with no further qualifications.

          • CB

            I’d say it’s closer to certain than likely… but I’d love to examine him as a patient…

            Does he think anyone who wears a red shirt is a Communist?

            Why is he calling me CD instead of CB?

            It’s really bizarre behaviour…

          • Michael Stone

            I hate it when I am ignorant, but what does CAGW mean?

          • zlop

            “what does CAGW mean?”
            Aggravated Previous Warning.

          • Michael Stone

            What does Contagious Aggravated Grievous Warning mean”?

          • zlop

            Among other infections, Global Warming increased the spread of Ebola. Expect to be quaranteed an Vaccinated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xz29GY0h2Q

          • Michael Stone

            Thank you for the replies zlop, knowing it would be you or Graves that would reply and say CAGW is a term which the corrupt GW Deniers made up .

          • zlop

            ” Medical Correspondent: ‘Climate Change’ Linked to Ebola, Child Paralysis Virus”

            Pay more Carbon Taxes to the City of London or get infected.

          • Starfire

            Are you and zlop friends now?
            Just wondering.
            That ‘Prison Planet’ link reminds me of the Art Bell radio program ‘Coast to Coast’. It’s all a conspiracy.
            There are aliens among us!

          • Michael Stone

            Friends; ha ha haaaa!!! __ Heavens NO Starfire. My reply to that dishonest creep was all sarcasm, which he would have been well aware of. He almost always post an upper vote to any who reply to him too. For what reason? Who knows besides Slop.

            I never open any links he posts.

          • Starfire

            Hi Kem Patrick.
            OK, good. I hoped it was sarcasm. Tough to tell sometimes, eh? Although the link was pretty funny.
            Have you ever bumped into a poster called Christian Rioux? He showed up in my email box just a few minutes ago about something I said on some site a couple of days ago. Seems like a troll to me.
            Christian Rioux (today):
            ‘the real data show 0,7 degrees on 100 years. You “noticed” that?’
            and, “Yeah, and past winter was the coldest in 100 years….
            You already forgot de -58F??”
            Bugging me and cunudiun. I could likely provide a link at your request.
            Question for you: Why do you keep on upvoting yourself? I would upvote you, if you hadn’t done so yourself already.
            Anyways, nobody likes slop;)
            See ya later. Caroline.

          • Michael Stone

            It seems as if I had arguments with one who used that name, but I believe it was several years ago. 1,000 I have argued with and too many to recall all of the names. Ones I will NEVER forget are Thon Brockett and his crew of Sparafucile, Orkneygal, Wendy2 and Common Sense, who had none.

          • Starfire

            Sparafucile. Orkneygal. That’s funnee.

          • Michael Stone

            Sparafucile is still active, saw him a few days ago on a thread, he is the stupidest GW denier on the web. Orkneygal was supposedly a female student in New Zealand and was the most obtuse and dishonest I ever have run across.

            Thon Brockett is a marvelous writer, and as vulgar as a jiveass waterfront pimp and meaner than a black mamba on steroids. .

          • Starfire

            Thx for this. LOL.
            I will keep an eye out for these troublemakers.
            It is really warm here in SE B.C. for early October.
            Later, dude.

          • CB

            “what does CAGW mean?”

            …since you didn’t get an answer from ZLop, CAGW stands for “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” …her failure to give you the definition is actually one of the reasons I like ZLop. She turns Climate Denier nonsense into a joke.

            I wonder where Mr. Monckton toddled off to… 😉

          • Michael Stone

            Hi; glad to see you back… The disturbed man just showed up to reply to a comment of mine here… He I san incredible person,,, very incredible.

          • RealMrTea

            zlop is a BIG conspiracy junky.. ALL of them….. Reptillian aliens, freemasons, JFK, the whole thing… He goes off on “Methusians” and “Agenda 21” all the time…

          • Starfire

            This does not surprise me at all;)

          • zlop

            Refusing to go along to get along, he rejects Common Core Green-lighting. Do you think he has ODD combined with sluggish schizophrenia?

          • CB

            I think Christopher Monckton may have some kind of dementia due to his Graves’ disease… but I honestly don’t know enough about the case to be sure.

            I do know what he says about climate science is false… obviously.

            He has a long history of lying about it:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

          • zlop

            “Satanist Pedophiles Rule Great Britain.” Is he MI7, similar to Russel Brandt? Somehow Christopher does not appear Evil. Perhaps, he could recant 1.2C for CO2 doubling.

          • CB

            “Somehow, Christopher does not appear Evil.”

            Maybe you should pay closer attention…

          • zlop

            At your suggestion, I searched. Although the British government was Evil and corrupt. Christopher was not part of the Savile and Edward Heath circle.

            “Savile says he spent “11 consecutive Christmases … with the Thatchers.” http://www.sott.net/article/252813-Jimmy-Savile-scandal-exposes-pedophile-network-at-heart-of-British-establishment

          • monckton

            Monckton has a long history of pubication in peer-reviewed journals. Paid Climate Communist cowards like “CB” follow the Goebbels technique of trying to blacken the reputations of their opponents: however, the reviewers for the learned journals judge the science I produce on its merits, not by measuring it against the climate-Communist Party Line. The sneering tone of the Communist commentator on one of my presentations reveals that that was no genuine attempt to make scientific points: it was a Goebbels-style smear. Meanwhile, the fact remains – contrary to the climate-Communist Party Line – that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades. No amount of calling me names will alter that undeniable fact.

          • CB

            “Monckton has a long history of pubication in peer-reviewed journals.”

            Link to one, please.

            If you weren’t lying, isn’t this something you should be able to do?

            Are you saying you’re not Christopher Monckton himself, but just a fangirl who admires Christopher Monckton’s talent for lying with a straight face?

            Keep practising! I’m sure someday you’ll get it right…

          • zlop

            Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is a secret MI7 agent, propagating the Royal anti-Science Society, Arrhenius Warming lie.

          • monckton

            The most recent paper is:

            Monckton of Brenchley (2014) Political science: drawbacks of apriorism in intergovernmental science, Energy & Environment 25 (6&7): 1177-1204.

            So, yet again, the paid climate-Communist troll “CB” has been caught out falsely accusing someone of lying, from behind a cowardly screen of pseudonymity, when it was “CB” itself who was lying.

            Meanwhile, the climate continues not to warm at even half the predicted rate (or, in the past decade or two, at all). Not what the Party Line called for. But the Party Line on the climate is as wrong as the Party Line on everything else. Totalitarianism cannot long survive (thank Goodness) while its paid advocates such as “CB” fail to address the science and fail even when they attempt feeble ad-hominems.

          • Robert

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            Well, the editors of the journals in which my peer-reviewed papers on global warming (or, rather, the striking lack of it) are published did not ask how many pieces of paper I possessed showing that I had had approved Socialist training in the climate sciences. The papers were sent to anonymous reviewers without the author’s name on them, and – after review – they were accepted for publication on the basis that they were new, relevant contributions to science.

            And, having had considerable training in mathematics as part of my course at Cambridge, and having taught the subject since, and having lectured at faculty level on climate change all over the world, I find that the only people who worry about whether I have the pieces of paper to which they defer are those on the hard Left who want to keep the climate scare profitably alive for just a little longer. Too late for that, frankly. I am more than competent to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a simple dataset.

            To grumble about the qualifications of one’s opponent in an argument, rather than scientifically to address the arguments and data that opponent has advanced, is to perpetrate the Aristotelian logical fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem, a repellent sub-species of the fundamental fallacy known to the medieval schoolmen as the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, the failure to understand the basic elements of how a rigorous intellectual discussion should be conducted.

            This disfiguring technique is now used almost exclusively by the far Left worldwide (the rest of the world being better read and more civilized than to resort to it). Previous hard-Left regimes perfected the technique: for instance, Goebbels, then Stalin. The KGB had a million Western agents of influence who spent much of their time and the Soviet Union’s scant wealth trying to do down the reputations of their opponents. No surprise to find that the climate communists here are reduced to the same petty technique.

          • cargosquid

            Very WELL SAID.

          • CB

            “Very WELL SAID.”

            Was it, peanut gallery?

            The oceans hold the vast majority of the energy in the Earth’s climate system.

            Mr. Monckton has already admitted he knows the oceans are warming.

            …so why did he claim the Earth’s climate system is not warming?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • S Graves

            What was the temperature trend of the upper oceans before we had the benefit of ARGO? Oh…yeah…you don’t know. Therefore, you have NO CLUE what this tiny warming might mean.

          • CB

            “the editors of the journals in which my peer-reviewed papers on global warming (or, rather, the striking lack of it) are published did not ask how many pieces of paper I possessed “

            NOAA says the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been warming for decades:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            …and you’ve already admitted you know the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been warming for decades!

            …so why did you claim there was a lack of global warming?

          • monckton

            The fact – like it or not – is that the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS monthly satellite global (80N-80S) mean lower-troposphere anomaly data is a zero trend over the past 18 years 1 month.

            I do not know whether the oceans are warming, and nor do you. The resolution of the ocean heat content measurements is altogether insufficient to allow us to draw any such conclusion. The ARGO bathythermograph buoys give us the least inadequate resolution available: but they are the equivalent of taking a single temperature and salinity profile to represent the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year: hardly an adequate basis on which to draw any reliable conclusion about changes in ocean heat content.

            However, they are the least bad measurement system we have: and they show the ocean warming at about one-sixth of the rate predicted by the models relied upon by the IPCC. What they do not show is the cause of the warming. However, if – as Trenberth, Fasullo, Arblaster, Meehl and that crew would have us believe – the heat is accumulating in the deep ocean without warming the intervening near-surface strata on the way, then the simplest explanation is that the additional heat in the benthic strata comes not from above but from below: i.e., from the 3.5 million volcanic seamounts very nearly all of which have never even been visited by Man, still less monitored.

            If the atmosphere is not warming (and for the past decade or two it has not been warming, on any measure) then it is near-impossible for the surface or mixed stratum of the ocean to be warming. At present, all of the claims that the ocean is warming or that the sea level is rising are based not upon good and sufficient observation but upon the desire on the part of the climatological community to keep the research funds flowing by bigging up a now-failed scare.

          • CB

            “I do not know whether the oceans are warming”

            …then why did you say they were?

            o_O

            NOAA says the oceans have been steadily warming for decades:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            If you think they aren’t, where are you getting your information?

            Did you think your ignorance could be used in place of an argument?

          • monckton

            It looks as though “CB” is unfamiliar with the role of uncertainty in science. The atmosphere is not warming, and that was the purpose of the head posting, which did not (if I recall correctly) address the question whether the ocean was warming. The IPCC had predicted in 1990 that the atmosphere would warm at twice the rate observed since then. Since the atmosphere has not been warming for 18 of those 25 years, it is unlikely that there has been much in the way of ocean warming during the most recent 18 years. For the atmosphere is three orders of magnitude less dense than the oceans, so that a warming of the oceans would inevitably warm the atmosphere – but is self-evidently not doing so.

          • CB

            “The atmosphere is not warming, and that was the purpose of the head posting”

            Uh huh, but the atmosphere makes up a tiny fraction of the Earth’s climate system… so why are you talking about it? If your purpose wasn’t to mislead, why should this be?

            The vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been warming for the past 18 years:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            If you understand this, why would you claim there’s been a “pause” in warming for the past 18 years?

            If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, what’s the point of posting anything at all?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • monckton

            Yah-boo such as that fro the fanatical climate communist “CB” is unscientific. As previously explained, if the atmosphere is not warming then the surface layer of the ocean is not warming: and both at and, a fortiori, beneath the surface of the ocean we have inadequate spatial or steric measurement resolution to establish whether or not the ocean is warming. The least ill-resolved measurement we have – the ARGO bathythermographs – show a very slight warming, at a rate one-sixth of that which was predicted by the complex general-circulation models. So it is pardonable to say that, on suc limited evidence as we have, the oceans may be warming a little: but, if they are, then it is puzzling that the atmosphere is not warming.

          • CB

            “As previously explained, if the atmosphere is not warming then the surface layer of the ocean is not warming”

            Why would you think you could discern the temperature of one thing by measuring the temperature of another?

            NOAA says the top 700 meters of ocean have gained 20×10²² joules of energy since 1960:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            If you think this is incorrect, how much energy has the top 700 meters of ocean gained and how do you know?

            You said this:

            “the ARGO bathythermographs – show a very slight warming”

            If you understand the vast majority of the climate system is warming, why did you say the climate system is not warming!?

          • S Graves

            If you aren’t a climate denier, why would you believe the some parts of the planets oceans and atmosphere might warm naturally while others were stable or cooling? How does CO2 cause the top 700m of the oceans to heat while heating nothing else? Please provide your peer reviewed evidence…or wander off.

          • monckton

            As I have previously explained to this climate communist, all current methods of measuring the change in ocean heat content (if any) are insufficiently resolved. NASA, a profiteering outfit, is willing to make absurd declarations about the imagined (and perhaps imaginary) increase in ocean heat content, on evidence that is manifestly inadequate. However, if the surface or mixed layer of the ocean were really warming at present, then so would the atmosphere. If the climate communists do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, I am disinclined to educate them: for they adopt a petulantly aprioristic approach that is not susceptible to reason.

          • CB

            “all current methods of measuring the change in ocean heat content (if any) are insufficiently resolved”

            Uh huh, and if you believe you don’t have enough information to discern whether or not there’s been warming in the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system over the last 18 years, why did you claim there’s been no warming in the Earth’s climate system over the last 18 years!?

            If you weren’t mentally ill, why would you be having such difficulty explaining what you believe?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB”, spluttering its petty insults from behind a cowardly cloak of pseudonymity, keeps asking why I claimed there’s been no warming in the Earth’s climate system over the last 18 years. If “CB” were capable of reading, rather than merely chirruping the Party Line handed down by the Politburo of whichever environmental-extremist entity is foolish enough to pay it to waste its time advertising the bankruptcy of the Party Line here, it would have realized that the headline graph reports the temperatures of the lower troposphere, which is a region of the atmosphere.

            I am happy to report these temperature trends, because the measurement of atmospheric temperature is sufficiently well resolved to give a not unreliable result – though, of course, there are uncertainties even here. However, all current methods of measuring the change (if any) in ocean heat content are insufficiently resolved, so there is no point at all in plotting those. Since one cannot be certain that the ocean has warmed (though the Argo bathythermographs suggest it may perhaps have warmed over the past decade, but only at one-sixth of the rate predicted by the models), it is not yet possible to state definitively that the climate system as a whole is warming.

            However, since the atmosphere and the mixed strata of the ocean are in approximate thermal equilibrium, if the oceans had warmed to any significant degree the warming would have communicated itself to the atmosphere in accordance with the unrepealable laws of thermodynamics. Accordingly, the fact that the lower troposphere has not warmed is a powerful indication that the mixed strata of the ocean (to a depth of about 2000 ft) have not warmed either.

            There have been some ingenious suggestions by the Trenberth/Balmaseda/Meehl/Arblaster clique, taking it in turns to be the lead authors of rather repetitive papers, that the “missing heat” that is not Ipace NOAA) manifest in the near-surface strata is to be found alive and well in the benthic strata, waiting to come out and say “BOO!” one day. However, a careful series of papers by a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences has debunked that rather obvious nonsense. Furthermore, at least 25 further and mutually incompatible explanations for the failure of the world to warm in accordance with the climate-Communist Party Line have been advanced in the reviewed literature. These various attempts at explaining the obvious are self-rebutting in that they contradict one another. The simplest explanation for the failure of the world to warm in recent decades is that CO2 has less of an effect on global temperature than the Party Line would specify.

            Indeed, in the Neoproterozoic era, some 750 million years ago, there was 30% CO2 in the atmosphere, and yet global temperatures were nothing like as far above today’s as the Party Line requires. One concludes that mere childish belief in the climate-Communist Party Line, though touching in its quaint way, contributes nothing to science. However, the totalitarians are beginning to realize that in attempting to regiment science herself they have bitten off more than they can chew. Either the world will warm as the Party Line says it will warm, or it will not. So far, it is not warming at even half the rate the Party Line predicted. The Party Line – tell it not in Gath, publish it not in Ashkelon – was simply wrong. My advice to the paymasters of the climate-Communist trolls who officiously parrot the Party Line here is that they are wasting the taxpayers’ money. The science is in, the truth is out, the game is up, the Party Line was wrong, and the scare is over.

          • S Graves

            He make the claim because climate science now almost universally recognizes the inconvenient truth. It’s YOU who are the liar…but you know that. If there was no plateau in warming, why have climate scientists postulated of 50 explanations for something that doesn’t exist?

          • RealMrTea

            If this is THAT Monckton…Here is his REAL rap sheet

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            The climate Communists are prone to retreat into ad-hominems when they cannot answer the unanswerable point: there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            “Michael Stone” – or whoever this cowardly user of multiple pseudonyms is – seems to challenge my title, which, however, is recognized by the House of Lords – see Hansard. A climate-Communist clerk made an ass of himself by trying to challenge it, but he was put in his place by learned Counsel specializing in peerage law. It is almost helpful that the climate Communists bang on about my title: people can see through such ad-hominem attacks, which are of course a traditional Communist tactic.

            And I am a graduate in classical architecture, which includes more math than “Michael Stone”, a paid climate-Communist troll, will ever know. And, unlike “Michael Stone”, I am extensively published in the learned journals on climate change and climate economics.

            Besides, the graph in the head posting that shows no global warming for 18 years 1 month is easily replicable by anyone who, unlike the paid climate-Communist troll “Michael Stone”, actually knows enough math to determine and plot a least-squares linear-regression trend. The RSS satellite data are available from the unique resource locator shown on the face of the graph itself: it is then merely a matter of programming the computer to determine and display the data and the trend-line. One does not need to possess a degree in physics to do that: but one accepts that it is well beyond the strictly limited capacities of “Michael Stone”.

            Meanwhile, the world fails to warm at more than half the predicted rate. The models are wrong. The scare is over. The climate Communists are wasting their money. And my staff can draft replies to the climate-Communist drivel here faster than the climate Communists can churn it out.

          • gwsmith
          • Michael Stone

            Here is one you should watch GW… Httpp//wvw-oh-oh. howto pullmyheadoutofmyazz. net.

          • gwsmith

            Sending me that crap tells me you didn’t bother to check the site I just posted, because if you had you would be thanking me.
            Oh, and I like the new chart (below) you fanatics are now worshiping, the “Global Ocean Heat Content” rocket ship to hellfire. If it’s so true, why aren’t you shouting warnings in the streets?

          • Michael Stone

            ” If it’s so true, why aren’t you shouting warnings in the streets?” ___ Why do you assume I don’t?
            You opened the link I posted for you but upset because you’d have to rent a bulldozer to pull it out.

          • Michael Stone

            What weird reason do you have for not believing the ocean waters’ are not warming so much it is bleaching out coral reefs all around the globe and killing them? Do you have a credible reference that proves it is not happening? __ Uhhh; no, you don’t. There aren’t any.

          • gwsmith

            Michael, I never said I didn’t believe the oceans are warming. But, “bleaching out coral reefs all around the globe and killing them”…. Well, now I think you’re just being just a little silly. Can you show me how you prove a negative? Can you prove you’ve stopped acting like an idiot?
            And, no I didn’t go to your site. So you can try, just try, try hard, to erase that sexually exciting thought you had of the bulldozer..

          • Michael Stone

            Well GW the link I posted for you and the bulldozer crack were joking with you. If it offended you I apologize and will erase them.

            Now on a very serious note, no jokes… I am amazed that you are unaware of the very serious global issue of ocean warming and acidification and what that is doing to the root of all life on this planet.

            Here are two links for excellent articles that will explain how global warming is causing the death of coral reefs all around the world and the coral reefs are the basic life form from which all life on Earth eventually evolves.

            https://uk.news.yahoo.com/warm-oceans-bleaching-coral-113654229.html

            From the article > “Mass bleaching occurs when corals are stressed by warmer-than-normal temperatures.

            The warm water prompts algae inside the coral to leave. This starves coral and turns it white.

            Coral start to die after about eight weeks of high temperature-induced stress. This year, Lisianski has had 10 weeks. Midway and Pearl and Hermes atolls have had seven.

             http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resources/education_modules/coral_reefs_and_climate_change/how_does_climate_change_affect_coral_reefs/

            From the article; > “Bleaching events on coral reefs (*around the globe*) were observed in 1998 (West and Salm 2003). In some Pacific islands, a little bit of bleaching is common in the summer; however, there have been times when bleaching is particularly bad in this region (Craig 2009). For example, larger than normal bleaching events in the National Park of American Samoa occurred in 1994, 2002, and 2003 (Craig 2009). As climate change continues, bleaching will become more common, and the overall health of coral reefs will decline.”

            “Much of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere dissolves into the ocean. In fact, the oceans have absorbed about 1/3 of the carbon dioxide produced from human activities since 1800 and about 1/2 of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels (Sabine et al. 2004). As carbon dioxide in the ocean increases, ocean pH decreases or becomes more acidic. This is called ocean acidification.”

            “Ocean acidification affects more than just corals. Snails, clams, and urchins also make calcium carbonate shells and ocean acidification negatively impacts these organisms as well. Just like corals, ocean acidification makes it harder for these organisms to absorb the calcium carbonate they need to build their shells.”

          • gwsmith

            Thank you for the wonderful explanation and informative links. But, I think if you study it more you will find that these reports are local and that different corals can do quite well in warmer waters. The past shows that Earth can balance itself quite well even with CO2 much higher.

          • Michael Stone

            Uhh GW; it is you who needs to study it more carefully because what you are writing is the exact opposite of what the scientists say in both of the articles.

            It is a GLOBAL issue not restricted to a few areas of the planet.

            One example of many:… Two year ago 75% of the coral reefs died in a thousands of square mile area of the Indian Ocean.

            The Great Barrier Reef off of Australia is dying. It is the largest living thing on the planet, the only living thing visible with the naked eye from the space station.

            It is not going to improve unless strong global action is taken now to attempt to reverse what is happening.

            One major reason no firm and credible action has been taken is because of the dirty work the professional global warming deniers have managed to accomplish.. You are in the group of corrupt liars. That truth is something you may try to deny but you cannot deny it by lying.

            Every year more coal is burned, every year from now on the ocean’s waters will become warmer, every year from now on ocean acidification will increase until all life in the oceans dies.

            The most important single living thing on this planet is the microscopic green plant life named “Phytoplankton”. Those microscopic size plants which develop in the coral reefs, sequester the most atmospheric CO2 and emit most of our vital for life oxygen will mostly all die.

            Without the phytoplankton there will be no life down to the microbial level on this planet…… Do you have a 50 year supply of bottled oxygen handy? Does anyone?

          • monckton

            This childish overstatement must really stop. “Every year from now on the ocean’s waters will become warmer”. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. “Every year from now on ocean acidification will increase.” No it won’t: buffering by the basalt in the ocean basins will prevent that. “All life in the ocean will die.” No, it won’t. It is this sort of pathetic whinnying that has done so much to discredit the climate liarists’ cause. As the mounting evidence against climate panic grows and grow, they resort to more and more extreme and desperate statements. No one but the Communist Left is listening.

            And what is all this nonsense about oxygen in the oceans becoming scarce? Do the elementary math. There is already 70 times as much CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere. Even if all the CO2 now in the atmosphere ended up in the oceans, they would not notice.

          • cargosquid

            “All life in the ocean will die.”

            Really. They said that? Have they NO sense of geological history?

          • monckton

            In response to “cargosquid”, yes, one of these nitwits upthread said, “All life in the ocean will die” as a result of our altering the composition of the atmosphere by 1 part in 10,000 over the past 250 years. The climate liarists are now in a state of abject panic and despondency as their pet theory crumbles in the face of the evidence. They imagine the ocean is warming while the atmosphere is not (and yet it is in the atmosphere that CO2 accumulates and might in theory cause warming). All they can do now is recite the climate communist Party Line. They don’t know or care why it’s the Party Line, but they know the Party Line is a substitute for real thought, and they will accordingly adduce any evidence, however tenuous, in support of the Party Line without examining it for reliability, and reject any evidence, however compelling, against the p,arty line without looking at it properly. The intellectual bankruptcy of the communist/fascist hard Left is quite a sight to see, which is why I am delighted that they are advertising their militantly irrational and half-baked idiocies in threads such as this.

          • jimlauten

            These are probably the same people who would mock Christian preachers predicting the end of the world, but are now doing it themselves under the global warming religion. That’s why it’s really climate astrology. “You will meet somebody interesting” has morphed into “the seas will all die! or the planet will warm….someday.” And they of course don’t see the irony.

          • gwsmith

            What “the scientists” say, or what THESE “scientists” say?

            “The dirty work the professional global warming deniers” – Oh, those evil right wingers who want to destroy the world!
            “You are in the group of corrupt liars” – Darn, you’ve found us out!
            Mikie – don’t you see what you’re doing? You’re destroying your own credibility with these ridiculous statements. Who can believe you anymore? Get a grip. And do some real research.

          • Michael Stone

            I posted links for 2 articles about the coral reefs AROUND THE WORLD which are bleaching out and dying…. You replied with the following >> (“Thank you for the wonderful explanation and informative links. But, I think if you study it more you will find that these reports are local”).

            You agreed the articles were excellent and informative but you obviously think the hundreds of oceanographers and scientists are ALL wrong and you know better than they do….

            I replied to you and wrote > > (“Uhh GW; it is you who needs to study it more carefully because what you are writing is the exact opposite of what the scientists say in both of the articles.”).

            You again replied and ignored that paragraph and wrote a bunch of ignorant denying nonsense. You ended that rant with > (“Get a grip. And do some real research.”)… You had already agreed the research I had posted for you was excellent GW. Now it is not real research? You are being obtuse Smitty, jackassy too.

            From here on you may write whatever pleases your screwed up mind, because having a sensible, honest and intelligent debate with you is not at all possible. Like any other pro GW deniers would act….. Bye-by GW.

          • RealMrTea

            You mean these people? How is pointing out reality, destroy his credibility?

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

            I would think being correct would enhance his credibility…..

          • cargosquid

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/outreach/coral/sor/sor_indian.html

            Please show me where AGW is supposed to have hurt these corals. That is not one of the listed causes of degradation.

            And here is the report on the Great Barrier Reef. Let’s see what is harming it.

            http://theconversation.com/great-barrier-reef-dying-beneath-its-crown-of-thorns-6383
            “Kate Osborne and her co-researchers found that COTS (Crown of Thorns starfish) were responsible for 36.7% of the coral damage above all other causes including storms (33.8%), disease (6.5%), bleaching (5.6%) and unknown or multiple causes (17.4%).”

            So… about 70% of the damage is due to the starfish and the storms.

            Here’s a similar report: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/01/great-barrier-reef-coral-cover
            “Tropical cyclones, predation by Cots, and bleaching accounted for 48%, 42%,and 10% of the respective estimated losses.”

            So..this one puts it at 90% of the damage.

            AGW seems to be a minor problem.

            The main theory about the starfish population explosion seems to be the increase in nutrient outflow from the continent.

            “It is now well established that the large scale outbreaks seen on the
            GBR since 1962 are most likely to have been caused by nutrient
            enrichment associated with increased discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus from the land due to increased soil erosion and large scale fertiliser use.”

            You don’t want to deny science……do you?

          • Michael Stone

            http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/great-barrier-reef-australia.html

            A few of the many paragraph in the article > “Australia’s Great Barrier Reef—the world’s largest coral reef—is a unique marine ecosystem threatened by global warming. Damage to the reef could harm the region’s biodiversity, tourism, and fisheries.

            The reef has suffered eight mass coral bleaching events since 1979, ((* triggered by unusually high water temperatures.*)). If there is enough time between bleaching events, the coral can often recover. However, annual bleaching is expected by mid-century if our heat-trapping emissions continue at their current pace, thus leaving the reef vulnerable to diseases from which it may not recover.

             

            “What’s more, as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide rise, the oceans absorb the CO2, and their acidity increases. Ocean acidification is likely to further limit the ability of the Great Barrier Reef to recover from bleaching, and its overall resiliency.”

            http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Coral-Reefs.aspx

            From the article > (“In one year alone, 16 percent of the world’s coral reefs were wiped out. A sea temperature change of a mere one degree Celsius would yield similar losses. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the water cause additional damage to corals, leaving them defenseless against storm damage and erosion.”)

          • cargosquid

            Funny… I don’t see the official… .gov link. I just see activist links. I thought you were all about the NOAA authority.

            Again……where is the global warming in those causes as per your favorite pro-AGW government agency?

          • Michael Stone

            Oh, you don’t like the scientists and oceanographers I quoted…. You want some NOAA articles that will give you the same infor about global warmngand climate change and warmer water, ocean acidification causes coral reefs to bleachout and die…. Okay, no sweat, here ya are dufus.
            Oh pea brain; where do you think the NOAA gets their information?

            http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards/

            From the article. > “Globally, the most pressing threats to coral reef ecosystems are climate change and ocean acidification”….. There are other causes of coral reef damage, but now warmng waters are the most pressing threat globally.

            Here are some more NOAA articles…. Howz that wacko?

            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/oceans/coralreefs/

            http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/biology

            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral01_intro.html

            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral08_naturalthreats.html

          • cargosquid

            Nice collection of links. Only one lists global warming as a main threat, contradicting the NOAA link I posted.

            And since the warming waters are primarily a danger due to El Nino patterns…that is under natural threat.

            Hmmmm NOAA contradicting NOAA…..
            seems like the consensus is missing.

          • Michael Stone

            Well I would argue that the link you posted was from April of 2012 and the ocean waters have warmed a bit more since then and will continue to warm more as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise and more CH4 is added to the greenhouse gas mix.
            There are many scientists, oceanographers, oceanic bio-chemists from all around the world who all say the same thing about the most serious problem now for demise of coral reefs is waters that are too warm and ocean acidification, primarily from burning coal…
            You wish to argue all of that is wrong and that is your prerogative to do so, suit yourself… Find someone else to continue your arguments with because I have no more to say about it. I stand with what I have posted and if any don’t agree I really do not care. Howz that sonny?
            Anything there you don’t understand find someone that can explain it to you….. By now, throw ya later. Throw ya later is American slang, like, “what’s up doctor, or what’s shakin, pork?
            Btw; did you know that when you flush a toilet, it released up to 50,000 germs into the air?
            Gotta go and do something productive.. Love and kisses, Elvis.
            All of the NOAA links I posted discuss the several reasons coral reefs are harmed, star fish are a big reason… The star fish are not there every year. The warming water and ocean acidification is every year from now on and every year the oceans will warm further than the previous year as long as the atmospheric CO2 an dCH4 levels continue to rise.

          • jimlauten

            “There are many scientists…” Ah, yes, the “I have more scientists on my side than you do” 8th grade school yard argument.

          • RealMrTea

            “In 2008 estimates assembled from coral reef specialists from around the world indicated that 19% of the existing area of coral reefs has already been lost, and that a further 15% is likely to be lost over the subsequent 10–20 years.[3] Only 46% of the world’s reefs could be currently regarded as in good health.[3] About 60% of the world’s reefs may be at risk due to destructive, human-related activities. The threat to the health of reefs is particularly strong in Southeast Asia, where 80% of reefs are endangered. By the 2030s, 90% of reefs are expected to be at risk from both human activities and climate change; by 2050, all coral reefs will be in danger.[4][5]”

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

            In addition to acidification… and warming…. which causes infection and bleaching

            http://coralreef.noaa.gov/threats/climate/

            The coral is drowning as (stunted) growth can’t keep up with sea level rise…

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

          • monckton

            Whoever “Michael Stone” really is, it is not exactly polite. It prefers, like all good communists, to defer to authority without asking whether authority might be profiteering from adopting a particular political stance dressed up as a scientific “consensus”. The only two significant ways in which Man’s influence on the climate might affect coral reefs are 1) warmer weather, which has been absent for the past decade or two; and 2) dealkalinization of the oceans (hint: any organization that talks of “acidification” is plainly talking politics and not science, for the oceans are and must remain pronouncedly alkaline, with a mean pH around 8 (7 being neutral and 5.4, the pH of rainwater, being pronouncedly acid).

            I have already explained that the buffering of the oceans by the basalt rock of the basins in which they lie prevents any significant change in pH. The system is essentially homeostatic with respect to the acid-base balance of the oceans. It should also be noted that extreme changes in pH occur in coastal locations where runoff from the land affects the ocean: yet even in these regions corals and other calcifying organisms have no difficulty in surviving.

            Finally, NOAA is not to be trusted on the global warming question. It is one of many profiteering rackets in the climate field. I once testified alongside its director, Tom Karl, who tried to mislead Congress when, in 2008, I told a House hearing there had been global cooling for seven years and he said I was wrong. In fact, the data from his own National Climatic Data Center showed quite plainly that the global cooling had occurred. He also tried to deny my point that there had been no increase in landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the previous 100 years. he produced his own data, and I pointed out that on his own data there had been no increase for 150 years.

            One should not approach this or any scientific issue by first adopting the Communist or any other party line and then looking only at those data that can be tortured to fit the Party Line. One should examine the evidence objectively, of which “Michael Stone”, who cannot even get its own name right, is both temperamentally and intellectually incapable.

          • monckton

            Let us do science rather than citing scientifically-illiterate news stories. Mass bleaching has occurred thrice in the past 300 years. On each occasion the bleaching, a natural defence mechanism, occurred following a Great el Nino – a natural ocean-warming event. The corals subjected to temporary warmer water do not die: they bleach and then generally recover. Don’t be silly.

            And, for Heaven’s sake, talk to a geologist before expatiating ignorantly on supposed ocean “acidification”. The oceans are powerfully buffered by the basalt basins in which they live and heave and have their being. They cannot “acidify” under anything like current conditions. The buffering is a homeostatic mechanism so powerful that it entirely overrides our puny influence. How did the aragonite corals survive in the oceans at a time when CO2 conccentration was 12-15 times today’s? How did the calcite corals survive when it was 20-25 times today’s? They did so because the pH of the oceans simply does not change that much. And even if some exceptional event were to override the buffering (and releasing all fossil CO2 to the atmosphere would entirely fail to override it), why does Mr Bentun consider that the corals would have difficulty in surviving it? There was one such brief episode about 55 Ma BP, but the corals – which had evolved hundreds of millions of years earlier, survived that event. Even if “acidification” were to occur – which we cannot bring about – it would not harm the calcifying organisms.

            Ocean “acidification” is merely the fall-back position of the climate liarists. It has no scientific relevance today.

          • CB

            “The oceans are powerfully buffered by the basalt basins in which they live and heave and have their being. They cannot “acidify” under anything like current conditions.”

            NOAA says the oceans have acidified since the industrial revolution:

            “Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.”

            http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

            Who informs you otherwise?

          • monckton

            In scientific matters, I do not defer to the authority of rent-seeking organizations profiteering from the climate scam. Instead, I ask whether there exists today, or has ever existed, any worldwide monitoring of ocean pH sufficiently well-resolved both temporally and sterically to justify any claim such as that which NOAA makes. I find that no such monitoring network has ever existed. NOAA, therefore, are making stuff up for profit. I am glad I am not a U.S. taxpayer.

          • monckton

            The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis in the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago. At that time the CO2 concentration was 20-25 times higher than today’s. The aragonite corals first achieved algal symbiosis 175 million years ago, in the Jurassic era. Then the CO2 concentration was 12-15 times today’s. Yet the weather was not all that much warmer than today. And the corals survived. They are a hardy species, remarkably insensitive either to changes in ocean temperature or to changes in pH.

            Coral bleaching on a widespread scale has occurred approximately thrice in the past 300 years. All three episodes followed Great el Ninos (which occur about every 100-150 years). the most recent of these was in 1998. There have been several studies recording the vigorous recovery of the corals after the transient bleaching episode caused by the 1998 el Nino.

          • CB

            “The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis in the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago. At that time the CO2 concentration was 20-25 times higher than today’s.”

            So what?

            Are the corals we have today adapted to Cambrian levels of CO₂ or pre-industrial levels of CO₂?

          • monckton

            This is not, perhaps, the place to educate the ineducable “CB” about fixed vs. mutable characteristics in the evolution of a species. However, there is an extensive literature on the high variability of ocean pH in the vicinity of coastlines, some of which have corals, yet the corals are – as the history of their evolution would lead us to suspect – capable of surviving even an actual acidification of the entire global ocean (i.e. a pH <7), which occurred briefly about 55 Ma BP.

            One should not approach these questions with a desire to uphold some political Party Line. Instead, an inquiring mind is best. The corals have survived extremely variable conditions – variations well beyond any we are capable of causing even by burning all realistically-obtainable fossil fuels. The same goes for all calcifying organisms. Ocean "acidification" cannot in any event occur under present conditions, for the oceans are overwhelmingly and homeostatically buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie.

          • Robert

            “..educate the ineducable “CB” about fixed vs. mutable characteristics in the evolution of a species…”

            You are forgetting, or making the conscious choice, to not discuss rate of change……

          • monckton

            Leave out the childishness about “making the conscious choice” not to discuss the rates of evolutionary change. The point about the coastlines and the highly variable pH there is that the changes caused, say, by a flooding river pouring vast volumes of rainwater at pH 5.4 into an ocean at pH 8.0 are very sudden, and far more sudden than any change we might be able to effect were it not for the overwhelming buffering influence of the basalt basins in which the oceans heave. Yet the corals and other calcifying organisms actually seem to prefer the coastlines to the wider oceans.

          • Robert

            “Yet the corals and other calcifying organisms actually seem to prefer the coastlines to the wider oceans.”

            Yup, part of the evolutionary process……. which takes time. Which makes your argument moot.

            Acidification of our oceans is well documented; both by physical evidence in shells and measurement of Ph. I’m not quite sure why “Lord Monckton” is attempting to deny that.

            Oh, wait…….

          • Robert

            “Leave out the childishness about “making the conscious choice” not to discuss the rates of evolutionary change.”

            Kinda hard to ignore basic science when having a science discussion. Though “Lord Monckton ( http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1678977915 ) ” seems willing to try…..

          • Robert

            “..Ocean “acidification” cannot in any event occur under present conditions…”

            Hmmm, must not be the ‘real monckton’ here; making such a basic mistake….

          • monckton

            And your scientific evidence is?

          • CB

            “And your scientific evidence is?”

            You are posing yourself an important question.

            Answer it, please.

          • monckton

            Another childish climate-Communist tactic – to answer a relevant question with an irrelevant one. The scientific evidence is very clearly set out in the head posting, and is backed up with numerous further discussions and scientific references in this thread. Don’t be silly.

          • Robert

            Well, given that it is currently acidifying……..

            “Lord Monckton” is attempting to claim acidification has different definition than what real scientists use.

          • Robert

            “…actual acidification of the entire global ocean (i.e. a pH <7)…"

            Acidification is well defined; "Lord Monckton ( http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1678977915 ) " is attempting the 'skeptic' talking point of claiming acidification means the ocean has to drop into the acid range "…pH <7…"

            So, basically, another unsupported 'anything but my tailpipe' talking point that is not based in science. Basic science for 12 year olds here, btw ( and yes only slightly sorry for the bad pun.)

          • cargosquid

            They aren’t going to like this…..

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/10/new-paper-is-huge-blow-to-cagw-missing.html

            New paper shows COOLING.
            Excerpt:
            A paper published yesterday in Nature Climate Change finds the deep oceans [below 2000 meters] cooled from 2005-2013, debunking the convenient excuse that Trenberth’s AGW ‘missing heat’ has been hiding in the deep oceans. According to the authors, this deep ocean cooling caused a global sea level decrease of -0.13 mm/yr from 2005-2013.

          • monckton

            Actually, the vast majority of the energy in the Earth’s climate system is in the Earth’s core and mantle, which influences deep-ocean temperatures via 3.5 million subsea volcanoes, nearly all of which have never been monitored by Man. Connections between the behavior of these volcanoes and the el Nino Southern Oscillation have been posited, and the global earthquake data have been recalibrated to allow annular subsets to be built and studied.

            The oceans, like any heat-sink, are of course a formidable store of energy. That is what a heat-sink is. But, precisely because the oceans are such an effective heat-sink, they have a considerable moderating influence on atmospheric temperature. And if, as the Trenberth/Fasullo/Balmaseda/Meehl/Arblaster clique want us to believe, heat from the atmosphere is by some miracle passing straight into the deep ocean without warming the intervening near-surface strata on the way down, then global warming ceases to be of any concern to us.

            And my reports every month on the global lower-troposphere temperature show that that temperature has not risen in any statistically-significant sense for up to a quarter of a century – since the first IPCc report, in fact. Those reports do not talk of the failure of the climate system as a whole to warm: merely of the failure of the lower troposphere to warm.

          • Michael Stone

            No Englishman would butcher the King’s English like you are doing here on this thread….. Is your first name Christopher?

            Tell us, what was the color of the toy airplane you loved so much and rode around the estate in it for two years…. You still have it I understand.

            I have to open up as you have here Chris… My real name is Michael K.. Bentun. I am a retired professor of physics at Princeton University. I also have a second doctorate in Oceanic bio-Chemistry.

            There Chris, does that satisfy you? Cheerio old boy…. Jolly well done I say, eh. Cricket!

          • monckton

            Retired is one thing: gaga another. What is all this dribbling and drooling about toy aeroplanes? And why has Mr Bentun been writing under a furtive pseudonym till now? And why, if he is, as he claims to be, a former professor of physics with a doctorate in oceanic bio-chemistry, does he know so little about the Great Barrier Reef?

            Why does he not know that the Great Barrier Reef Authority’s own records show no increase in ocean temperatures in the area around the reef for the past quarter of a century? Why does he not know that the Authority’s latest assessment lists a variety of real risks to the reef, such as the Crown of Thorns starfish, which are more urgent than global warming that has not happened for up to a quarter of a century? Why does he not know that the calcite corals evolved in the Cambrian era, when there was 20-25 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today? Why does he argue this case like an enthusiastic member of the Komsomol parroting the Party Line? We all know what the Party Line is on the climate, but the facts and the evidence relentlessly conspire to demonstrate that in every policy-relevant particular the Party Line is incorrect.

            Now that Mr Bentun is retired, isn’t it time he grew up?

          • Michael Stone

            Hi Christopher, you wrote, > “And why, if he is, as he claims to be, a former professor of physics with a doctorate in oceanic bio-chemistry, does he know so little about the Great Barrier Reef?”

            Oh dang, I got confused, senior moment. I’m not Dr. Michael K. Bentun, that was my cover name when I was working with James Bond…. My real name is Go F. Urself. I’m a retired lunatic.

            On the Great Barrier Reef? You are wacked up on that one. Oh your aeroplane was pink with purple wings. You forgot.

            Great Barrier Reef articles that show you are not a retired nutcase but you should be.

            http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1117-corals.html

            http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/great-barrier-reef-australia.html

          • monckton

            The truth – which this liar who cannot even tell us its own name would not understand – is that “global warming” cannot have had any effect on the Great Barrier Reef for the good and sufficient reason that there has not been any in a couple of decades, and the temperature of the water in the vicinity of the reef has not changed for a quarter of a century.

          • CB

            ” “global warming” cannot have had any effect on the Great Barrier Reef for the good and sufficient reason that there has not been any in a couple of decades”

            Do you know who disagrees with you?

            You:

            “The oceans, for instance, are warming”

            Did you think the Great Barrier Reef existed someplace besides the ocean?

            Would you like to get your personalities on the same page before we continue?

          • monckton

            The oceans are certainly shown as warming, but – even if they are warming – we cannot safely attribute the warming to Man. And, as I have pointed out upthread, the records of the Great Barrier Reef Authority do not show any warming of the ocean in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef. “Global warming” is usually taken to refer to a warming of the global atmosphere owing to its enrichment with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Since there has been no global warming for close to two decades, the likelihood is that any ocean warming is caused not by Man but by Nature.

          • CB

            “The oceans are certainly shown as warming”

            You said the oceans are warming… then you said you didn’t know…. then you said they were warming again.

            Could you please have a chat to your personalities and get them to agree before we continue?

            Seriously! Have this discussion within your own mind. Don’t involve other people in it.

            When you pen an entire article saying no warming has occurred whilst fully understanding warming has occurred, that is actually the definition of a lie, BTW… in case that wasn’t already abundantly clear to you…

            …it certainly is to everyone else.

          • monckton

            A more grown-up approach from climate communists like the furtively pseudonymous “CB” would be welcome. There is no sufficiently resolved measurement dataset to allow us to be sure whether the oceans are warming. The ARGO dataset shows a little increase in ocean heat content, but at a rate about one-sixth of what the models had predicted. However, if there were any significant warming of the oceans, then the atmosphere would be warming too, for the oceans are three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere. The fact that the atmosphere is not warming is a powerful indication that the ocean may not be warming either. Also, the GRACE and ENVISAT sea-level records do not show much in the way of a sea-level increase – a further indication that not much warming of the ocean is taking place.

            One appreciates that those who approach these issues from an extreme-Left political rather than from a scientific perspective are not familiar with the role of uncertainty in science. So perhaps a short lesson may be in order. The general principle is that the fewer the measurements in relation to the size of the object being measured the greater the uncertainty is likely to be. The measurements of ocean heat content are remarkably sparse in relation to the volume that requires to be measured. As a result, it is really not possible to be certain at what rate, if at all, the oceans are warming. What is clear, however, is that the atmosphere is not warming: and the article I wrote concerned the warming of the lower troposphere, as the article made explicitly plain. So don’t be silly. The truth of the matter is that the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, predicted in 1990 that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since. There has been some warming of the atmosphere over the past 25 years (though on some datasets even this is a questionable statement), and it is not unlikely that there has been some warming of the oceans over the same period, though one cannot be entirely sure. However, it is less likely that there has been any ocean warming over the past decade or two during which the atmosphere has not warmed. We know that during el Nino Southern Oscillations the oceans warm and then, rapidly, the atmosphere warms. Then, during la Nina’s the oceans cool and thereupon the atmosphere cools. For this reason, if there had been any significant warming of the ocean in the past decade or two, one would have expected some warming of the atmosphere. The latter has not occurred, suggesting that the former has not occurred.

            Welcome to uncertainty in science – the antithesis of the climate-communist (or of any) Party Line. Every statement about whether the oceans or the atmosphere has warmed – indeed, any quantitative statement dependent upon measurement – will be subject to various kinds of measurement error. In the case of atmospheric temperature, for instance, there are measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties before one even begins to consider the statistical uncertainties that arise from the fact that we are measuring minuscule changes in a large object. So the shrieking certainty of the climate communists is the very antithesis of true science. If “CB” really thinks warming of the ocean has occurred, then it should be prepared to state how many measurements were taken, and over what period, and by what method, and over what volume per measurement and in total. Performing that exercise will reveal to it just how very unreliable our present methods of measuring ocean heat content must inevitably be. And that is before we have even begun to try to attribute the warming as between Man and Nature, CO2 and volcanoes.

            The one certainty is that the models’ exaggerated predictions of the rate of global warming have proven to be wildly exaggerated.

          • CB

            “A more grown-up approach from climate communists like the furtively pseudonymous “CB” would be welcome.”

            You are talking about yourself in the wrong person.

            I agree, Climate Deniers frequently behave like children.

            You said this:

            “The ARGO dataset shows a little increase in ocean heat content”

            If you understand the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system is warming, why did you say the Earth’s climate system is not warming?

            If you weren’t mentally ill, why wouldn’t you own up to your lies after making it abundantly clear that’s what they are?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • zlop

            “I agree, Climate Deniers frequently behave like children.” — ““Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (seeing, without pre-conditioning)

          • Michael Stone

            You must be aware that you are taking the words of Jesus Christ out of context to all of what he said to those he was speaking to then.
            Taking other swords out of context is lying and you global warming deniers do that continually… You take a sentence or a paragraph from a paper a scientist has written and use it (out of context) with attempts to prove your lying false agendas…

          • zlop

            Bible was a Roman Empire psychological operation. Give to Caesar, turn the other cheeks, wait for heavenly justice (similar to, hopelessly hoping for Obama, to solve Global injustice)

            “you are taking the words of Jesus Christ out of context” — “Alan Watts: How We Got The Bible – YouTube”

            Interpretation exposes the role of conditioning. Cultural hypnosis prevents seeing and efficient functioning.

          • Michael Stone

            OMG, another Watts!…You are doomed to eternity in Hell if you do not repent slop. You have your chance and your volition. Just tryin gto help you out…. Out the door.

            My main purpose however was to show how you take others words out of context and spread lies about the global warming issue.

          • zlop

            “how you take others words out of context and spread lies about the global warming issue” ?

            Not a lie, that the globe stopped warming last century. Now, even the ocean deep, where the missing heat was stated to be hiding by the IPCC, is cooling.

            “NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea …. The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all”

          • cunudiun

            Even in a world with very high levels of CO2 and very acidic seas like the one you say existed in the Cambrian era, if these conditions had persisted for a very long time, then the oceans would have become saturated with dissolved calcium and other minerals and thus be no threat to coral growth. But that is not the case today. We now have acidification on the increase which means that the seas are *not* saturated with dissolved minerals and thus are capable of stripping these minerals from coral shells. It is the rate of increase in acidification, rather than the level of acidification itself that is the threat. I am not an expert, but I would guess that during most of that prehistoric era, CO2 levels were declining due to the process of rock weathering, until they reached the levels we call pre-industrial; oceans were becoming less acidic, rather than more, tending to precipitate minerals rather than dissolve them — and thus being no threat to corals, whatever the level of acid/CO2 at any single point in time. (Also, whatever organisms that were formed would have had eons to evolve and adapt to the lower levels of acidification, which are now suddenly being increased.) I see no point in making this argument about high CO2 levels once having been compatible with corals unless you can simultaneously provide data about the levels of dissolved minerals in the ocean at that time.

          • monckton

            The oceans were not acidic in the Cambrian, notwithstanding a partial pressure of CO2 above them some 20-25 times today’s. I have already explained that the oceans are powerfully buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie, making acid oceans impossible in today’s conditions. This is elementary geological chemistry.

            There is insufficient resolution in ocean measurements to say that the oceans have become less alkaline than formerly. However, it is clear that they remain pronouncedly alkaline. Even if all of the CO2 now locked in fossil fuels extractable but not yet burned were burned, the oceans could not, repeat could not, become acidic on that account. The homeostasis of the system absolutely prevents it.

            There is, therefore, no threat to corals or other calcifying organisms, which are capable of comfortably withstanding far more change than we could inflict.

          • cunudiun

            More complete idiocy from you.

            If the oceans were not acidic back then, then that would explain why the shellfish had no problem. The oceans, however, are becoming measurably more acidic today, which would explain why they are in peril.

            http://news.agu.org/press-release/ocean-acidification-killing-oysters-by-inhibiting-shell-formation/
            http://uafcornerstone.net/new-study-reveals-ocean-acidification-threatens-alaska-fisheries-communities/

          • monckton

            I am as familiar with the climate-communist Party Line on ocean “acidification” as the paid Communist coward who lurks furtively behind a pseudonym and hurls insults from there. However, since there is no network of ocean pH monitoring anything like sufficient to tell us whether the oceans are dealkalinizing, and since the oceans are powerfully and homeostatically buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie, there is no basis for any claim either that the oceans are “acidifying” or that they are capable of doing so under present conditions. And the oceans are so pronouncedly alkaline – as the few measurements we have demonstrate – that the likelihood of their becoming acid (i.e. pH <7.0) is nil.

          • cunudiun

            Your ad hominems are, well, breathtaking. It’s one thing to label anybody who you don’t agree with a “climate-communist”, but I am actually offended that you accuse me of spouting some kind of “Party Line”, because my comments here are material I actually thought of myself.

            Hereis a chart showing trends in ocean pH (acidification), from Feely R., Doney S., Cooley S. (2009). Present Conditions and Future Changes in a High-CO2 World.

          • monckton

            Those cowards like “cunudium” who hurl childish insults from behind craven pseudonyms are using a technique first developed by Dr Goebbels and later adopted by the KGB to discredit the opponents of Communism. “Cunudium” is in fact a paid climate Communist working for one of the many lavishly-funded environment front groups, trying to distract attention from the ineluctable fact that global warming has not occurred for approaching two decades. However, the climate Communists no longer convince any but themselves, and their over-funded malice is no longer having any effect on public opinion, other than to confirm that a hard-Left political agenda has been dressed up with pseudo-science. For instance, the climate Communist Party Line is that the oceans are “acidifying”, and the climate Communists will cheerfully reproduce nonsensical graphs such as that shown by “Cunudium”, which appear to suggest a minuscule reduction in ocean pH. However, it is well established that the resolution of ocean pH measurements both in space and in time is far below the minimum resolution necessary to rely upon any graph such as that which is shown. The oceans are not “acidifying”: and, indeed, the graph above shows this quite well, indicating a pH well above 8, when 7 is neutral and acid is <7. I am always happy for scientists to produce guesswork, but they must not present it as though it were anything more than that.

          • cunudiun

            Your whole modus operandi is to pretend you have some kind of credentials and prey on people who have no background in science, isn’t it? Something doesn’t have to have a pH below 7 to be acidifying. Having a pH below 7 means something is already an acid, but things that are not acids can “acidify”. You really prey on people’s stupidity don’t you?

            Or else you launch ad hominem attacks related to the person’s choice of a Disqus name, call them Communists and make ridiculous accusations that they are paid to write what they write (like you are?), and you say that this website deserves science But all you do is spout completely unsubstantiated stuff that sounds like science, for example, a few posts back you said

            The oceans were not acidic in the Cambrian, notwithstanding a partial pressure of CO2 above them some 20-25 times today’s.

            Could you please supply us a source for that astounding assertion other than your anal sphincter?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “cunudiun”, too terrified to reveal its identity (though no doubt it informs its paymasters in the environmental-extremist movement where they should send their checks), dares to challenge my credentials from behind a coward’s cloak of furtive pseudonymity. “cunudiun” has published nothing in the scientific literature: I have published several reviewed papers. The reviewers and editors are not as obsessed as the climate-Communist trolls are with whether or not the authors of scientific papers have pieces of paper to certify that they have received appropriate Socialist “training” in their subject. They are judged on the value of the science they contribute, and on no other criterion.

            Anyone who hurls insults at named individuals from behind the coward’s cloak of a hidden identity is fair game to be called out as what it is – a paid climate-Communist hack.

            The oceans were indeed not acidic in the Cambrian, nor at any time from then till now except for a transient period some 55 Ma BP. The calcifying organisms, such as corals, that came into being long before that brief period of acidity plainly survived it, suggesting (as coastal observations of widely fluctuating pH in South America have recently confirmed) that they are capable of robustly withstanding far greater variations in pH than the usual suspects would have us believe.

            The trouble with trying to talk science with paid climate-Communist trolls is that they know none themselves, but merely parrot the Party Line. By now, everyone knows the Party Line, so they need no longer parrot it. Also, everyone knows the Party Line to have been proven wrong in just about every material particular. The oceans are not “acidic” today: they are pronouncedly alkaline, and must remain so regardless of our puny alterations to the composition of the atmosphere (amounting to little more than 1 part in 10,000 over the past 266 years). For they are powerfully – indeed, overwhelmingly – buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie. These matters will be well explained by any passing geologist whom the climate-Communists might consult if they were not prohibited from asking any questions about the Party Line.

            There is an extensive literature on the paleoclimate, including the paleochemistry of the oceans. If “cunudiun” were to ask his paymasters to get it access to the ISI Web of Science Database it could look these matters up for itself. However, I caution it to do so more with an open mind with an open mouth, and firmly to discard the Party Line before doing so. Science is a process not of religious belief nor of totalitarian regimentation but of childlike enquiry. As Bacon put it, Regnum scientiae, ut regnum coeli, non nisi sub infantis persona intratur.

          • cunudiun

            Just as I thought. 500 more words pulled out your ass and you can’t cite a single source. You’re a complete phony.

          • monckton

            “Cunudiun”, being a paid climate Communist, can use its paymasters’ time to look up its own references.

          • cunudiun

            You can find your source much faster than that. Just bend over and put your head up your ass. Oops, my mistake. It is already there.

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communists seem to be growing more desperate, resorting to rather crude insults from behind their cowardly rampart of anonymity. The fact remains that the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite data (Mears & Wentz) show no global warming for 18 years 1 month, and none statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years (McKitrick, 2014). And the rate of global warming since 1990 is half of what the IPCC then predicted as its central estimate, and appreciably below its entire interval of estimates. Bottom line: the paid climate Communists can waste the taxpayers’ money on petty insults all they like, but the facts are in all material respects contrary to the Party Line.

          • cunudiun

            Crude insults well deserved, because you couldn’t answer a simple question. I’ll repeat it. You said, “The oceans were not acidic in the Cambrian, notwithstanding a partial pressure of CO2 above them some 20-25 times today’s.” Can you pretty pretty please with sugar on top supply a source for this assertion? If you can’t, then I’ll have to continue assuming that you did in fact pull this out of a place in your posterior where the sun doesn’t shine, but of course if you do supply a source, then I will withdraw my seemingly appropriate (now) description of your modus operandi.

          • monckton

            One cannot insult someone who is cowardly enough to be anonymous. “Cunudiun”, however, is a paid climate Communist troll, wasting its time making childish insults from behind a pseudonym. Since it cannot be polite, it can do its own homework and look up the history of the oceans.

          • cunudiun

            You really have nothing to say about science, do you?

          • cargosquid

            You do?

            And you STILL get the AGW theories wrong?

            Who knew that a PHD could get theories so wrong.

          • CB

            “you STILL get the AGW theories wrong?”

            The theory of anthropogenic global warming is that humans produce greenhouse gasses and that greenhouse gasses warm the planet.

            Which part did Michael get wrong?

          • monckton

            The paid (but lamentably valueless) cowardly climate-Communist troll “CB” uses the standard Communist tactic of not quoting correctly. Here is what I wrote: “The oceans, for instance, are warming at about one-sixth of the predicted rate (insofar as we are able to measure temperature anomalies throughout so vast a volume).” And I have made it plain that even the ARGO bathythermograph buoys are inadequate to measure ocean heat content reliably. The most sensitive indicator of upper-ocean heat-content change that we can measure is the atmosphere, which would warm if the heat content of the upper ocean were increasing.

            And it should be self-evident even to the meanest intelligence that the head posting was not about the warming of the “Earth’s climate system” but about the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, which, like it or not, is the standard metric of global warming (see all five IPCC reports).

            The truth is that the atmosphere is not warming; that, therefore, the upper ocean cannot be warming; and that, if the benthic ocean is warming, that will do little harm and is irrelevant to us up here.

          • Icarus62

            The reality is that virtually all climate metrics, including OHC, agree with predictions for a climate driven by anthropogenic + natural forcings, and do not agree at all with a climate driven by natural forcings alone.

            IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary, p. 74.

          • monckton

            The furtively pseudonymous “Icarus62” reproduces a graph from IPCC AR5, for which I was an expert reviewer. The graph is a striking example of how far climate science has sunk from true science. It is an extended instance of the fallacy of argument from ignorance: “We can’t explain the observed warming unless we assume that the warming was manmade, so the warming was manmade.” It has only to be stated thus to be plainly illogical nonsense.

            I should expect that some of the global warming since 1950 was manmade, but, in line with all but 41 of the 11,944 papers on climate reviewed by Legates et al., 2013, I should hesitate to say that most of it was manmade. The truth is that neither we nor the IPCC have the slightest idea what fraction of that not very great warming was manmade.

            What is undeniable, though, is that the atmosphere has warmed at half the rate predicted by the IPCC in its first assessment report 25 years ago.

          • Icarus62

            Yes, I contributed to AR5 too. Your mis-characterisation of the science is regrettable. The IPCC are a very conservative organisation but even they say:

            “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010.”

            … and:

            “There is very high confidence that industrial-era natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing except for brief periods following large volcanic eruptions.”

            IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, p. 662.

            i.e. there is no realistic doubt that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate.

            The likely attribution of anthropogenic influences over the 1951 to 2010 period is slightly greater than the observed global warming over this period, meaning that the best estimate is that we have caused 100% of the warming of the last half century.

            Finally, the land/ocean warming has actually slightly exceeded that predicted by the IPCC’s first assessment report – ~0.9°C compared to ~0.85°C predicted by the known climate forcings and a climate sensitivity of 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm.

          • monckton

            No one called “Icarus62” contributed to IPCC AR5.

            The IPCC has a duty to reflect the peer-reviewed literature, not the climate Communist Party Line. The reviewed literature (see Legates et al., 2013, of which I was a contributing author) showed that of 11,944 papers on climate and related subjects published in the 21 years 1991-2011 inclusive just 41, or 0.3%, stated that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. IPeCaC, however, decided to ignore the fact that very nearly all climate papers did not state that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade, because it was anxious to continue to profiteer by peddling the climate Communist Party Line.

            It is not in fact possible to determine what fraction of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. It is startlingly obvious that the only warming that occurred during the entire period was from 1976-2001, exactly coincident with the positive (or warming) phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. From 1950-1976, during the negative or cooling phase, there was slight cooling; from 2001-date there has been neither warming nor cooling.

            Scientists do themselves grave damage by claiming over-confidently, and in defiance of the tenor of the overwhelming majority of the literature, that the literature presents a consensus that does not in reality exist. That consensus does not exist for a very good reason: that the period of measurement is too short, the resolution of measurements too poor, the uncertainties too great, and the inability to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural forcings and between forcings and feedbacks too overwhelming, to allow any realistic assessment of the apportionment between natural and anthropogenic contributions to the actually rather small warming, well within natural variability, that has occurred since 1950.

            The models that have been proven wrong by perhaps a quarter of a century without significant warming were tuned to predict warming at double the rate that has actually occurred. Those models, therefore, are useless for apportioning the warming between Man and Nature, and it is foolishly arrogant (or cravenly compliant with the Party Line) for IPeCaC or anyone else to try to maintain otherwise. Given the very large quantitative as well as methodological uncertainties, to maintain that most of the warming since 1950 was caused by us, in defiance of the far more appropriately cautious literature, is frankly absurd, and reflects very badly on IPeCaC and all who profiteer by parroting its nonsense.

          • Robert

            ” The graph is a striking example of how far climate science has sunk from true science.”

            OK, that statement needs a bit of expansion, extension, and a whole bucket load of cited published science to support it.

            Otherwise, it just fits to your own claim, “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”
            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            The science establishing the bogosity of NOAA’s false claim that ocean heat content in the upper strata has been increasing is well explained up- and down-thread. It is not my job to educate the ineducable in the elementary thermodynamics of coupled systems. If the climate Communists want to be taken seriously, they must post under their own full names. Even though they are so craven as to be anonymous, they wail like the small children they are when their failed climate Communism is criticized.

          • monckton

            Let us have complete quotations. The oceans are warming at one-sixth of the predicted rate – i.e., at the equivalent of 0.05 K per decade. Not particularly terrifying, and so well within natural variability that it is not possible to ascribe the warming to Man – if it is occurring at all. The ARGO bathythermographs – the least ill-resolved of the records – are only capable of measuring the equivalent of Lake Superior less than once a year with a single temperature and salinity profile – hardly enough to give a reliable picture. And the atmosphere – exasperatingly for adherents of the Climate Communist party line – is not warming at all, suggesting that the ARGO floats may be wrong, or that such warming of the ocean as is occurring is simply not significant enough to warm the atmosphere too. Either way, there’s no problem – except for the adherents of the Party Line, who are being thwarted every month by the compelling evidence that the models on which the climate scare was founded were and continue to be wrong.

          • Voodude

            The oceans are just lagging behind. The thermal mass makes them slower to respond to THE LACK OF WARMING that the surface (and lower troposphere) temperatures have shown.

          • Michael Stone

            Are you using your actual name? What is your first name and what are your credentials. Are you saying you are Christopher Monckton the Englishman who says he is a member of the House of Lords?

          • monckton

            Can the climate communists really not raise their game beyond ad hominem? By the 1999 House of Lords Act, hereditary peers such as my late beloved father were denied a seat or a vote in the House and the Act narrowly defines “membership” as the right to sit and vote. However, as a learned legal Opinion on this matter stated trenchantly a couple of years ago, all the other rights and privileges of membership of the peerage and hence of the House (the two being synonymous) remain. The closing words of that Opinion, by learned counsel specializing in constitutional law, are instructive: “Therefore the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley remains a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, and he is fully entitled to say so.”

            No global warming for up to 26 years. No disappearance of Arctic sea ice this year, as the climate communists had been predicting. A record global extent of sea ice a couple of months ago. A record extent of Antarctic sea ice just last week. Antarctica showing little signs of warming for 35 years. Sahara desert shrinking as moister air restores vegetation to its margins. No landfalling major hurricane in the United States for the longest period in a century. No change in the global severity or frequency or duration of floods. A decline over 30 years in the land area of the globe under drought. Rapidly falling death rate from climate-related events. In the end, however much the climate communists may amuse themselves by showing themselves to be as ignorant of peerage law as they are of climate science, they can no longer ignore, conceal or deny the facts: they got the science wrong, and global warming is not that big of a deal. Get over it, and get a life, and stop quoting long-worn-out climate-communist talking points when you are unable to cope with the tide of hard evidence washing your fatuous theory away.

          • Robert

            ” It is also generally accepted that a further 1.1 C of warming would be likely to be net-beneficial.”

            Quotes and cites?

            Especially the “generally” part.

          • Icarus62

            More comical nonsense from the AGW denial scam.

          • Michael Stone

            Indeed. I have seen a few others like him during the past 12 years. Just blathering off at the yap and mimicking the Anthony Watts propaganda. It could be one who has been barred and is now using that name or it might be the real guy. Whomever he is as you say a typical GW denier.

          • Icarus62

            Yes, these global warming deniers are desperately clutching at straws while the real world heats up at an accelerating rate.

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

          • monckton

            Try expressing this minuscule change in heat content (even if it is real, for in truth we have no way to measure it reliably) as a percentage of ocean heat capacity. End of problem.

          • CB

            “Try expressing this minuscule change in heat content (even if it is real, for in truth we have no way to measure it reliably) as a percentage of ocean heat capacity.”

            Why would you think the oceans had a maximum heat capacity?

            o_O

            If the top 2,000 meters of the oceans haven’t gained 25×10²² joules of energy since 1960, how much energy has this part of the ocean gained and how do you know?

            If you understand the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has warmed for the past 18 years, why would you claim the Earth’s climate system hasn’t warmed for the past 18 years?

          • monckton

            Like so many climate communists, “CB” thinks that by vain repetition it will convince. I have not discussed the question whether the oceans have a maximum heat capacity: however, they have a current heat capacity, and the alleged change in ocean heat content is a remarkably small fraction thereof – even if the alleged change is real, which it probably is not, for otherwise the atmosphere would have warmed too, and it has not. Attempts to measure ocean heat content change are largely fiction, for the resolution of the measurements both in space and in time is manifestly insufficient.

          • CB

            “”CB” thinks that by… repetition it will convince.”

            Convince people that you’re a liar?

            Yes. Yes I think it will.

            The IPCC says 250 zettajoules have gone into the oceans since 1970, in comparison to less than 1 zettajoule that’s gone into the atmosphere over the same time period.

            If you think this is incorrect, what is the relative energy accumulation and how do you know?

            If you don’t know, why are you pretending you do?

          • monckton

            One wonders whether the paid climate-Communist cowards who troll here under furtive pseudonyms, hurling their petty insults from the safety of craven anonymity, are paid by the word. One may perform all manner of theoretical calculations in an attempt to determine whether the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has accumulated or shed energy, or neither, over the past 40-odd years. However, there are far too many unknowns in the equation to produce a result that is at all reliable. I and other IPCC expert reviewers told it that it must properly qualify statements such as that which our climate-Communist detractor cites with such naively credulous enthusiasm.

            However, the fact remains that if the ocean had accumulated an amount of energy sufficient to warm the atmosphere then the atmosphere would have continued to warm in the past decade or two as it warmed (though not by much) in the decade or two before that.

            If, however, the ocean has accumulated as much energy as the IPCC barmily and without foundation imagines, and yet the ocean has not warmed the atmosphere in the process for almost two decades, then that is the end of the “climate” problem. The absolute heat content of the ocean is vast: the supposed (and unmeasured) enhancement thereof minuscule to the vanishing-point by comparison. And that minuscule enhancement of a vast heat content, if – I repeat if – it has occurred, is simply too small to matter in the overall scheme of things. The problem with the climate Communists, especially the paid ones, is that they must continue to shriek the Party Line and to cast nasturtiums at men of true science regardless of the mounting weight of evidence that the nonsense they peddle for profit and for politics is nonsense indeed.

          • CB

            I don’t see an amount of energy in your post.

            Why not?

            Let’s tailor the data specifically to Christopher Monckton’s claim, shall we?

            If you think the oceans haven’t gained at least 100 zettajoules of energy in the last 18 years, how much energy have the oceans gained and how do you know?

          • monckton

            The trouble with paid climate Communist cowards who will not reveal who they are is that they serve their paymasters as useful idiots: useful to their paymasters, idiots to everyone else. They lie because they are paid to lie. They are stupid because they were born that way. The oceans may or may not have gained or lost energy: the measurements suggesting they have gained energy are insufficiently well resolved (i.e. there are not enough of them) to draw any conclusion such as the fictitious conclusion paraded by “CB”. The upper or mixed stratum of the ocean has not gained energy in the past 18 years, or the atmosphere would have warmed. It has not warmed.

          • CB

            “The upper or mixed stratum of the ocean has not gained energy in the past 18 years”

            Uh huh, but NOAA says you’re wrong:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            If the top 700 meters of the ocean haven’t gained 70 zettajoules in the last 18 years, how much have they warmed and how do you know? If you don’t know, why did you claim you did?

          • monckton

            If the oceans had warmed as NOAA’s bogus graph claims, so would the atmosphere. But, since 1996, there has been no warming of the atmosphere. Therefore there has been no warming of the ocean in those 18 years either. The measurements on which NOAA bases its bogus graph are insufficiently resolved to allow it to draw the conclusion it here attempts to draw. This point has been repeatedly explained to the paid climate-Communist troll “CB”, but it is intellectually incapable of accepting any information other than the Party Line. We all know what the Party Line is. We all know that it is wrong. Continually parroting it merely makes “CB” look foolish. If the oceans were capable of repealing the laws of thermodynamics and warming without warming the atmosphere, then global warming would cease to be a problem for surface-dwelling life-forms.

          • CB

            “If the oceans had warmed as NOAA’s bogus graph claims, so would the atmosphere”

            …and on what do you base that conclusion?

            Why would you think the energy in the Earth’s climate system would have to move around in any particular way?

            If you think NOAA’s incorrect about the 100 zettajoules that have gone into the ocean in the last 18 years, how much energy has gone into the ocean and how do you know?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            If you don’t know, why did you claim you did?

          • monckton

            More otiose repetition from the paid climate-Communist troll “CB”, writing under the cowardly cover of a pseudonym. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that if the oceans and the atmosphere were previously in thermal equilibrium and the oceans – denser by three orders of magnitude than the atmosphere – were to warm to any significant degree, the atmosphere must warm too, so as to preserve thermal equilibrium between the mixed stratum of the ocean and the lower troposphere. Refer to any elementary textbook of climatological physics or of elementary thermodynamics.

            Given that there are insufficiently frequent or closely-spaced measurements of ocean heat content (that is what we men of science mean when we say the measurement of ocean heat content is “insufficiently resolved”) to allow any conclusion to be drawn from them about any imagined increase in ocean heat content, and given that the atmosphere has not warmed as the laws of thermodynamics would require it to do if the mixed stratum of the ocean had itself warmed, we may conclude either that the ocean has not warmed to anything like the degree imagined on inadequate evidence by NOAA or that the n ZJ of additional heat content imagined by NOAA represents so small a fraction of pre-existing ocean heat content that it is observably insufficient to perturb the temperature of the atmosphere.

            If “CB” would do less repetitive parroting of the climate Communist Party Line it is paid to parrot, and a little more reading and thinking, it would eventually realize that what I have so frequently explained to it is entirely straightforward science. The climate-science community – or at least that minuscule fraction of it that has profitably peddled the climate scare – is gravely concerned by the failure of atmospheric temperature to rise, precisely because the atmosphere is the bell-wether of the temperature of the entire coupled ocean-atmosphere system. That is why they have advanced at least two dozen mutually incompatible explanations of the reason why the world has not warmed as predicted.

          • CB

            Nope! That’s neither a coherent explanation, nor an amount of energy. Let’s try again, and we’ll simplify it for you so it’s extra-easy for you to understand.

            If you think NOAA is incorrect about the 100 ZJ of energy that’s gone into the oceans over the last 18 years, how much energy has entered the oceans over the last 18 years and how do you know?

          • monckton

            I refer the paid climate-Communist troll “CB” to the detailed and entirely clear answer above its silly posting.

          • CB

            Nope once again! Still not a number.

            If the oceans haven’t gained 100 ZJ over the last 18 years, how much energy have they gained, and how do you know?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            If you don’t know whether or not the largest part of the Earth’s climate system is warming, how could you possibly know the Earth’s climate system is not warming?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” continues to repeat itself tediously. What evidence is there that large quantities of heat have accumulated in the oceans, given that a) measurements such as those by NODC/NOAA are insufficiently resolved to yield an accurate estimate, so that their figures, so eagerly seized on by desperate climate Communists as the evidence collapses their sill scare, are too unreliable to be worth citing, and b) the atmosphere has not warmed, powerfully indicating that the ocean (three orders of magnitude denser) has not warmed either? More thinking and less regurgitation of the discredited Party Line is needed.

          • CB

            Still not a number!

            If you think NOAA’s incorrect about the 100 ZJ of energy that have gone into the oceans over the last 18 years, how much energy has gone into the ocean and how do you know?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            How could you possibly hope to make a claim about the Earth’s climate system if you refuse to examine the vast majority of it?

            What’s the point of voicing your opinion at all if you refuse to explain it?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • monckton

            The childish climate-Communist liar “CB”, who is paid to peddle outright falsehoods here and elsewhere under the cowardly cover of a variety of pseudonyms, fails to understand elementary science. Since the measurements of ocean heat content are insufficiently resolved to allow any estimate to be made of the change in ocean heat content, no such estimate can be quantitatively made unless wide error-bars are attached. “CB” has been parroting the Party Line handed down by the profiteering rent-seekers at NOAA, but has not cited any error-bars. The value “100 ZJ” is pure guesswork, and is probably wrong, because if the atmosphere is not warming the ocean – three orders of magnitude denser – cannot be warming either. These points have been carefully explained to “CB” before, but it prefers to hurl petty insults from behind the cowardly cloak of an acronym. “CB” is an inept, incompetent, corrupt, scientifically illiterate liar.

          • CB

            “The value “100 ZJ” is pure guesswork, and is probably wrong”

            If you think 100 ZJ of energy isn’t the amount of energy that’s gone into the oceans in the last 18 years, how much energy has gone into the oceans in the last 18 years?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            How could you possibly know that the climate system isn’t warming if you haven’t even looked at the largest part of it?

            If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, what’s the point of posting anything at all?

            Who’s going to take you seriously?

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. NOAA’s value for change in ocean heat content, like all such values, is guesswork because the measurements are insufficiently resolved to be reliable. For the same reason, I cannot give an estimate of the change (if any) in ocean heat content. However, if the ocean were warming then the atmosphere would be warming. The atmosphere is not warming, so the ocean is not warming. The childish climate-Communist coward and liar “CB”, hiding behind an acronym, knows no science and – like all Communists – is not interested in anything except reciting the Party Line, zombie-like. Liars like “CB”, who know no science yet presume to preach to those of us who do, and to call us “liars” as a reflection of their own mendacity, have nothing of value to contribute. Their paymasters should redeploy the cash more profitably. In the meantime. “CB”‘s puerilities are one of many useful records of the feeble-mindedness and intellectual bankruptcy of Communism, and particularly the climate-Communist variety.

          • CB

            “The atmosphere is not warming, so the ocean is not warming”

            Why would you think the energy in the climate system would need to move around according to your whims?

            “I cannot give an estimate of the change (if any) in ocean heat content”

            If you don’t know whether or not the vast majority of the climate system is warming, how could you possibly know the climate system is not warming?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” fails to understand the elementary laws of thermodynamics, of which a corollary is that in a coupled system in approximate thermal equilibrium if an object (the ocean) 4000 times denser than the adjacent object to which it is coupled (the atmosphere) becomes warmer, then the less dense object (the atmosphere) must warm too. The laws of thermodynamics are not repealable just because they do not accord with the climate Communist party line.

            No one can give any estimate of the change (if any) in ocean heat content because there is no method of measurement that takes enough samples to give a reliable estimate. Therefore, the scientist must rely on what he can measure – namely, the temperature of the atmosphere, which has not risen in 18 years 1 month. Since the atmosphere would warm if the ocean warmed (we know this not only from thermodynamics but also from observation of the rapid atmospheric response to el Nino warming of the ocean), and the atmosphere has not warmed, we know the ocean has not warmed. But getting any reliable estimate of the (inferentially minuscule) change in ocean heat content over time is simply not possible because not enough samples are taken throughout the breadth and depth of the vast oceans.

            The likelihood is, therefore, that the climate system is not warming. There is no particular reason to suppose that it would warm, for the very small warming effect of CO2 is currently offset by declining solar activity. There is, therefore, no basis in theory, in measurement, or in observed reality for assuming that the climate system is warming, and a compelling reason (the failure of the atmosphere and, therefore, of the ocean to warm) for supposing that it is not.

            At all events, we can be sure of one thing. The IPCC has made various predictions of the rate at which the atmosphere would warm. Those predictions have proven to be exaggerated by up to 100%. Furthermore, the measurements of the 3500+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys indicate that in the ten years of their operation the rate of increase in ocean heat content has been one-sixth of what the models predicted. The models on which the climate Communists base their increasingly desperate attempts to shut down the West have been and continue to be incorrect in every material particular. There is no basis for the climate scare.

          • CB

            “in a coupled system in approximate thermal equilibrium if an object (the ocean) 4000 times denser than the adjacent object to which it is coupled (the atmosphere) becomes warmer, then the less dense object (the atmosphere) must warm too”

            Uh huh, and why would you think the part of the ocean closest to the atmosphere would need to be warmer than that atmosphere?

            Did you think the energy that’s been going into the ocean is evenly distributed?

            Why would you think the energy in the climate system would need to move about according to your whims?

          • monckton

            “CB”, the paid climate-Communist troll, is becoming more and more desperate. Now it seeks to question a basic tenet of the climate-Communist Party Line, which is that after CO2 warms the atmosphere the atmosphere warms the ocean. Obviously, the atmosphere must first warm the upper strata of the ocean, for the atmosphere is the source of the imagined (and imaginary) additional ocean heat content. Since the atmosphere has not warmed in 18 years 1 month, it cannot have warmed the upper strata of the ocean. Since the upper strata cannot have warmed, they cannot have warmed the benthic strata. So the oceans have not warmed. All of this is elementary thermodynamics. See the numerous papers by the Chinese Academy of Sciences dismissing the nonsensical climate-Communist theory, dreamed up in desperation by the usual suspects, that the “missing heat” has gone into hiding in the benthic strata of the ocean, where it is playing hide-and-seek.

          • RealMrTea

            Wow.. You have more patience than I…… Talking with willful idiots like this is like talking partical physics with my dog… I can do it, and every once in a while, he tilts his head as if he is contemplating, but in the end, he has no clue what I am talking about, and REALY does’t want to…

            Cheers… Not ALL in the world are idiots…

          • CB

            You’re right, Climate Deniers really don’t care what’s right or wrong in any sense of those words.

            I actually study them. If you know how to interpret what they say, it’s possible to get a fascinating and sometimes disturbing peek into a truly disordered psyche…

          • Gary Slabaugh

            Hmmmm. I gotta wonder about people who are fascinated by disordered psyches 😉

          • CB

            Mwahahahah! ;p

          • Gary Slabaugh

            We must wonder what awaits those entranced by “the abyss of human reality” around the season of Samhain. Mwahahahah! backatcha amiga 😉

          • RealMrTea

            I have (very recently) taken an interest also… I commented on a story with some associated data, and this guy http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris showed up, posted some rreal garbage, and whan I caught him, started an attack that raised my ire…. I ended up finding out who he was (I had no idea these people were out here before this) and anded up pinning him with some poignant questions… that he STILL hasn;t answered… such as “Have you (or any leagl entity you control) taken money from the Heartland Intitute in 2013 or 2104” THAT shut him up REAL quick :)

            Since then (a week or two ago) I have become interested in the entire nefarious cabal

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

            And have run into a BUNCH of them out here on the interwebs..;) Pretty amazing coalition of paid shills, anti government types, conspiracy theorists, and just plain numbskulls… I have found it particularly interesting to watch how they VERY selectively cherry pick data, words, graphs etc. to make ansolutely false cases…

            Its pretty fascinating….

          • S Graves

            Such insipid nonsense from a phony psychoanalyst. If you actually had any credentials to make such a diagnosis, you certainly wouldn’t do it here now, would you? Mmmm…quack. Yes, that’s it, CB. But you are fun…in a pathetic sort of way.

          • Icarus62

            Pentadal OHC with error bars:

          • monckton

            The graph of ocean heat content posted by “Icarus62” appears to have a broken link: it does not display. Please re-post so that I can see whether the error-bars are as large as they should be.

          • Icarus62
          • monckton

            The error-bars in this graph from NOAA are as fictitious as the imagined (and imaginary) trend in ocean heat content. They are far too narrow, given the very few measurements we are able to make in comparison to the vast size of the oceans. The graph is thus obvious nonsense, produced by dishonest rent-seekers.

          • CB

            “The error-bars in this graph from NOAA are as fictitious as the imagined (and imaginary) trend in ocean heat content”

            They are nowhere near as fictitious as your challenge to NOAA’s findings.

            If you think 100 ZJ hasn’t gone into the oceans in the last 18 years, how much energy have the oceans accumulated and how do you know?

            Did you think your ignorance could be used in place of an argument?

            Did you think you could simply imagine something and it would become true?

            Did you clap for Tinker Bell to come back to life too?

            If you were an emotionally and intellectually mature adult, why would you think that?

          • monckton

            The childish paid climate-Communist troll “CB” is incapable of comprehending that the climate-Communist Party Line peddled by NOAA runs counter to the rules of measurement and to the laws of thermodynamics. Merely parroting NOAA’s Party Line on the imaginary increase in ocean heat content will not make that increase true. “CB” should try reading and understanding rather than accepting cash from the profiteers of doom to peddle infantile nonsense here.

          • Icarus62

            Unsupported assertions, unsupported accusations of fraud – the usual mendacious garbage from the anti-science crowd.

          • monckton

            I agree with “Icarus62” that the paid climate-Communist troll “CB” has made a number of unsupported assertions and unsupported accusations of lying – indeed, the usual mendacious garbage from the anti-science crowd that follow the climate-Communist Party LIne and pretend that the ocean is warming. This contention reeks of desperation at the news that the atmosphere is not warming (an assertion supported by the graph in the head posting, together with the technical note).

            If the upper strata of the ocean were warming, the atmosphere were warming and for the past couple of decades it has not warmed, while, if the benthic strata of the ocean were warming (which we have no way of knowing because the frequency and distribution of the measurements are wholly inadequate), we should not be able to deduce whether the warming was driven by the 3,500,000 subsea volcanoes or by some magical migration of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean deep without affecting the surface and near-surface strata on the way down. For these and other reasons, papers published in the journals by members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have dismissed the “missing heat is hiding in the ocean” theory as the panicky nonsense it is.

          • CB

            ” “CB” has made a number of unsupported assertions and unsupported accusations of lying”

            Both Icarus and myself have given you any number of citations that suggest the largest part of the Earth’s climate system is warming:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            …but you still claim it’s not.

            If you know warming is occurring and you claim it isn’t, this is the definition of a lie.

            If you think NOAA is incorrect, where are you getting your information?

            If you cannot produce the source of your information, why should anyone take you seriously?

          • monckton

            1. Cheng L, Zhu J (2014) Uncertainties of the ocean heat content estimation induced by insufficient vertical resolution of
            historical ocean subsurface observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1383–1396

            2. Cheng L, Zhu J, Cowley R et al (2014a) Time, probe type, and temperature variable bias corrections to historical expendable
            bathythermograph observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1793–1825

            3. Cheng L, Zheng F, Zhu J (2014b) Distinctive ocean interior changes during the recent climate hiatus. Geophys Res Lett: submitted

          • monckton

            … and, furthermore, some 25 mutually-incompatible explanations of the “missing heat” and the consequent failure of the globe to warm as predicted by the climate Communists and their silly models have been put forward. Many of these various explanations, just like the “missing heat in the deep ocean” fabrication, have been rebutted.

            The cause of the hiatus in global warming is variously attributed to (1) coverage-induced cool bias in recent years [rebutted]; (2) anthropogenic aerosols from coal-burning [rebutted]; (3) decline in the warming caused by black-carbon absorption; (4) emission of aerosol particulates by volcanic eruptions [rebutted]; (5) reduced solar activity; (6) effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in controlling emissions of chlorofluorocarbons; (7) a lower-than-predicted increase in methane concentration ; (8) a decrease in stratospheric water vapor concentration; (9) strengthened Pacific trade winds [previously, weaker Pacific trade winds had been attributed to anthropogenic global warming]; (10) stadium waves in tropical Pacific circulation; (11) coincidence; (12) aerosol particulates from pine-trees; (13) natural variability; (14) cooler night-time temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere; (15) predictions by those models that allowed for the possibility of a pause in global warming; (16) the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; (17) the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; (18) global dimming following the global brightening of 1983-2001; (19) relative frequencies of distinct el Niño types; (20) surface cooling in the equatorial Pacific; (21) Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming; (22) a combination of factors, including ENSO variability, solar decline and stratospheric aerosols; (23) underestimated anthropogenic aerosol forcing; (24) a new form of multidecadal variability distinct from but related to the ocean oscillations; and (25) failure to initialize most models in order to conform with observation, particularly of oceanic conditions.

            References (including some rebuttal papers) are:

            1. Cowtan K, Way RG (2014) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. B. 140(683): 1934-1944. doi: 10.1002/qj.2297

            2. Fyfe JC, Gillet NP, Zwiers FW (2013) Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Clim. Change 3: 767-769. doi: 10.1038/Nclimate1972

            3. Chung CE, Cha H, Vilma T, Räisänen P, Decremer D (2013) On the possibilities to use atmospheric reanalyses to evaluate the warming structure of the Arctic. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13: 11209-11219. doi: 10.5194/acp-13-11209-2013

            4. Kaufmann RK, Kauppi H, Stock JH (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008. PNAS 108(29): 11790-11793. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108

            5. Kühn T, Partanen A-I, Laakso A, Lu Z, Bergman T, Mikkonen S, Kokkola H, Korhonen H, Räisänen P, Streets G, Romakkaniemi S, Laaksonen A (2014) Climate impacts of changing aerosol emissions since 1996. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(13): 4711-4718. Doi: 10.1002/2014GL060349

            6. Neely RR, Toon OB, Solomon S, Vernier J.-P, Alvarez C, English JM, Rosenlof KH, Mills MJ, Bardeen CG, Daniel JS, Thayer JP (2013) Recent anthropogenic increases in SO2 from Asia have minimal impact on stratospheric aerosol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40. doi: 10.1002/grl.50263

            7. Santer BD, Bonfils C, Painter JF et al (2014) Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature. Nat
            Geosci 7:185-189. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2098

            8. Haywood J, Jones A, Jones GS (2014) The impact of volcanic eruptions in the period 2000-2013 on global mean temperature trends evaluated in the HadGEM2-ES climate model. Atmos. Sci. Lett. 15(2): 92-96. doi: 10.1002/asl2.471

            9. Stauning P (2014) Reduced solar activity disguises global temperature rise, Atmos. Cli. Sci. 4: 60-63. doi:10.4236/acs.2014.41008

            10. Estrada F, Perron P, Martinez-Lopez B (2013) Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to
            twentieth-century temperature changes. Nat Geosci 6: 1050–1055. doi:10.1038/ngeo1999

            11. Solomon S, Rosenlof KH, Portmann RW, Daniel JS, Davis SM, Sanford TJ, Plattner G-K (2010) Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes of global warming. Science 327(5970): 1219-1223. doi: 10.1126/science.1182488

            12. England MH, McGregor S, Spence P, Meehl GA, Timmermann A, Cai W, SenGupta A, McPhaden MJ, Purich A,
            Santoso A (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nature Clim. Change 4: 222-227. doi: 10.1039/nclimate2106

            13. Vecchi ga, Soden BJ, Wittenberg AT, Held IM, Leetmaa A, Harrison MJ (2006) Weakening of tropical Pacific
            atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing. Nature 441: 73-76. doi: 10.1039/nature04744.

            14. Glaze Wyatt M, Curry JA (2013) Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric
            climate signal during the 20th century. Clim. Dyn. 42(9-10): 2763-2782

            15. Schmidt GA, Shindell DT, Tsigaridis K (2014) Reconciling warming trends. Nature Geosci. 7(158-160). doi:
            10.1038/ngeo2105

            16. Ehn M, Thornton JA, Kleist E, Sipilä M, Junninen H, Pullinen I, Springer M, Rubach F, Tillmann R, Lee B,
            Lopez-Hilfiker F, Andres S, Acir I-H, Rissanen M, Jokinen T, Schobesberger S, Kangasluoma J, Kontkanen J, Nieminen T, Kurtén T, Nielsen LB, Jørgensen S, Kjaergaard HG, Canagaratna M, Dal Maso M, Berndt T, Petäjä T, Wahner A, Kerminen V-M, Kulmala M, Worsnop DR, Wildt J, Mentel TF (2014) A large source of low-volatility secondary organic aerosol. Nature 506:476-479. doi: 10.1038/nature13032

            17. Watanabe M, Shiogama H, Tatebe H, Hayashi M, Ishii M, Kimoto M (2014) Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus. Nat Clim Ch 4: 893–897. doi:10.1038/nclimate2355

            18. Lovejoy S (2014) Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(13:4704-4710.
            doi: 10.1002/2014GL060478

            19. Sillmann, J, Donat MG, Fyfe JC,Zwiers FW (2014) Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent
            warming. Environ Res. Lett. 9. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064023

            20. Risbey J, Lewandowsky S, Langlais C, Monselesan DP, O’Kane TJ, Oreskes N (2014) Nature Clim. Change 4:835-840.
            doi: 10.1039/nclimate2310

            21. Guemas V, Doblas-Reyes FJ, Andreu-Burillo I, Asif M (2013) Retrospective prediction of the global warming
            slowdown in the past decade. Nature Clim. Change 3:649-653. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1863

            22. Maher N, Sen Gupta A, England MH (2014) Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(16):5978-5986. doi: 10.1002/2014GL060527

            23. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Branstator G et al (2014) Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming. Nat Clim Ch 4: 911–916. doi:10.1038/nclimate2341

            24. Dong L, Zhou T (2014) The formation of the recent cooling in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and the associated climate impacts: a competition of global warming, IPO and AMO. J. Geophys. Res. doi: 10.1002/2013JD021395

            25. Schleussner CF, Runge J, Lehmann J, Levermann A (2014) The role of the North Atlantic overturning and deep ocean for multi-decadal global-mean-temperature variability. Earth Sys. Dyn. 5:103-115. doi: 10.5194/esd-5-103-2014

            26. Rahimzadeh F, Sanchez-Lorenzo A, Hamedi M, Kruk MC, Wild M (2014) New evidence on the dimming/brightening phenomenon and decreasing diurnal temperature range in Iran (1961-2009). Int. J. Climatol. doi: 10.1002/joc.4107

            27. Banholzer S, Donner S (2014) The influence of different El Nino types on global average temperature. Geophys Res Lett
            41:2093–2099. doi: 10.1002/2014GL059520

            28. Kosaka Y, Xie SP (2013) Recent global-warming
            hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nat 501: 403–407. doi:10.1038/nature12534

            29. McGregor S, Timmermann A, Stuecker MF, England MH, Merrifield M, Jin FF, Chikamoto Y (2014) Recent Walker
            circulation strengthening and Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming. Nature Clim. Change 4:888-892. doi: 10.1039/nclimate2330

            30. Huber M, Knutti R (2014) Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nat
            Geosci 7: 651–656. doi:10.1038/ngeo228

            31. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha PK, von Schuckmann K (2011) Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem.
            Phys. 11:13421-13449. doi: 10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011

            32. Maclas D, Stips A, Garcia-Gorriz E (2014) Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the
            Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

            33. Meehl, GA, Teng H (2014) CMIP5 multi-model hindcasts for the mid-1970s shift and early 200s hiatus and
            predictions for 2016-2035. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41(5):17y11-1716. doi: 10.1002/2014GL059256

          • Robert

            “…some 25 mutually-incompatible explanations…”

            Seems to me the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking point was ‘.. 52….’

            So are you not up to date or were over half too well supported by real science to continue to be used as the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking point de jour?

          • monckton

            “Robert”, whoever it is, can look up for itself the 25 explanations in the reviewed literature for the Long Pause (18 years 1 month without global warming according to the RSS satellite dataset). There are of course many other explanations that the usual suspects have put forward, but most of these are so laughable that they would not withstand scrutiny in a reviewed journal.

          • Robert

            Top of the page:
            52

          • monckton

            My head posting was silent on how many reasons for the Great Pause have been advanced. However, I have been able to find 26 such reasons in the reviewed journals (“missing heat” in the oceans plus 25 other excuses). And Marc Morano has linked to a list including these 26 and as many others that were not peer-reviewed. Either way, stick to the main point: the most obvious reason for the Great Pause is that the climate-Communists’ much-vaunted models have flagrantly exaggerated the amount of global warming to be expected as a result of our returning to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that came from it in the first place.

          • Robert

            “26 such reasons”

            Good. Now you are halfway to the amount stated at the top of the page….

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. I have searched the scientific literature personally and have found 26 mutually incompatible explanations for the Great Pause that was not predicted by the climate Communists. Others, searching beyond the reviewed literature, have found a further 26 mutually incompatible explanations.

            Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation – that the models were wrong – is most likely to be correct. CO2 is a bit-part player, not the supposed “tuning-knob” of the climate. The scare is over. Will someone tell the climate-Communist trolls and whoever pays them to waste their time sneering here? There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, and no significant warming for 26 years. None of their futile models predicted that.

          • Robert

            And with a swiftly pounded out couple of sentences, “monckton” has successfully refuted two centuries of science, thousands of peer-reviewed and published papers, and the acknowledgement by virtually every scientific organization in the world that the science is accurate.

            /sarc

            And all done using “..climate-Communist trolls..” only once……

          • monckton

            “Robert”, whoever it is (for, like all the other paid climate-Communist trolls wasting their time advertising their hate-filled ignorance here, it is not willing to give its full name) implies that thousands of peer-reviewed and published papers over two centuries of science have said I was wrong to point out that there are 26 mutually incompatible explanations for the Great Pause in global warming. Don’t be silly.

            The most comprehensive review of the literature on climate change was by Legates et al., 2013, who examined 11,944 papers on climate and related matters in the reviewed literature and found that only 41 papers, or 0.3% of the total, had blamed the minuscule warming since 1950 chiefly on Man rather than Nature. Now, 41 papers is not “thousands of peer-reviewed and published papers”, is it?

            One understands that the paid climate-Communist trolls who lurk childishly here under cowardly pseudonyms are disappointed at the abject failure of the Party Line they had so long and so profitably pretended to espouse: but the inexorable truth is that the rate of CO2 concentration increase is rising, and yet global temperature is not rising, though the Party Line said with “substantial confidence” that it would rise. For 18 long years there has been no global warming at all.

            Besides, as anyone but a paid climate-Communist troll would know, the argument from consensus peddled as part of the Party Line is a logical fallacy first excoriated by Aristotle 2350 years ago. Profiteering scientific academies will of course try to keep the taxpayers’ money rolling in by predicting doom: but they, like the UN’s fatuous climate panel, have been proven wrong, time and time and time again. “Robert’s” faith in these racketeers is touching (or would be if it were not paid to pretend to subscribe to that faith): but it is self-evidently misplaced.

          • Robert

            “…itself…”

          • monckton

            Let “Robert” cease to cower like a craven coward and reveal its surname and which university it is at, and what its specialism is, and how much it is paid by the climate Communists to write futile whinges here. And let it recall that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month (or more than 26 years without any significant warming). The models on the basis of which the climate scare was built have been demonstrated to have been spectacularly, embarrassingly, finally wrong. The Party Line was incorrect. Get used to it, and get a life.

          • Robert

            ” its surname ”

            ” climate Communists”


            paid by”

          • monckton

            One notes that “Robert” is no longer capable of writing complete sentences; not courageous enough to reveal its full name; not untruthful enough to deny that it is a paid climate-Communist troll, one of many who infest climate-skeptical websites in the hope of frightening off the growing number of climate skeptics from speaking out. “Look what we’ve done to Monckton’s reputation,” say the climate Communists. “We’ll do the same to you if you dare to speak out as he has dared to speak out.” That is the implicit threat: but, like all else that the climate Communists have attempted, it is failing. More and more people, faced with the fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, are daring to risk the venom, vicious hatred, and fury of the hard Left and start once again to speak the truth.

          • Robert

            “…according to the RSS satellite dataset). ”

            Thanks for again pointing out the cherrypicking.

          • monckton

            The mean of the two satellite datasets shows no global warming for 13 years plus. The mean of the three terrestrial datasets – HadCRUT4, NCDC, and GISS – shows the same. Yet all three have been tampered with over the past year or two, in each case with the effect of increasing the apparent rate of global warming in recent decades. However, the UAH satellite dataset is about to be revised to reduce the warming trend it had previously shown, and the RSS dataset is subject to far fewer revisions than the others. it also correctly reflects the relative magnitudes of the 1998 and 2010 el Ninos – the former, a Great el Nino, caused widespread coral bleaching (as its two predecessors over the past 300 years did), while the latter did not. For these reasons, the RSS dataset provides an arguably more reliable and certainly less frequently-altered benchmark of global temperatures than the others. But if “Robert” would like to compile and publish its own trend-lines on whatever dataset it likes, it is of course free to do so. However, all of them show no global warming for many years, so all of them, like it or not, contradict the climate-Communist Party Line, which is why “Robert” and others of its ilk prefer to whine here about “cherry-picking” rather than acknowledging the self-evident truth – shown by taking the mean of all five principal datasets – that the rate of global warming in the quarter-century since 1990 has been half of what IPeCaC had then predicted with “substantial confidence”. That “substantial confidence” was substantially misplaced. The climate-Communist Party Line was and is wrong.

          • Robert

            And no quoted material.

          • Robert

            “…papers published in the journals by members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have dismissed…”

            Cite?

          • monckton

            1. Cheng L, Zhu J (2014) Uncertainties of the ocean heat content estimation induced by insufficient vertical resolution of
            historical ocean subsurface observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1383–1396

            2. Cheng L, Zhu J, Cowley R et al (2014a) Time, probe type, and temperature variable bias corrections to historical expendable
            bathythermograph observations. J Atm Oceanic Tech 31: 1793–1825

            3. Cheng L, Zheng F, Zhu J (2014b) Distinctive ocean interior changes during the recent climate hiatus. Geophys Res Lett: submitted.

          • Robert

            Interesting that there aren’t quotes from at least the abstracts and links to at least the journal for accessing. …

            Until I get to the Uni library to compare those papers to the body of published research , I point out that there are several posters here who seem to have little problem w quoting and citing research that shows this commenter’s claims are not well supported by the body of knowledge.

            Those same commenters also seem to have posted enough evidence to show the author’s claims are based on cherrypicking data. Not the way to build a scientific argument.

            Especially when so much of the ‘support’ and argument is full of invictive, insuling, namecalling, and attempted diminutives.

          • monckton

            It is not my business to do “Robert’s” research for it. Let it get out of bed a little earlier than its usual 2 pm and go to the university library and do a little reading. One appreciates that it is not a scientist and is not familiar with the standard abbreviations for the learned journals. However, the university librarians will be able to assist it in finding the papers. Let us hope that it will read them with a more open mind than it has shown here.

          • RealMrTea

            So instead you make wild claims, with no substatiation, that purport to refute existing reputable data….. with conjecture…. and when checked…. the claims are false…

            aka…. Keep throwing things at the wall in “hopes” that someing “might” stick….

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea” continues to make an idiot of itself by saying that when checked the claims in the learned papers I have cited are false. But it provides no instances: nor does it indicate whether it has any qualifications or publication record in the field that qualify it to do anything more than parrot the climate-Communist Party Line that it is paid so handsomely to parrot in blogs like these, in the hope of keeping the dead climate scare alive just a little longer. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. That was not the Party Line had predicted: it is as wrong on climate as it was on everything else.

          • RealMrTea
          • RealMrTea

            Ok… Lets look at the data… These papers are from the same person, with essentially the same claim… so I will simplify.. This is the abstract…

            “Assessment of the upper-ocean (0–700 m) heat content (OHC) is a key task for monitoring climate change. However, irregular spatial and temporal distribution of historical subsurface observations has induced uncertainties in OHC estimation. In this study, a new source of uncertainties in calculating OHC due to the insufficiency of vertical resolution in historical ocean subsurface temperature profile observations was diagnosed. This error was examined by sampling a high-vertical-resolution climatological ocean according to the depth intervals of in situ subsurface observations, and then the error was defined as the difference between the OHC calculated by subsampled profiles and the OHC of the climatological ocean. The obtained resolution-induced error appeared to be cold in the upper 100 m (with a peak of approximately −0.1°C), warm within 100–700 m (with a peak of ~0.1°C near 180 m), and warm when averaged over 0–700-m depths (with a global average of ~0.01°–0.025°C, ~1–2.5 × 1022 J). Geographically, it showed a warm bias within 30°S–30°N and a cold bias at higher latitudes in both hemispheres, the sign of which depended on the concave or convex shape of the vertical temperature profiles. Finally, the authors recommend maintaining an unbiased observation system in the future: a minimal vertical depth bin of 5% of the depth was needed to reduce the vertical-resolution-induced bias to less than 0.005°C on global average (equal to Argo accuracy).”

            Sooo….. What he is “claiming” Is that the data is not as accurate as satellite data, and that we should introduce more sensors to fix that and get a more “granular” picture of the ocean heat content…. BUT that the errors for heat bias, and the errors for cool bias are the SAME!!!!!!

            SO…in the BIG picture… the TOTAL OCEAN HEAT CONTENT NOAA IS USING (including the error rate)…. IS CORRECT!!!

            Anything else? Because (as expected) this lead is a dead end for your claim….

          • monckton

            What the Chinese Academy of Sciences is saying is what I, too, have been saying: that the ocean heat-content measurements are insufficiently resolved to be reliable. One cannot, therefore rely on them. However, atmospheric temperature measurements, which are less unreliable, show no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Since the atmosphere is in approximate thermal equilibrium with the ocean, and since the ocean is the denser body by three orders of magnitude, if the atmosphere is not warming the ocean is not warming either.

            See Bob Tisdale’s recent posting on ocean heat content at WattsUpWithThat for data more recent than those available in the reviewed journals.

          • RealMrTea

            BS.. They say exactly what they say… which is what I showed……

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            The papers I have cited are listed elsewhere in this thread. The climate Communists should try reading them.

          • RealMrTea

            why not respond to the real data?

          • Philip Shehan

            I notice that Monckton repeatedly reocean heat content on the basis of alleged lACK ORF RESOLUTION

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!!! He gives you the data… from NOAA…. That you said didn’t exist….. And now it is “fictitious” based on….. an opinion….

            Dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodge

          • monckton

            The graph in the head posting is entirely clear: there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Therefore the ocean, three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere with which it is in approximate thermal equilibrium, has not warmed either over that period. Or, if it has warmed, the warming is not being communicated to the atmosphere, in which event it is harmless.

          • RealMrTea
          • RealMrTea

            This is VERY clear and includes NOW….

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Your ruse of an 18 year “hiatus” never existed, as he said… since it was clear that the heat was going into the ocean, but in any case, this is the entire picture…. You can run from it… but that is all yoiu are doing….

          • Philip Shehan

            monckton complains about eror bars here, yet his argument concerning the alleged pause is based on RSS data, ignoring other data sets, including the other satellite data, UAH, and the error margins associated with the data:

            The trends according to Kevin Cowtan’s algorithm are

            UAH: Trend: 0.102 ±0.183 °C/decade (2σ)

            RSS: Trend: -0.001 ±0.180 °C/decade (2σ)

            Note however that at the 95% confidence level, the trend for UAH data is somewhere between a warming trend of 0.285 and a cooling trend of 0.081°C/decade.

            The RSS trend is between warming of 0.179 and cooling of 0.181°C/decade.

            You can drive a bus between the error margins for wither data set.

            In fact the RSS and UAH data overlap between warming of 0.179 and cooling of 0.081 °C/decade

          • RealMrTea

            How many ad hominem attacks can a monckton get in one post?

            I count 14 in this one!!!

          • monckton

            For an attack to qualify as ad hominem, it must be directed against an identifiable individual. Accordingly, the number of ad-homs in the earlier posting by me is zero. The climate Communists should stop sniveling and start learning a little science.

          • RealMrTea

            As usual, you are completely making things up to fit what you “want” them to be…. And as with trhe rest, it has no barring actual on reality.

            “An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person.”

            NOWHERE does it say you need their name…. But of course you know that… It just doesn’t fit your narrative, because it shows you for who you are…. Which is a caward that runs from the facts by calling others childish names that have no connection with the FACTS you are running from….

            Shameful…

            One fact that is pertinent is if you were being paid by Oil companies to write and speak things that would be favorable to their enterprises, and not revealing that as you purport to speak about “science” WHICH…brings to bare the question….

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

            Have you (or any legal entity which you control) accepted money from the Heartland Institute?

          • RealMrTea

            Ad hominem attack…..
            Logical fallacy…

            FAIL

          • monckton

            Ad-hominem is only present when directed against an identifiable individual. The paid climate-Communist trolls who post here are as ignorant of logic as they are of climate science. All they know is that they get paid to parrot the Party Line, though the Party Line is now manifestly false. After all, there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. See the head posting.

          • RealMrTea

            As usual…. complete baloney….

            “An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person.”

            Not a single thing about their name, or any identifying….. You are doing what you always do…. Making things up to fit what you “want” them to be….. which has little or no connection with ehat they actually are…

            ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

            Have you (or any legal entity you control) accepted money from the Heartland Institute in 2013 or 2014?

            YES ___ NO ___

          • RealMrTea

            So all you REALLY have is personal attacks then?

          • monckton

            Questioning the climate-Communist Party Line peddled by anonymous cowards is not an attack on any identifiable individual and is not, therefore, a “personal” attack, now, is it? Read the head posting and the detailed science therein, and read also the many postings in which I have explained that the “missing heat hiding in the ocean” nonsense is just that.

          • RealMrTea

            Total unadultered male cow excrement….

            “An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person”

            Of course you are working from the “monckton dictionary” where you make it all up to fit your nnarrative… Right?

            Speaking of Cowards….

            You have never answered the question…

            ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!

            Have you (or any legal entity you control) accepted money from the Heartland Institute in 2013 or 2014?

            YES ___ NO ___

          • Robert

            “writing under the cowardly cover of a pseudonym”

            So, does it follow that you (https://disqus.com/home/user/monckton) are the author of the article(Special to Climate Depot Global Temperature Update It’s official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley) we are discussing?

          • Robert

            “..NOAA’s bogus graph..”

            I’d be really interested in a thorough explanation of how the comment writer ‘knows’ the graph is “..bogus..”

          • monckton

            See explanations up- and down-thread

          • Robert

            Before posting, I did review the thread.

            I saw much namecalling and insulting, but precious little in the way of thorough scientific explication.

            So, please explain how you’ve come to your opinion that a specific graph is “..bogus..” or “..Communist..”.

            Best science practices please. At least the best you can muster.

          • monckton

            I have insulted no one. Those who post under incomplete names or pseudonyms and hurl insults from the safety of a cowardly anonymity cannot be insulted, for we do not know who they are. However, this tactic is commonplace among paid climate-Communist trolls, so those of us who are victims of this craven technique give as good as we get.

            I gather that “robert” is not any sort of climate researcher, and has not published anything in the reviewed literature, otherwise it would have followed the near-universal practice among scientists of stating openly and honestly who it was.

            No doubt “robert” is incapable of understanding the scientific explanations and numerous references above because it has not been schooled in elementary thermodynamics, is not aware that the daft notion of “missing heat” hiding in the deep ocean has been roundly and compellingly dismissed; and does not understand that if the ocean had warmed then the atmosphere must warm too, for the two are in approximate thermal equilibrium, and the 18 years 1 month without any global atmospheric warming is quite enough to establish that NOAA’s values for upper-ocean heat-content change are either pure fiction (highly likely from what I know of the creepy “Tom” Karl who runs it, and tried to get away with misleading Congress about atmospheric temperature trends when I appeared alongside him there, causing visible annoyance to the Republican caucus) or so insignificant in relation to pre-existing ocean heat content that they are incapable of making any difference to global mean surface air temperature.

            Either way, there is no longer any scientific case whatsoever for alarm about the influence of CO2 on global temperatures.

          • Robert

            “…post under incomplete names …”

            Oh.

            “Dopey”
            “Bogus”
            “Troll”
            “Communist”
            “Monckten”
            “It”
            “Climate-communist trolls”
            “Creepy”

            Don’t bother responding ’til you bother yourself to bring something substantive to the table.

            You hnow; real research.

          • monckton

            So let me see: those who post here anonymously or without revealing their surnames (a practice that indicates habitual cowardice) are permitted to call me any number of names, but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro what I call them, for two reasons: first, what I say about them is true; secondly, they are skulking behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity.

            Meanwhile, the planet continues to fail to warm at anything like the rate predicted by the usual suspects – indeed, at half the rate predicted with “substantial confidence” by the UN’s self-serving climate panel, the IPCC, in 1990. In real science, a predictive failure of this magnitude would lead the modelers back to the drawing-board. However, governments and profiteers of doom find IPeCaC’s results politically expedient, socially convenient, and, above all, financially profitable. For this reason, the nonsense continues, at taxpayers’ expense.

            I know not and care not whether “Robert”, whoever it is, is a paid climate-Communist troll or merely a useful idiot, as Lenin used to call the witlessly slavish followers of the Party Line. From now on, as the discrepancy between prediction and reality inexorably widens, the adherents of the Party Line will soon find themselves in the position of the orator in George Orwell’s “1984” who was told during his speech that the Party Line had changed and, in mid-sentence, switched to arguing the precise opposite of what he had been arguing moments before.

            Adherence to any Party Line is feeble-minded. Adherence to the climate-Communist Party LIne is also wicked, for the increases in the price of fuel and power that are attributable to windmill subsidies and other such environmentally-destructive absurdities are making it impossible for poorer people to heat or cool their homes. In the UK in a recent cold winter (the Party Line, in contradiction to the previous Party Line, now attributes extreme-cold events to “global warming”), some 700 extra excess deaths were recorded – not because the winter was cold but because the homes of those who died were cold because they could no longer afford to heat them.

            For this and other reasons, “global warming” policies are killing people in large numbers, while “global warming” itself is not killing anyone, for the good and sufficient reason that it is not occurring. The climate Communists, then, are doing what Communists everywhere do best: stopping up their eyes and ears and parroting the Party Line while the policies therein enshrined kill people in large numbers.

            In the end, the only defence against the Party LIne is the truth. And the truth is that those who profitably predicted doom have been wrong in almost every material particular.

          • CB

            “they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls”

            Please define the word “Communist”.

            …because I do not think it means what you think it means…

          • monckton

            Let us not wander from the point. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. That is not what the Party Line predicted. The models were wrong.

          • CB

            “There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month”

            NOAA says there has been clear and steady warming for 18 years 1 month:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            Who informs you otherwise?

            Notice how one of us has a valid citation and one does not?

            Whom do you think people would find more credible?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” asks who says there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. The answer, of course, is made plain in the head posting. However, “CB”, like all paid climate-Communist trolls posting under furtive acronyms or pseudonyms or incomplete names, is enabled to sneer without penalty. I shall be making arrangements so that in future those who post under cover of anonymity will automatically be banned if they hurl insults at those whose identities are known. This simple change in site policy, which is easy to implement, has been adopted elsewhere to prevent drivel such as that from “CB” from clogging up these threads.

          • CB

            “The answer, of course, is made plain in the head posting”

            lol! …and did you think your claims were worth anything, especially when you are well-known as a liar? Did you think you weren’t cementing that reputation by repeatedly refusing to post the source of your information?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

          • monckton

            If global ocean heat content were indeed increasing as NOAA and the paid climate-Communist troll “CB” would like us to believe, then sea level would be rising faster now than it did in the 20th century. Though the much-adjusted Jason/Topex/Poseidon sea-level values appear to suggest a doubling of the rate of sea-level rise since 1993, the more tamper-proof results of the GRACE and ENVISAT satellites show sea-level rising at a rate of 1.5 mm/year in the most recent decade, compared with 1.7 mm/year before that. See Purkey et al. (2014).

            So there is no basis to challenge the satellite data: there has indeed been no global warming at all for more than 18 years, and no amount of shrieking by paid climate-Communist trolls will alter that fact.

          • CB

            “If global ocean heat content were indeed increasing… then sea level would be rising”

            Uh… it is:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            o_O

            What in the world is wrong with your mind?

          • monckton

            … except that sea level is not rising any faster than it has risen since 1900. CO2 is making no discernible difference. See Purkey et al. (2014), where it is explained that sea level is rising at 1.5 mm/year, not the 3.4 mm/year shown by NOAA. Sea level rose in the last century at 1.7 mm/year. So there has been no increase in the rate of sea-level rise, which is probably more to do with a natural, slow recovery of temperatures following the end of the Little Ice Age 300 years ago than with our adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

            Ocean heat content, however, is barely rising – and is certainly not rising fast enough to raise global atmospheric temperature by any discernible amount.

            And here is the point that paid climate-Communist trolls and liars like the rebarbatively repetitive but ill-informed and scientifically-illiterate “CB” will not understand until the Party stops paying them not to understand. The changes that are occurring to the atmosphere and the ocean are simply too small to be worth worrying about. Try converting the values for ocean heat content change to a fraction of total ocean heat content, then try converting them to global temperature change. It will be seen that the ocean heat content change is simply too small to be significant – exactly as ARGO shows it to be: for the ARGO floats, a huge embarrassment to NOAA and other profiteering global-warming rackets, are showing ocean heat content rising at one-sixth of the predicted rate and sea level rising at one-half the rate shown by the much-tampered-with Jason/Topex/Poseidon laser-altimetry satellite data that NOAA prefers because they provide apparent rates of sea-level rise twice as high as those obtained from Envisat, ARGO, or tide-gauges (see Purkey et al. for a discussion).

            So “CB”, rather than simply pasting up graphs from non-peer-reviewed sources like NOAA that have, as “CB” does, a substantial financial interest in lying about the climate, should familiarize itself with the reviewed papers from the learned journals. And it should approach these questions with an open mind, not an open mouth. Then it might learn something – such as the value of not sneering at its scientific betters from behind a cowardly screen of anonymity. If it wishes itself to be taken seriously by anyone but its climate-Communist paymasters, let it declare its identity and be honest, just for once. Otherwise, let it continue to cower, sniveling, behind its acronym, where no one will take the slightest notice of it.

            Does anyone know why it is that the hard Left have adopted the climate storyline in the uncritically sappy fashion exemplified by “CB”? It is only the “greens”, Reds, Socialists, Fascists, Communists – in short, the totalitarians – who still persist in peddling the climate Communist Party Line. Everyone more grown-up has moved along. As the world continues either not to warm at all or to warm at no more than half the once confidently-predicted rate, all will remember that it was the totalitarians that tried to fool us into accepting the destruction of the West’s freedoms and industries, our democracy and our prosperity, in the name of a pseudo-scientific chimera.

            The undeniable fact remains: there has been no global warming for more than 18 years, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration. The models were wrong. Grow up and get used to it.

          • CB

            “Ocean heat content, however, is barely rising”

            …but this suggests you know it is rising.

            If you understand the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been steadily warming for the last 18 years, why would you say the Earth’s climate system has not been warming for the last 18 years?

            “The majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.”

            oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

          • monckton

            Two possibilities exist. That ocean heat content has been rising over the past decade and a half. And that it has not been rising over the past decade and a half. We cannot really tell either way, because the measurements are manifestly too ill-resolved. We are not capable of taking enough measurements to obtain a reliable profile. It is as simple as that. I have explained this point before, but the paid climate-Communist troll “CB”, cowering and sniveling behind a poltroonish cloak of acronymic anonymity, has failed to understand or respond to it. Instead, it childishly repeats itself.

            If ocean heat content is not rising (and it cannot be rising by much or the atmosphere would be warming), then the skeptics are right and the models are doubly wrong. If ocean heat content is rising, then it is a puzzle that the temperature of the atmosphere to which it is intimately coupled is not rising. But one thing is sure. If the atmospheric temperature is not rising, then Man is not the cause of any increase in ocean heat content over the past decade and a half. Mere shrieking of childish insults will not make these simple points of logic go away.

            Executive summary: If ocean heat content is not rising, NOAA’s and other rent-seekers’ records are wrong, being insufficiently well resolved and excessively tampered with. If ocean heat content is rising, it is not Man’s fault because there has been no increase in atmospheric temperature. No surprise, then, that the ocean notion has been roundly dismissed in the literature by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and that some two dozen alternative explanations of the Great Pause, many of them incompatible with the ocean notion, have appeared recently in the journals.

            The climate scam is in a mess as the science collapses beneath it.

          • CB

            “Two possibilities exist.”

            Nope!

            Only one possibility exists: If you know the planet is warming and you say it isn’t, you’re a liar.

            If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, what was the point of posting anything at all?

            Who’s going to believe you?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • cunudiun

            Whoever is calling himself “monckton” is a complete idiot. I’ve engaged him before on other threads, and he’s incapable of responding to anything you say. Instead, just keeps repeating his own set of talking points over and over, with pseudo-authoritarian tone. Do you think there’s a chance this “monckton” poster actually has any connection to the real, infamous Lord Monckton. Could He really be this stupid?

          • CB

            “Could He really be this stupid?”

            I think “mentally ill” is a better appellation than “stupid”. Have you seen his bio? He’s craaaazaaaay!

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            That said, I think the individual with whom we have been interacting is a different lunatic.

            He has referred to Christopher Monckton both in the 3rd and 1st person, and I’m going with the former…

          • Michael Stone

            He may have rabies?

          • CB

            The real Christopher Monckton has Graves’ disease, which has been known to cause dementia:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11231037

            I don’t know what the fake Christopher Monckton’s excuse is…

          • monckton

            And your scientific point is?

          • planet8788

            Actually, he’s quite clear and precise. Why can’t you answer his simple logical points….

            1. How can ocean heat content rise significantly without affecting either sea level or seriously impacting surface temperatures? Answer it.

            2. He questions the precision of the Ocean Heat Content put out by NOAA because on average you are talking about changes of .05 to .06 degrees…. these are minute changes that are hard to measure. Many other warmistas agree with this point.

          • cunudiun
          • Jack

            I found this conversation very enlightening and entertaining. Lord Monckton wins by a country mile. He continuously sticks to the topic with credible references as opposed to his critics attempts at character assassination and few credible citations. NOAA has become less and less reliable as a information source based upon their editing of the temperature record. If you believe NOAA, then the 1930’s heat wave/Dust Bowl never happened.

          • cunudiun

            It took me about 10 seconds to find this from NOAA on the 1930’s heat and prove your ignorance is in the same league as Monckton’s.
            http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/heatwave.php

          • monckton

            The inept and cowardly paid climate-Communist troll “CB”, which lacks the guts to declare who it is, shrieks Marxo-Fascist insults from behind a craven cloak of anonymity. It will not be taken seriously unless it finds the courage and backbone to publish under its own name. And I am not able to answer the question who would pay a propagandist so incompetent as “CB”. Nobody pays me: why should anyone pay someone so lacking in scientific credentials or publication track record as “CB”?

            The head posting shows quite clearly that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. If the atmosphere has not warmed, nor has the ocean to which it is coupled. Yet CO2 concentration has been rising at a record rate. Obvious conclusion: the models were wrong, and CO2 has a great deal less of an influence on global temperature than the Party Line says.

          • CB

            “shrieks Marxo-Fascist insults from behind a craven cloak of anonymity”

            See? Dementia.

            Maybe he is the real Christopher Monckton! I dunno…

          • cunudiun

            Same thing for you too, CB. You got too close to a nerve and got the full paid climate commie troll ad hominem response. So-called “Monckton” has nothing else in his arsenal. When you say something he can’t deal with, he just calls you a (stupid) name.

          • CB

            “You got too close to a nerve and got the full paid climate commie troll ad hominem response.”

            My cover has been blown!!!

            Nooooooooo!!!!

            /s

          • Robert

            “…those who post under cover of anonymity will automatically be banned…”

          • Michael Stone

            I believe “think” is beyond his capability.

          • Robert

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            One cannot attack “personally” an opponent who is cravenly anonymous.

            The science is clear. The climate Communists and their models were wrong. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Warming has occurred at half the predicted rate since 1990.

          • Robert

            Anytime you want to discuss why the only data set used in the article we were discussing was picked, we could go forward on that.

            Your conscious choice to use derogatory language instead of bringing forward sources that would support your claims speaks well to your discussion technique.

            I stopped trying to discuss the science and point out your language choices and discussion techniques. And it seems you’ve wanted to go down that course. Why, other than there is a paucity of resources supporting your claims, would be for you to say.

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. Grow up.

          • CB

            Robert is a person, not an “it”. Your request to “grow up” was directed at yourself. Please pay attention to what you’re saying.

            NOAA says the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been warming for the past 18 years:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            Who informs you otherwise?

            How could it have escaped anyone’s notice that you haven’t posted a single citation in this entire thread?

            Who would take a person like that seriously?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • monckton

            “Robert” posts under an incomplete name and may be either male or female, since there is no evidence that its name is correct. “CB” continues to repeat itself childishly. The IPCC’s predictions in 1990 concerned themselves with atmospheric temperature. Atmospheric temperature has risen since then at half the predicted rate and, for 18 years 1 month, it has not risen at all. The predictions were wrong. The models were wrong. There is, therefore, no longer any basis for the climate scare. Get used to it.

          • Robert

            ” “Robert” posts under an incomplete name and may be either male or female, since there is no evidence that its name is correct. “

          • Robert

            That was a long screed with lots of no science .

            It was a simole request;

            “So, please explain how you’ve come to your opinion that a specific graph is “..bogus..” or “..Communist..”.

            Best science practices please. At least the best you can muster.”

          • monckton

            “Robert” is incapable of regarding anything – however well explained or referenced – as “science” to the extent that it does not accord with the climate Communist Party Line. Nevertheless, I refer others more capable of independent thought to my diligent postings up- and down-thread, where all is well explained and little is either challenged or challengeable by the climate Communists.

          • Robert

            “…Incapable of regarding anything – however well explained or referenced .”

            ” climate Communist Party Line.”

            “climate Communists.”

          • monckton

            It is legitimate to infer that cowards who post under incomplete names or pseudonyms or acronyms and spout the climate-Communist Party Line are climate Communists. Whatever, they are wrong.

          • Robert

            “spout the climate-Communist Party Line are climate Communists”

          • monckton

            The climate-Communist Party Line espoused by the few, pathetic, craven, anonymous or falsely-named trolls here has failed. It convinces no one. The world has not warmed for 18 years 1 month. Sea level is barely rising, if at all. The extent of global sea ice reached a record high earlier this year. The planet is greening thanks to extra CO2. The area of the Earth under drought is declining. There is no change in the frequency, intensity, or duration of floods, hurricanes, tropical storms or extra-tropical storms. None of the predicted catastrophes has occurred or shows any sign of occurring. Get with the picture, and get a life.

          • RealMrTea

            And who are you again?

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea” indicates the intellectual abyss into which the paid climate-Communist trolls on this thread have sunk by citing CreepyMedia as though it were authoritative. To state that because CreepyMedia does not say an ad-hom attack must be against a named hom an ad-hom attack can also be made against someone unidentifiable is to perpetrate yet another logical fallacy – this time the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

            Meanwhile, more and more people around the world are learning that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, because search engines are trained to detect the number of comments annexed to a posting and to raise the profile of much-commented postings. So, let the climate Communists keep their fatuities coming: they advertise their own ignorance and the fact of the 18 years 1 month without global warming at one and the same time.

          • RealMrTea

            Typical word salad from “the monckton” trying to use as many big words as possible to make the world think he is actually smart…. while at the same time giveing himself up as childish and immature by throwing out numerous ad hominem (personal) attacks and a slew of name calling to try and discount the real scientists of the world, and now even the encyclopedia……… ALL because they don’t fit his twisted (and paid for) view of thwwe world….

            And the “the monckton” goes on to completely make up a ficticious story, that he wishes would come true, but the majority of the world (and the VAST majority of climate scientists) KNOW is untrue….

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            All of course while calling anyone that simply uses real data… “communists”

            It is an old and tired playbook…. But then again, you aren’t very imaginative….

          • monckton

            “Robert” has clarified that it is incapable of understanding anything scientific, however well explained or referenced, because it is a Climate Communist.

          • Robert

            “because it is a Climate Communist.”

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • RealMrTea

            I think the monckton is skipping…. Somebody give it a kick….

          • monckton

            There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Will the climate scare survive 20 years without global warming, on any of the five global-temperature datasets? I think not. It’s looking pretty sick as it is, which is why so many of the paid climate-Communist trolls who post here are anonymous.

          • RealMrTea

            As usual…. You sling out childish names.. and claims with NO data…..

            Here is the reality…. complete with data….. from a reliable source….

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

          • monckton

            slate.com is not a peer-reviewed source.

          • RealMrTea

            If “the monkton” had taken the time to read the article… it would have seen that the data comes from NOAA….

            Obviously “the monckton” either didn’t read the article, or chose to overlook the data because it doesn’t support the goal of it’s masters….

            PS: You never did answer the direct question… Please answer it.

            Have you, or any enity you control recieved money (or equivilant) from the Heartland Institute in 2013 or 2104?

          • Robert

            “… it is a Climate Communist.”

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • Robert

            Anytime you want to discuss why the only data set used in the article we were discussing was picked, we could go forward on that.

            You made a conscious choice to use derogatory language instead of bringing forward sources that would support your claims.

            I stopped trying to discuss the science and point out your language choices and discussion techniques. And it seems you’ve wanted to go down that course. Why, other than there is a paucity of resources supporting your claims, would be for you to say.

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • monckton

            “Robert” is very childishly repeating itself .

          • RealMrTea

            So am I…. Until I get an answer….

            Simple Question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            First, who is “RealMrTea”, and who subsidizes it to spout the climate Communist Party Line here?

          • RealMrTea

            Ahhh… That ad hominem attacks continue…. Pretty hillarious (to the onlookers) that you assert a bunch of “bad” things about me, and then in the same sentence admit that you have no idea who I am…..THAT is funny :)

            No problem…

            RealMrTea is an engineer on the West coast of the United States that is paid to develop physical control systems. He is not (and never has been) paid by a lobby group (or anyone) to speak, write, or convey anything to anyone about climate change…

            Now answer the question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • RealMrTea

            Still waiting for that answer…

            Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • RealMrTea

            Said the Monckton 15 times in a row…. ROFL….

          • Robert

            8 months ago, ‘monckton’ said, “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            But whom have I attacked personally?

          • Robert

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Anonymous climate-Communist trolls feel free to attack me personally from behind a cowardly screen of pseudonyms, acronyms and false names, but then burst into tears when I point out that they are climate Communists.

            Stick to the science. The models and the climate Communist party line were wrong.

          • Robert

            “…. but then burst into tears when I point out that they are climate Communists.

            Stick to the science. The models and the climate Communist party line were wrong.”

            Anytime you want to discuss why the only data set used in the article we were discussing was picked, we could go forward on that.

            Your choice was to use derogatory language instead of bringing forward sources that would support your claims.

            I stopped trying to discuss the science and point out your language choices and discussion techniques. And it seems you’ve wanted to go down that course. Why, other than there is a paucity of resources supporting your claims, would be for you to say.

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. One cannot “personally” attack those who are so cowardly that they do not reveal their true identities. So the climate Communists who troll here must expect to take no less flak than they try to hand out, and should learn to grow up and stop blubbing repetitively about it. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. None of the climate models on which the climate-Communist Party Line was foolishly based predicted that. The world is warming at half the rate predicted by the climate-Communist IPCC in 1990, 25 years ago. Grown-up scientists, on realizing that their predictions have failed, do not pretend their predictions have succeeded.

          • RealMrTea

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            PS:Simple Question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            Simple question: Who is “RealMrTea”, and how much is it paid to peddle the climate-Communist Party Line here from behind a cloak of craven anonymity?

          • RealMrTea

            Ahhh… That ad hominem attacks continue…. Pretty hillarious (to the onlookers) that you assert a bunch of “bad” things about me (hence all the name calling) and then in the same sentence admit that you have no idea who I am…..THAT is funny :)

            No problem…

            RealMrTea is an engineer on the West coast of the United States that is paid to develop physical control systems. He is not (and never has been) paid by a lobby group (or anyone) to speak, write, or convey anything to anyone about climate change…

            Now answer the question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            Robert is childishly repeating itself.

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. This message will attach itself automatically to further repetitions.

          • Robert

            test

          • monckton

            “Robert” has failed.

          • RealMrTea

            Monkton,
            Simple Question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            Simple question: who is “RealMrTea”, and how much is it paid to peddle the climate-Communist Party Line here? If it were capable of independent thought, and if it had enough math to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a simple dataset, it would find there has been no global warming at all for 18 years 1 month. And how many of the profiteers of doom had predicted that?

          • RealMrTea

            Ahhh… That ad hominem attacks continue…. Pretty hillarious (to the onlookers) that you assert a bunch of “bad” things about me, and then in the same sentence admit that you have no idea who I am…..THAT is funny :)

            No problem…

            RealMrTea is an engineer on the West coast of the United States that is paid to develop physical control systems. He is not (and never has been) paid by a lobby group (or anyone) to speak, write, or convey anything to anyone about climate change…

            Now answer the question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • RealMrTea

            Monckton,
            Simple Question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            Simple question: who is “RealMrTea”, and how much is it paid to peddle the climate-Communist Party Line here? If it were capable of independent thought, and if it had enough math to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a simple dataset, it would find there has been no global warming at all for 18 years 1 month. And how many of the canting profiteers of doom had predicted that?

          • RealMrTea

            Ahhh… That ad hominem attacks continue…. (hence the name calling) Pretty hillarious (to the onlookers) that you assert a bunch of “bad” things about me, and then in the same sentence admit that you have no idea who I am…..THAT is funny :)

            No problem…

            RealMrTea is an engineer on the West coast of the United States that is paid to develop physical control systems. He is not (and never has been) paid by a lobby group (or anyone) to speak, write, or convey anything to anyone about climate change…

            Now answer the question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • BruceMWilliams

            But how do you select the data set? The logical way would be to look at ten year moving averages, starting in 1880. Oh wait, that’s been done. We’re still warming. Or you could focus on one single outlier data point, 1998, and start your data set there. But that’s cherry picking. You would never stoop to that, right?

          • monckton

            Using ten-year moving averages is a convenient device to rule out all data for the past five years, helping to conceal the fact, revealed in the head posting, that there has been no global warming for almost two decades. Furthermore, the rate of global warming since 1990, on all datasets, is half of what the IPCC then predicted with “substantial” (but wildly misplaced) “confidence”.

          • monckton

            Asked and answered: “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • Robert

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. Anonymous trolls cannot be attacked “personally”. If they sneer, they will get as good as they give, and like it, or go elsewhere and cry in a corner. Meanwhile, there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

          • Robert

            “Anonymous trolls cannot be attacked “personally”. If they sneer, they will get as good as they give, and like it, or go elsewhere…”

          • Robert

            “…they will get as good as they give, and like it,….”

            The readers of this blog can see who is doing the ‘giving’, and who is posting links to the science.

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!!! Now THAT was funny…. You pack more personal attacks in per email than anyone I have ever seen… I think the record I counted was 20 in one email… There may be more….

            All anyone has to do is go through your posts, and they can CLEARLY see attack, after attack, after attack….

          • monckton

            So let me see: it is OK for paid climate-Communist trolls to make personal attacks on me, but it is not OK for me to call them the paid climate-Communist trolls they are? Since they post under cowardly pseudonyms, any attacks I make on them cannot – by definition – be “personal”, now, can they? Don’t be childish.

          • RealMrTea

            I know in your line of work (being a shill for the Fossil Fuel Insdustry) it is difficult to tell the truth from fabrications….

            But the things you are saying are what most people know as “lies” and “made up” information…

            Let me give you some examples… When anyone points out that you are using cherry picked data, wrong data, and avoiding the REAL data to make your “claims”… And when we (rightly) point out that fact has been pointed out to you on regular intervals, and has long since been debunked, and that you know this….

            You call (everyone that doies it).. “communists”…. The reality is that niobody gave any indication at all that they are communists, and most have directoy said otherwise…None the less, you continue with the repeated name calling, based on zero information, in an attempt that others look at them and discount the infforamtion they are providing….

            I (and others) on the other hand am providing compiled information from trusted sources about you.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            You certainly have the opportunity to contest the specifics of one or more of these troves of information, but clearly there is much more to go on here to make an informed decision than pulling “communist” “troll” or other such childish assertions out of thin air….

          • monckton

            I usually don’t bother to reply to climate-Communist blogs’ hate-speech entries about me. Most people have enough sense to realize that these blogs only bother to attack me, following the Alinsky principle of going after the man rather than his argument, because they consider me a danger to the Party Line.

            Yet it is not I who am a danger to the Party Line. It is science that is the danger to the Party Line. For the world is not warming at the predicted rate. And, if the oceans were accumulating heat at a greater rate than throughout the past century, sea level would be rising faster than before. Yet sea level in the 20th century rose by 1.7 mm/year and, in the past decade or so, has been rising at 1.5 mm/year (Purkey et al., 2014).

            Now that there has been no global warming for more than 18 years, and now that it is plain that any “missing heat” that may be accumulating in the ocean is having no detectable effect on sea level or on atmospheric temperature, and now that some 25 alternative explanations for the “missing heat” and the over-predictions by the models have appeared in the learned literature over the past couple of years, it matters not what the climate-Communist blogs say about me. As events unfold, the climate Communists will have been proven wrong in just about every material particular.

          • RealMrTea

            The REAL data (as opposed to the stuff Monckkton makes up and cherry picks) is crytal clear… from reliabale sources (NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO).and the data is ABSOLUTELY irrefutable

            Record Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            (in spite of) Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            (long term) Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            (long term) Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            And it is caused by (long term) Rising Atmosphereic CO2

            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            And the reason people don;t know it better is because there is massive amounts of propaganda (like what you write)

            Based on this….
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

            ~Albert Einstein~

          • monckton

            Merely copying and pasting the same tired and long-discredited data will not help. Yes, solar activity has declined somewhat, but the models that were supposed to predict the future course of global temperatures should have predicted that. And the reduction in solar output is so small that according to the models it should not be making any difference at all.

            Yes, global temperature has been rising for the past 300 years: but the fastest rate of rise was from 1695-1735, when temperatures in central England (and, inferentially, worldwide, for the CETR is quite a respectable proxy for global temperature change) rose at more than twice the maximum rate observed since. The rate of rise in global temperature since the IPCC’s first ASSessment report in 1990 is half of what was then predicted with “substantial confidence”. The “substantial confidence” was misplaced.

            Yes, CO2 concentration has been rising, but the total alteration in the composition of the atmosphere since 1750 amounts to 1 part in 10,000. Since the principal absorption bands of CO2 are already overlain by those of water vapor everywhere below the upper troposphere, it is only at high altitude, where the atmosphere is very thin, that that 1 in 1000 change could make any difference to global temperature: this is one reason why the CO2 forcing may well have been prodigiously exaggerated. In any event, the Great Pause in global temperatures, which has now endured for more than 18 years, has occurred at a time when CO2 concentration has been rising rapidly. Absence of correlation necessarily entails absence of causation.

            If the paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea”, who has never contributed any peer-reviewed paper to any journal of climate science, would like to make a real impact on the climate debate, it should begin by understanding the difference between the propaganda it circulates and the facts that I have set forth in the head posting, not one of which it has been able to refute. One realizes that these facts are deadly to the climate-Communist cause, since they demonstrate that in the most material respects the Party Line and the models on which it is based have been proven wrong. But there it is. No amount of paid shrieking here is going to make the truth go away: and the truth is that CO2 is having far less of an impact on global temperature than the Party Line dictates.

          • RealMrTea

            The only thing d”discredited” here is you….. and it is past the point of being laughable.,,… Your assertion that the data from NASA, NOAA, and CSIRO (amoung others) is “discredited” is a LIE…

            That’s right.. a LIE…. vecause you are a FRAUD…..

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            The REAL and comprehensive data is here…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

            And more people are figuring out your SHAM… every day….. Rest assured we are all laughing at you…. Not with you…. At you….

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea” is merely repeating itself like a small child hurling insults from behind its curtain of anonymity. What a craven, custard-faced coward it is, this sniveling little climate Fascist.

          • RealMrTea

            “The Monckton” gets his panties in a knot when I show peoiple who he really is…..

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

            Ooops….

          • monckton

            … and your scientific point is?

          • RealMrTea

            My scientific point is that your lack of education in climate science (or any science) along with your VERY poor record of, exaggerating your credentials, exaggerating climate data, cherry picking climate data to make a false pont, making up data, and generally being WRONG on your “science”…..

            Makes you about the last person on eatrth people should be listening to when it comes to climate science…

            Clear?

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

          • monckton

            … and your scientific point is?

          • RealMrTea

            My scientific point is that your lack of education in climate science (or any science) along with you rVERY poor record of, exaggerating your credentials, exaggerating climate data, cherry picking data, making up data, and generally being WRONG on your “science…..

            Makes you about the last person on eatrth people should be listening to when it comes to climate science…

            Clear?

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            PS: I am sure you saw that the AR5 synthesis report is now out……

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            It is likely to much “data” for you to get through…And far to much truth for you to bare… So here is a nice summary of the report in the New Yoirk Times…..

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

          • monckton

            … and your scientific point is?

          • RealMrTea

            You are repeating yourself again…..

            I take it then that you agree that yoiu are a fraud?

          • monckton

            If the paid clmate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” continues to hurl childish insults from behind the cloak of anonymity, then no one will take it seriously. However, if it really thinks I have committed fraud, it will have to establish a) that I perpetrated a deception; b) that I did so wilfully, knowingly, with intent to deceive and with intent either to gain thereby or to occasion others loss thereby. Now, rather than providing childish links to childish climate-Communist hate-speech websites, why does “RealMrTea” not try to go along to his local police station and report me for producing the headline graph in the head posting?

            a) there is no deception, for the data are real and the trend is correctly determined and has been verified by a competent statistician; b) no one pays me to produce the graphs, and they occasion loss to no one. So none of the tests for fraud are present, for the good and simple reason that the head posting is in all material respects true, fair, and accurate. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. There is nothing fraudulent about that calculation. So the models that predicted rapid global warming were wrong. The rate of global warming since 1990 has been half that which IPeCaC then predicted with “substantial confidence”. In all this time, “RealMrTea” has only been able to produce feeble-minded, diversionary bluster. It isn’t working. The head posting speaks for itself and has not been seriously challenged by any of the paid climate-Communist trolls who have been posting here. The feeble-mindedness and spite with which they hurl their petty insults at named individuals from behind a cowardly curtain of anoymity has been prevented on many other blogs, and will shortly be prevented on this one too. If you want to hurl insults, say who you are. If not, be silent. You have nothing of value to contribute to the scientific debate, which is way above your pay-grade.

          • RealMrTea

            “The Monckton” likes to come off as an educated climate scientist….. In reality is is neither educated… nor a climate scientist… and is in reality just a long winded fraud… A fraud that has been caugh numerous times….

            And in fact is quite notorious…..

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

          • monckton

            Lord Monckton is a Master of Arts (Cantab.) in classical architecture, though his interests range well beyond the ancient world. For instance, he delivered last year’s Nerenberg Lecture on Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, and has marketed several inventions that depended on an expert knowledge of probabilistic combinatorics. He has also contributed several distinguished papers to learned journals on the climate question.

            Naturally, his conclusion that Man’s influence on the climate is not at present significant and is unlikely to become so is unpopular in certain quarters, so that he has attracted more than his fair share of oppobrium. Nevertheless, he is a man of some courage, and he does not bow to bullying.

          • RealMrTea

            Buah hah ha ha ha ha…

            Yes.. because architecture is SO much like climate science……
            When you get a degree in something… You are automatically “smart” ij EVERYTHING….RIGHT?

            Buah ha ha ha ha ha ha

            Again….. ANYONE can give a lecture….. ANYONE…… That is exactly how this PAID Oil/Gas Lobbyist did it….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/tom-harris-carleton-university-climate-misinformation-class.html

            Monckton is a pitiful FRAUD…… And everyone in the industry knows it….. But him….. The ONLY people that seek him out are Oil/Gas lobbyists (like the Heartland Institute)… when they want someone to speak the company line….

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

          • monckton

            It is unclear what scientific point, if any, is being made in the above comment, which appears more than somewhat incoherent. The scientific truth, attested to in the head posting, is that there has been no global atmospheric warming for more than 18 years notwithstanding numerous predictions that there would be such warming, and that there were only n years to save the planet. These predictions of doom have not yet come to pass. As Lord Monckton cogently commented in his first public utterance on the climate question eight years ago almost to the day. some global warming is to be expected, but, on balance, not very much. His then prediction has proven more prescient than those of the “official” sources upon which too much unwise reliance is placed.

            It is not clear to us what purpose, if any, is served by the commenters here providing repetitive links to websites that appear to disagree with Lord Monckton scientifically but appear also to be unable to express that disagreement in scientific terms rather than in pusillanimous invective.

          • RealMrTea

            Don’t blame others for your ignorance….. Your understanding is not the measure of anything…. The “scientific point” is that Monckton has been caught lying numeroius times. he has been caught doctoring climate data…. He has been caught cherry picking specific data… to try and make a false point. he has been called out on these things OVER and OVER…

            “scientifically” he is the last person on the planet anyone should be listening to on climate change……

            Unless of course you are purposefully looking for misinformation…..

            Are we clear now?

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

          • monckton

            The above commenter appears to hate Lord Monckton. Hatred is unwise and tends to lead to error. If the commenter is unable to construct a scientific argument, few will be impressed. The peer reviewers who consent to the publication of Lord Monckton’s many distinguished contributions to the reviewed literature are not aware of His Lordship’s identity at the time when they consider them: they decide upon his papers purely on their merits. That is how anonymized peer review routinely operates. Frankly, therefore, the various non-reviewed sources mentioned by the commenter are not in the same league as His Lordship, and we are impressed by His Lordship’s patience in providing scientific information in response to those – here and elsewhere – who request it.

            His Lordship is consulted by governments, by corporations, by parliaments, by professors, by university faculties, and by members of the public, to all of whom he replies as best he can, and without payment from anyone. The non-peer-reviewed blog mentioned above is one of those whose funding is from disreputable sources; and it is evident merely from the sneering tone adopted routinely by the paid authors of that blog that they are not in His Lordship’s intellectual league. Indeed, a member of the paid staff of that blog was defeated very heavily by His Lordship in a nationally-broadcast radio debate in Canada some years ago, when the paid representative of the blog was caught out lying about the highly dubious source of funds for the blog. The blog has held a fierce grudge against Lord Monckton ever since its humiliating defeat at His Lordship’s hands.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            The allegations against Lord Monckton are made from behind a cloak of anonymity and, therefore, may be disregarded. The person making the allegations lacks the conviction to reveal his or her true identity, knowing that libel proceedings would be likely to follow.

          • RealMrTea

            I am an engineer from Seattle that gets paid ONLY to create computer control systems…. And I am not enough of an idiot to put my name out on an Internet blog…. I am not paid to write anything…. Although Monckton is paid by (at least) The Heartland Institute (a notorious Oil Lobby) to create his propaganda….

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

            Why not try to conest what has actually been presented….. rather than trying to shoot the messenger?

            Ohhh…. I know….. Because it is the truth…

          • monckton

            The commenter continues his or her libels but refuses to identify himself or herself. We are entitled to assume, therefore, that the commenter is concealing his or her identity for fear of libel proceedings – an admission that the commenter knows or suspects the allegations to be wholly false and without foundation.

            The commenter plainly knows little if any climate science and has been unable to point to any papers he or she has published in the peer-reviewed literature of climate.

            The head posting stands unchallenged, therefore. There is no error in the data and none in the determination of the least-squares linear-regression trend thereon, which shows no global warming of the atmosphere for 18 years 1 month. In that event, there is no anthropogenic basis for any claimed acceleration in sea level: nor can any recent extreme-weather event be legitimately attributed to global warming, for there has not been any recent global warming.

          • RealMrTea

            NEWSFLASH: It isn’t libel if it is TRUE……

            However much you don’t want people to know it :)

            And the head posting has been challenged… and proven to be doctired data…. You just don’t ackowledge it…. Even though you acknowledge me repetedly posting the data…. You just avoid the data….

            Just like you have avoided it from all the other posters here…

            FRAUD….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!!!!

            “The Monckton” gets really riled up when I dish out who he REALLY is,….

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

            ROFLMAO!!!! Great stuff!!!!

          • monckton

            And your scientific point is?

          • RealMrTea

            My scientific point is that your lack of education in climate science (or any science) along with you rVERY poor record of, exaggerating your credentials, exaggerating climate data, cherry picking data, making up data, and generally being WRONG on your “science…..

            Makes you about the last person on eatrth people should be listening to when it comes to climate science…

            Clear?

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

          • monckton

            .And your scientific point is ?

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            Pot calls kettle black. Do you have any scientific references to give me, or only Marxstream media sources? Have any of those sources even reported that there has been no global warming for 18 years? If not, why should I or anyone believe them?

          • RealMrTea

            “Marxstream media” Buah ah ahahahaha… OK Sarah!!!!

            I forgot for a minute that you are an ultra right wing nut…

            And by “Marxstream” you obviously mean “Truthful” because that is waht they reported…..

            As I have shpwn you numerous times now….. We just set a RECORD for temperatire (hottest 12 months on record)….. Here it is…DIRECT from NOAA But of course….they are “marxstream” to RIGHT???? LOL!!!

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            No WONDER everybody says you are nuts…..
            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            The trouble with the intellectually feeble-minded is that they are blissfully unaware of how intellectually feeble-minded they are. Consider “RealMrTea”, how it has no knowledge of the elementary logical fallacies, not the least of which is the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, or the fallacy of arguing by the introduction of red herrings, straw men, or ad-hominen attacks on identifiable individuals.

            In the above instance of hate speech, there are numerous examples of the ad-hominem subspecies of ignoratio elenchi.

            Furthermore, there is an egregious instance of the inappropriate argument from the particular to the general that constitutes the fallacy of converse accident. Global temperature is likely to increase over the northern-hemisphere winter as the current el Nino takes effect (there is typically a two-month time-lag between warming of the oceans and warming of the atmosphere to which they are coupled). Though that will shorten the Pause for a time, it will not much alter the ever-widening discrepancy between the rate of global warming that the models had predicted and the rate of warming that has actually been measured over the past quarter of a century. No amount of bluster on the part of “RealMrTea” can conceal that glaring discrepancy, which discredits all that it has futilely tried to do by its hate speech here.

          • RealMrTea

            Here is more REALITY for you…..

            Courtesy of NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO…. Enjoy!!!

            Record Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            (in spite of) Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            (long term) Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            (long term) Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            And it is caused by (long term) Rising Atmosphereic CO2
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            And the reason people don’t know it better is because there is massive amounts of propaganda (like what you write)

            Based on this….
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

          • monckton

            Lord Monckton has not written “propaganda”. He has pointed out, factually and on the basis of data whose source is plainly disclosed and on the basis of a method that is also plainly disclosed and verified, that there has been no global warming for more than 18 years. This does not seem to be an “accelerating trend”.

            Since the atmospheric temperature is not rising and has not risen for approaching two decades, it is difficult to discern any plausible anthropogenic aetiology for the supposed elevation in the rate of sea-level rise – an elevation which is, however, only present in a single data series and is not evident in the Envisat, or GRACE, or tide-gauge data.

            It is undeniable that atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise, and it is possible that much of that increase is attributable to Man. In that event, it is a puzzle that global temperature has not risen in step with CO2, but has flattened in the two decades during which CO2 concentration appears to have risen most rapidly.

            Could it be, perhaps, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is nothing like as great as the IPCC and the models are suggesting? The evidence now strongly points to that conclusion.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            Non-specific and unevidenced allegations of “fraud” from anonymous sources do not impress us. The data for the graphs in the head posting are correct, as Dr Mears has conceded at the RSS website (indeed, the head posting mentions this).

            It is not clear to us what anyone hopes to gain by repeatedly providing links to tendentious websites that criticize His Lordship on manifestly questionable grounds. Visits to such websites – one of which, to our knowledge, is paid for by a convicted internet-gaming fraudster out of some $185 million in ill-gotten gains – reveal more about the dubious methods and motives of the operators of those sites than they do about Lord Monckton, whose decisive contributions to the climate debate – including his regular updates of the global temperature record – are internationally recognized.

            Indeed, it is precisely because the veracity and consequent effectiveness of His Lordship’s contributions are so great that he has attracted such hostility from those who do not appear to welcome the scientific truth, which is that the climate is not unfolding as had been predicted.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            We are disinclined to place any weight upon links that have had to be repeated so often in the hope that someone – anyone – might follow them. It is clear that the first link is to a blog by a person who has conceived (for no purpose that is disclosed) an irrational hatred for Lord Monckton; that the remainder are authored by persons who share a narrow – indeed, narrow-minded – political viewpoint dressed up as science; that one of the websites is paid for by a convicted internet-gaming fraudster; and that none of these sources is peer-reviewed. It remains unclear to us whether anyone has ever published in any peer-reviewed journal any refutation of Lord Monckton’s science or economics.

            Given that Lord Monckton has lectured at faculty level on these matters, and has addressed heads of state and government, and international scientific congresses, and has a stream of papers in the reviewed literature, it is not clear what anyone hopes to gain by calling him names on politicized websites. Such websites are now widely disregarded for their content, but are found useful as methods of identifying who is likely to be telling the truth, since they have perpetrated so many elementary errors, inevitably casting Lord Monckton in a good light when their apparent intention is to achieve the reverse effect.

            The more these websites mention Lord Monckton, the more His Lordship’s reputation grows – a reputation for having courageously stood up to well-funded bullying when many another would have retreated. He continues, therefore, to be much in demand as an international-class speaker on the climate.

          • RealMrTea

            ROFLMAO!!!!!!

            Translation: I know the links say bad thins about the Monckton… and so I won’t follow them….

            This is EXACTLY how you do CLIMATE SCIENCE!!!

            Discard the data you don’t want…. and doctor the data until it says what you want….

            Monckton’s data is fraudulent (as I have shown NUMEROUS times now)

            What IS rellevant is that the IPCC (the REAL climate scientists) have now released their synthesis report. It summrraizes the other reports……and has the final findings It is VERY clear….. and VERY stark…..

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            Here is a good summary of it in the New York Times

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

          • monckton

            The commenter appears to have made all of the above points many times before, but does not appear to have responded seriously or scientifically at any point. In particular, the commenter has failed to provide any evidence that the representations of the global temperature data in the head posting are in any degree inaccurate, still less deceptive, still less a deliberate deception with intent to profit – which is the definition of fraud. Regrettably, the commenter seems merely to be indulging in hate-speech. We are given to understand that, as the discrepancy between the models’ prediction and the real-world data widens month by month, those who had perhaps unwisely adopted aprioristic positions on the climate question are growing angry at their own failure to keep an open mind.

            Lord Monckton cannot fairly be accused of not having kept an open mind: for he had originally considered that there might be some threat from CO2 concentration increasing, but changed his mind in 2006 when a hedge-fund in the City of London invited him to examine the data in some detail. Once he had carefully reviewed the evidence, he concluded – to his surprise – that our influence on the climate was and would remain negligible, and that any climatic change would be chiefly natural, as it has always been.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            The allegations the above commenter makes against Lord Monckton are false. The blogs on which the commenter relies are funded by dubious sources, including a convicted internet-gaming fraudster, one Lefebvre. The commenter is not prepared to make the allegations in his or her own name. The allegations, therefore, may be disregarded.

          • RealMrTea

            BUA ha ha ha ha…. “dubious sources” ha ha ha..

            What are the “sources”? Why are they “dubious”?

            Each of these sights are the blogs of REAL climate scientists, that are SO… frustrated at having to deal with a LIAR like Monckton…. they took to the Internet to share so that the world could be better informed on Monckton…. And in fact they ALL write about that…. And of course you avoid that… No worries…. I am here to serve…..

            Here is one example of many….

            “He (Monckton) is probably the most thoroughly debunked disinformer on the web (see “Climate scientists eviscerate Lord Monckton’s attempt to disinform the U.S. Congress” and “MN professor eviscerates Monckton in must-see video“). But because TVMOB(Monckton) continues to spread disinformation at an impressive rate, physicist John Cook of Skeptical Science has put all of his myths — along with their rebuttals — in one place”

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            Which refers to this one….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

            And many more……

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            The commenter is pointlessly repetitive. The blogs the commenter cites are funded by dubious sources, including a convicted internet-gaming fraudster. The commenter is unwilling to reveal his or her identity for fear of libel proceedings, and the allegations he or she makes, which would in other circumstances be grave, may be and are disregarded.

            There is no defect in the data or in the determination of the least-squares trend that establishes the absence of global warming in the past 18 years 1 month. Accordingly, the commenter is trying to distract attention from the head posting, but will not be taken seriously until his or her identity is known.

            In view of the commenter’s persistence in libeling Lord Monckton from behind a pseudonym, we shall take His Lordship’s instructions on whether to apply to the operator of this blog for the commenter’s details, so that proceedings can be served. In the unlikely event that the operator refused to supply the relevant details, the court would be asked to make the necessary orders.

          • RealMrTea

            Silly fake scientist…. You forgot to tell us what the “dubious sources” were…. OOOOooohhhhh….. They sound so “scary” whan you avoid telling people….

            Why not just tell them that those BLOGS…. are written by the scientists they say they are….by tthe scientsists whos NAME is on them…

            And AGAIN…. It is impossible for what I have shared to be lbeling…. as it is the TRUTH

            You are tooo funny….

            Threats? Again? BRING IT!!! Lets see it….. It would be funny to see Monckton humiliated in court

          • demac

            Monckton is using NOAA RSS (microwave satellite data) for most of his arguments; which is the most accurate temperature data available (especially compared to the land based human adjusted temperature stations.)

            The RSS temperature data has shown that the earth has warmed 0.36 degrees F since 1979 and there has been no temperature increase since 1998.

          • RealMrTea

            No…. RSS data happens to be the LOWEST estimate which is likely why “The Monckton” likes it….. But then he goes on to LIE about it… spinning the axis to make t flat with a made up tale of BS…

            HERE is the REAL satellite data:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#mediaviewer/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

            And most importantly all of this is “cherry picking” from the start as it is SURFACE data only, and completely ignores the Ocean depths, which are 90% of the heat sync of the climate system…. Which ANTONE looking at climate knows….

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#mediaviewer/File:Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png

            The REALITY is this
            http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/18927/20141114/summer-2014-heralded-warmest-oceans-recorded.htm

            Which then shows THIS
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/11/20/global-climate-report-warm-october/19322883/

            Making Monckton either:

            A. Woefully ignorant, in which case he shouldn’t attempt to speak with any authority…. (he is not a scientist anyway)

            or

            B. Completely disingenuous as if he DOES know… he is purposefully avoiding the data (cherry picking).

            But of course… Monckton is paid by Oil lobbyists to make this stuff up… So…

            https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • CB

            Robert is a human, not an “it”, and he is repeating himself!

            If you had addressed his point, why would that be necessary?

            If you understand the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been warming over the last 18 years, why would you claim there’s been no warming over the last 18 years?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. “CB” is childishly repeating itself, and has taken no account of the points made in my earlier replies, which I have no need to repeat.

          • CB

            We’re coming to the end of the therapy, fanboy.

            Did it make an impression?

            😉

          • monckton

            The co-operation of the paid climate-Communist trolls too cowrdly to post here under their real names for fear of the scorn and ridicule that would be heaped upon them for their childishness, their repetitiveness, their incapacity to understand elementary physics and thermodynamics, and their readiness to swallow any official pronouncement from a profiteering national or international agency as long as it repeats the climate-Communist Party Line has been an excellent advertisement for this column, pushing the comments up to more than 500 and thus guaranteeing far greater prominence on the search-engines’ page selection algorithms than would otherwise have been possible.

            The intellectual bankruptcy of those who have not studied climate science but have merely dipped into talking-points notes handed out by the Traffic-Light Tendency – the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds – is bottomless, and is well illustrated here.

            It is now apparent that the ocean notion – that the “missing heat” predicted by the Party Line but embarrassingly absent from the atmosphere for close to two decades is playing hide-and-seek with us somewhere in the deep ocean – has been dismissed explicitly by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (see references upthread) as well as by Wunsch & Heimbach (2014), and implicitly by dozens of papers in the reviewed journals offering a multiplicity of other and mutually incompatible explanations for the supposed “missing heat”.

            The possibility that the models that predicted the warming that has failed to occur as ordered might have been programmed so as very considerably to exaggerate climate sensitivity – a possibility canvassed in a series of papers by many authors in the literature (see e.g., Monckton of Brenchley, 2008) – ought to be acknowledged by the trolls here: but, since that possibility is inconsistent with the climate-Communist Party Line, and since it is beyond the trolls’ intellectual capacity and scientific literacy to comprehend why this possibility is real, they are reduced to the mere repetitive shrieking of small children insufficiently disciplined by their parents or educated by their dominies.

          • CB

            Awwww!!! …and we are right out of time for this therapy session!

            You seem to have a lot of mental illness going on; paranoid delusion, persecution complex, possible personality dissociation, and of course the more common aspects of projection and self-destructive tendencies one regularly finds with Climate Deniers.

            You could really use professional psychological help!

            Please let me know if I can find you a therapist in your area. I don’t mind digging one up for you.

            Remember, there’s no reason to struggle with suicidal feelings alone and nothing wrong with asking for help if you need it.

          • monckton

            The world has not warmed for 18 years 1 month. The rate of global warming has been half what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. My reviewed paper in Energy and Environment, just published, shows very clearly the extent of the intellectual bankruptcy of IPeCaC and of the paid climate-Communist trolls who have no science to offer (other than occasional repetitive references to the Party Line, nearly always not in peer-reviewed sources), and who, as does the malevolent paid troll “CB”, merely hurl childish insults, for it does not know enough science or economics to understand what it is talking about.

            When the world has failed to warm for 20 years, that will be the end of the climate scam. The profiteers of doom will then have to think of something else to scare scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate governments with. But the hard Left, which took to the scare with such uncritical enthusiasm, will have been damaged fatally. People will no longer listen to the Communist Party Line on any subject with respect. The venom directed at those of us who have the courage to use our real names by those who post under incomplete or pseudonymous identities will be an interesting museum-piece for future generations to ponder. They will, I hope, realize that totalitarianism has no legitimate place in human affairs. The ending of the climate scare may well, therefore, prove to be the ending of Socialism too, and the world will be a far, far better place for its passing.

          • BruceMWilliams

            Climate Communist!!!! You want to starve/freeze millions of babies to death!! (snark)

          • Robert

            ” “Robert” is incapable of regarding anything…”

            “…climate Communist Party Line. ..”

            “.. by the climate Communists.”

          • Michael Stone

            Incomplete names you say…. So ~~monckton~~ tell us who you really are…. We do not know you by any name but monckton, you may be Joe Blow, John Smith, Jack Ripper.
            Why do you assume my real name is not Michael Stone? Why do you accuse me of being a communist? You are accusing others here like CB of being a coward and slinging insults from the bushes because you don’t know what her real name is…. Yet you insult me and her and others who disagree with you opinions by calling us “communists” and claim you don’t insult anyone… The truth is and is clearly obvious by what you have written on this and other threads is that you are not sane.

          • monckton

            Don’t be silly. I am plainly identified at the beginning of the head posting. And “Michael Stone”, whoever it is, has admitted upthread that “Michael Stone” is not its real name.

            Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at anything more than half the rate that the climate Communists had predicted. On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming distinguishable from zero for more than a quarter of a century, and none at all for 18 years 1 month – not what the Party Line had predicted. Stick to the main point: the models on which the climate scare was unsoundly founded were wrong.

          • Michael Stone

            You have never given your first name and speaking of cowards, you have blocked your comment history. You are not (plainly) identified at all…. Yes I told you my real name is Elvis Presley. Did you forget?

          • monckton

            Don’t be childish. My first name is given at the beginning of the head posting. As for “Michael Stone”, just another paid climate-Communist troll cowering like the coward it is behind a cloak of pseudonymity, it tried to maintain earlier that it was a retired professor from Princeton – a pathetic ruse that was easily dispelled by its self-evident and bottomless ignorance of elementary climatological physics and themodynamics.

            Meanwhile, global warming can only be shown to be occurring by the interminable ever-upward revisions of the three terrestrial temperature records. The RSS dataset, not subject to so many revisions, shows that there has been no significant warming for more than a quarter of a century. Not one of the vaunted models on which this puerile but profitable scare was based predicted any such outcome as its central estimate: and the continuing failure of the world to warm at anything like the predicted rate will soon put the trend-line below the very lowest estimate of every model.

            Furthermore, all my comments on this thread are visible to any who, unlike “Michael Stone”, who now fatuously claims to be “Elvis Presley” (whoever that may be), can read.

          • Robert

            “The RSS dataset, not subject to so many revisions, shows that there has been no significant warming for more than a quarter of a century. ”

            Thanks for yet again showing us the cherrypicking!

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • Robert

            Anytime you want to discuss why the only data set used in the article we were discussing was picked, we could go forward on that.

            Your choice was to use derogatory language instead of bringing forward sources that would support your claims.

            I stopped trying to discuss the science and point out your language choices and discussion techniques. And it seems you’ve wanted to go down that course. Why, other than there is a paucity of resources supporting your claims, would be for you to say.

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself.

          • Robert

            An added bit of funny is the lack of an upper-case M……..

            I do like the repeated use of ‘Communist’,…
            sorta reminds me of that other guy whose name started with an M…….

            whose list of names kept changing….

            and who, after being called out as a bully, was discovered to be a emperor with no pants…..

          • Michael Stone

            Thank you Robert…. He is not sane.

          • Robert

            “paid climate-Communist troll “CB”, but it is intellectually incapable of accepting any information”

          • Robert

            “paid climate Communist cowards who will not reveal who they are is that they serve their paymasters as useful idiots: useful to their paymasters, idiots to everyone else”

          • Robert

            Earlier, you wrote:

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • Robert

            “the paid climate-Communist cowards who troll here under furtive pseudonyms,”

          • Robert

            1. Observed Changes and their Causes

            Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. {1}

            1.1 Observed changes in the climate system

            Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}

            Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

            CLIMATE CHANGE 2014

            SYNTHESIS REPORT

            Approved Summary for Policymakers

            1 November 2014

            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf

            There’s a discussion over at Grist: http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-10-things-you-need-to-know-from-the-new-ipcc-climate-report/

            Wonder if we’ll see the woo over there also…….

          • monckton

            The most comprehensive examination of the reviewed climate literature ever conducted (Legates et al., 2013) found that just 0.5% of 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011 inclusive were willing to state that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade.

            The IPCC is supposed to reflect the reviewed literature, but has chosen instead to take a partisan and alarmist stance throughout, which is why its 1990 projection of future global temperature increase has proven to be a 100% exaggeration of the true warming rate.

            The IPCC merely trots out the Party Line, suppressing all evidence to the contrary, however overwhelming that evidence may be. It is not to be taken seriously or relied upon, for it no longer reflects the balance of science in the reviewed journals.

          • Robert

            “Party Line”

            But nothing that actually brings support to any alternative hypothesis.

            You’d think someone ostensibly posting as the author of the article would be able to actually hold a scientific discussion without needing to name call and insult.

          • monckton

            Given the sneering tone and the insults directed at me by the numerous anonymous trolls posting here, they must expect to get as good as they give. They have all been too cowardly to reveal who they are: therefore, I have not insulted anyone, or called anyone names, because there are no identifiable people. They are using the standard climate-Communist tactic of posting under the craven cloak of anonymity, so that they can call me “fraud”, “liar”, etc., when all I have done is to take the publicly-available data from the satellites and calculate a least-squares linear-regression trend on it, showing that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. That is the point of the head posting: all else in this thread is childish distraction in an attempt to keep the profitable climate scare going for just a little longer.

            Let the GOP triumph in the mid-terms be a lesson to you all: the people’s patience with the climate nonsense is running out.

          • Robert

            “They have all been too cowardly to reveal who they are: therefore…”

            “…standard climate-Communist…” “Let the GOP triumph in the mid-terms …”

            “… and this is “Robert’s” scientific response to a scientific argument?”..”

          • Tony Lear

            Parts of the ocean may be warming (though NASA disagrees) however the actual temperature on Earth is not and its a travesty…………for the nasty AGW crowd.
            Can they not go five minutes (or words) without comparing the thoughtful with Holocaust deniers?
            Why must they revert so quickly to being lowlifes?

          • zlop

            Ice Water “Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase …. 0.065 °C in 45 years ” http://motls.blogspot.ca/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html

          • CB

            Blogs aren’t the best source of information, ZLop. Try NOAA, NASA or one of the edus instead:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

          • zlop

            Other source gets similar result “Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 – 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960’s.” http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

            Ocean temperatures are stabilized by the insulating properties of Ice.

          • monckton

            Or try the less unreliable (but still insufficiently resolved) ARGO bathythermographs, which do not show anything like as much of an increase in ocean heat content as NOAA.

          • rainwash

            Wow. More cherry-picking at the data.

          • CB

            “More cherry-picking at the data.”

            Yes. Mr. Monckton is cherry-picking his data. The ocean makes up the bulk of the Earth’s climate system:

            “The majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.”

            oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            …so why is Mr. Monckton completely ignoring the warming that has occurred there for the past 18 years and focusing entirely on the atmosphere instead?

          • monckton

            See the explanations up- and down-thread

          • monckton

            Does Icarus62 have any scientific points to offer in rebuttal of those I have made upthread?

          • CB

            “Does Icarus62 have any scientific points to offer in rebuttal of those I have made upthread?”

            Icarus is ignoring you, because you are clearly mentally ill, but psychoanalysing the mentally ill is what I do.

            The rebuttal to your entire article is that the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has clearly been warming for the last 18 years:

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

            …so why did you claim it hasn’t?

            How do you think it makes you look when you run from defending your claims like a coward?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • monckton

            And which of the above facts would Icarus62 like to challenge? Or may one assume that he or she agrees with them all but finds them disagreeable? Facts, though, are facts: and just about all of the predicted disasters have failed to materialize. No amount of hooting and hollering will conceal that fact.

          • CB

            “which of the above facts would Icarus62 like to challenge?”

            She’s challenging your claim that there’s been no warming in the Earth’s climate system for the past 18 years by pointing out the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system has been warming for the past 18 years. Need a reminder?

            Why are you focusing on the tiniest part of the Earth’s climate system and ignoring the warming occurring in the vast majority of it?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-communist “CB” continues to pay no attention whatsoever to previous answers patiently given to it, and continues to assert the Party Line without question. Yet science is about asking questions, not about asserting a Party Line. NOAA, whose graph above it displays, tells us nothing so much as that NOAA profits by itself parroting the Party LIne. For there is, as I have already pointed out to “CB”, no system of measurement of ocean heat content sufficiently well-resolved to produce any graph such as that of NOAA. It is fiction.

            Nesides, if ocean heat content had increased by as much in the past decade or two as the graph purports (falsely) to demonstrate, then why is it that the laws of thermodynamics have been broken and the increased heat from the ocean has not transferred itself to the atmosphere above, so as to maintain a due balance between these two obviously-coupled bodies? The fact that the atmosphere has not warmed for a couple of decades tells us that the upper strata of the ocean (shown in red above) have not warmed by as much as shown – or that the additional heat content is so minuscule a fraction of the total heat content of the ocean that it is altogether insufficient to cause any global warming as it is defined by IPCC – i.e., warming of the atmosphere.

            Another powerful indication that there is little or no warming of the global ocean is given in the records of the Envisat satellite, which show sea level having risen from 2004-2012, the entire record for that satellite, at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches/century. Likewise, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites showed sea level actually falling from 2003-2009. These results could not have been obtained if the oceans were warming as much as NOAA profits by trying to tell us they are. Science is not a belief system. If the methods of measurement are inadequate to demonstrate a purported result, then that result must be subjected to heavy qualification – a qualification absent in CB’s mere zombie-like chanting of the Party Line.

          • CB

            “NOAA, whose graph above it displays, tells us nothing so much as that NOAA profits by itself parroting the Party LIne.”

            If you think NOAA’s incorrect about the clear warming that has occurred in the Earth’s climate system over the last 18 years, where are you getting your information?

            If you know your sources of information are misleading you, why would you continue to rely on them?

          • monckton

            There has been no warming of the atmosphere for 18 years 1 month (RSS: see graph in head posting). Since there has been no warming of the atmosphere, there cannot have been much warming of the upper layer of the ocean, for otherwise the laws of thermodynamics (see any textbook) would have been repealed. If “CB” were less worried about its checks from the Climate Communist Central Committee and more concerned about trying to understand a little elementary science, it would be able to realize that the climate system is not in fact warming in net terms. If the ocean were to warm, the atmosphere would warm too, as it does during every el Nino event. The atmosphere is not warming, so the ocean is not warming. And, as I have explained, the resolution of the ocean heat content measurements is wholly insufficient to draw any conclusion other than that the laws of thermodynamics continue to hold and, since the atmosphere is not warming, the ocean is not warming either.

          • CB

            “There has been no warming of the atmosphere for 18 years”

            Maybe! So what?

            Why are you only looking at the atmosphere and ignoring the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system?

            “The majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.”

            oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” continues to repeat the Party Line that, because the atmosphere is not warming, the “missing heat” that the Party Line demands must have gone into hiding in the oceans. Of course, if the oceans were to warm, so would the atmosphere. It is precisely because the heat capacity of the ocean is thousands of times that of the atmosphere that if the atmosphere warms it will have a negligible effect on the temperature of the ocean, but if the ocean warms the atmosphere must warm too, as every el Nino event amply demonstrates. The oceans where the majority of the heat capacity of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system resides are not accumulating heat, and the various me-too statements to the contrary effect are based on measurements that are manifestly too ill-resolved to be in any way reliable.

          • CB

            “The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” continues to repeat the Party Line”

            Lol! It’s not the “party line” that the vast majority of the Earth’s climate system is in the ocean, that’s what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has concluded:

            “The majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.”

            oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            You’re welcome to challenge that conclusion, of course!

            If you think there’s a larger part of the climate system than the ocean, what is that part and how do you know?

            How do you think it makes you look when you make deranged claim after deranged claim without any citation to back them up?

            Who could take a person like that seriously?

            Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?

          • monckton

            The increasingly frenetic paid climate-Communist troll furtively posting under the cowardly cloak of anonymity as “CB” continues to chirrup the Party Line. The trouble with paid climate Communists is that they are paid to repeat the Party Line over and over, rather than actually reading and thinking and learning a little real science.

            For instance, the paid climate Communist says NOAA has concluded – as though it were some kind of revelation – that the majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean. Well, if it had bothered to read my earlier posting to which it is here purporting to reply, it would have noticed that I had said that “the heat capacity of the ocean is thousands of times that of the atmosphere”. Scientifically speaking, the two statements are equivalent. Why, then, does the climate Communist ask me to challenge a conclusion that I had, in effect, just stated?

            The paid climate Communist asks whether there is a larger part of the climate system than the ocean. Certainly. The Sun is larger, by at least ten orders of magnitude.

            However, if the paid climate Communist is asking whether, in the coupled ocean-atmosphere system, the ocean or the atmosphere is denser, it need only read my previous postings, which make it plain that the ocean is denser than the atmosphere by three orders of magnitude, and its capacity to store heat is greater than that of the atmosphere by about the same factor. That is precisely why, if the near-surface or mixed stratum of the ocean had warmed appreciably – i.e., if the existing enormous quantity of heat stored in the ocean had changed by a significant fraction – then the atmosphere, being intimately connected with the ocean via far more than mere contiguity, would have been warmed by the ocean, in accordance with the immutable laws of thermodynamics.

            The fact that the atmosphere has not warmed for approaching two decades, and has not warmed significantly for more than 26 years, is, therefore, powerful evidence that any increase in ocean heat content that may have occurred, however large it may sound, must represent an insignificant fraction of the heat content that is already stored in the ocean. However, since the measurements of ocean heat content are insufficiently resolved – i.e., there are too few of them to produce a meaningful result – we have no direct means of establishing the extent, if any, to which the ocean is accumulating heat. The indirect evidence from the failure of the atmosphere to warm is, however, definitive, albeit that it is indirect. We can measure changes in atmospheric temperature (subject to the uncertainties that attend any measurement), and our measurements of atmospheric temperature are better resolved and thus subject to far fewer uncertainties than our measurements of ocean heat content.

            Bottom line: whatever rent-seeking agencies like NOAA may say, there is no reliable and sound and well-constrained scientific evidence that the oceans are warming significantly. Indeed, there are many signs that it is not. For instance, the extent of sea ice in the global ocean has not really changed in the 35 years since our satellites have been watching. In a warmer ocean, sea ice extent would not have held constant, as it has, for so long.

            The general principle is that one should try to think for oneself rather than merely relying upon the climate Communist Party Line, which – however often it is paraded in the reviewed literature and parroted by paid climate Communist trolls such as “CB” – has been and continues to be relentlessly, reliably wrong in every material particular.

          • CB

            ” “CB” continues to chirrup the Party Line”

            Uh huh, and that the oceans store the vast majority of the energy in the climate system is still not any “party line”, it’s the finding of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration:

            “The majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.”

            oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            If you think the oceans do not store the majority of the energy in the Earth’s climate system, where is the majority of the energy in the Earth’s climate system and how do you know?

            Why are you having difficulty vomiting forth a coherent reply?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” appears to have difficulty in reading. See my posting immediately above its less than adult reply.

          • CB

            Nope, that’s still not an identification of where the majority of the energy in the Earth’s climate system is stored.

            NOAA says it’s in the ocean:

            “The majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.”

            oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            If you think it’s not, where is the bulk of the energy in the Earth’s climate system stored?

            Do you think it’ll be lost on people that one of us repeatedly cites reliable scientific sources and one of us does not?

            If you’re going to make it so obvious you’re a liar, what’s the point of posting anything at all?

            Who’s going to take you seriously?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” continues to fail to understand elementary English. I have repeatedly explained that the thermal capacity of the oceans is three orders of magnitude greater than that of the atmosphere. Precisely for this reason, if the oceans were warming the atmosphere would inevitably warm too. The atmosphere is not warming, so the oceans are not warming. QED.

          • CB

            “the thermal capacity of the oceans is three orders of magnitude greater than that of the atmosphere”

            Right!

            How could you possibly know that the Earth’s climate system isn’t warming if you aren’t even looking at the largest part of it?

            If you didn’t already know what you’re saying is incorrect, why are you refusing to look at the clear warming that’s occurred in the ocean over the last 18 years?

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” knows how to parrot and chirrup the Communist Party Line on climate, but is apparently incapable of understanding the concept of thermal equilibrium. The ocean and the atmosphere are in approximate thermal equilibrium. Since the ocean is denser than the atmosphere, if the ocean warms then the atmosphere will warm (as in any el Nino). If the ocean cools, the atmosphere must cool (as in any la Nina). Since the atmosphere has not warmed for more than 18 years, we know from the atmosphere (whose temperature we can measure to a reasonable resolution and precision) that the ocean (whose heat content we cannot measure to a reasonable resolution and precision) is not warming. It is as simple as that. NOAA’s attempts to say the ocean has warmed over the past 18 years are pure guesswork because the measurements are insufficiently resolved. The ocean is too big, the number of sensors too small. NOAA reaches its figure by starting, like the climate-Communist zombie “CB”, with the assumption that CO2 must be causing as much warming as the models predict, and adjusting the ocean heat content measurements to fit. In truth, however, the ARGO bathythermographs, which have given us data over the past decade, show very little ocean warming – which is what one would expect given that there has been no atmospheric warming. The rate of ocean warming shown by ARGO is one-sixth of that which the models predicted, and which NOAA pretends to find. For a discussion of the role of apriorism in intergovernmental science, see my latest reviewed paper at Energy & Environment.

          • Robert

            And 8 months ago, “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. The climate-Communist trolls who post here under pseudonyms or false or incomplete names are too cowardly to identify themselves: so they cannot legitimately complain that they are being “personally” attacked. One sympathizes with their sense of abject humiliation as every one of their exaggerated predictions fails to come to pass: but they must realize that in attempting to bend science to the Party Line they have failed. The world has not warmed, is not warming and will not warm anything like as fast as their failed models had predicted.

          • Robert

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself. One cannot “personally” attack a coward who refuses to reveal its identity. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, and none that is significant for more than a quarter of a century. Get over it.

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “CB” continues to fail to understand elementary thermodynamics. It should stop telling futile lies, stop parroting climate-Communist propaganda from NOAA, read the rebuttals of the “missing-heat-in-the-deep-ocean” theory issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and stop wasting everyone’s time here.

          • cunudiun

            It’s gotten a lot more commie-cal since you were here 5 days ago. :-)

          • cunudiun

            And kudos for uncovering that other commie bastard Michael Stone. I caught that sonuvabitch hiding under my bed the other night. Be careful. He may be under yours.

          • Michael Stone

            Now that you have outed me, how about some nice wall to wall carpeting in the bedroom you cheapskate. bedroom you cheapskate. Watch your back too.
            You realize that I will have to change my identity again because of you….. Idiot… Whose side are you on anyway?

          • cunudiun

            You prefer wool or polyester, plush or shag?

          • Michael Stone

            Wool… Hand woven Persian, plush and not red or yellow colors.

            Oh Btw; get one of those gizzys you wear on your nose because you both snore.

            A little fun break is fun after talking with the incredible brain damaged fools for several hours today.

          • cunudiun

            It’s my wife who’s doing all the snoring. Jeez, aren’t you capable of figuring anything out for yourself? (Ignorant commie.)

          • Michael Stone

            LOL…. Very seriously, snoring means a lack of oxygen… It can be dangerous and cause a heart attack.

            Hey; this Vpoodude guy is a rip.

          • cunudiun

            Well, you got me there. I was never very good with 8-letter words. Always talking over my plebeian head you are.

          • Michael Stone

            I’m sorry, I retired with the rank of a colonel, but I am familiar with dealing with the enlisted swine so you may consult with as long as you maintain respect.

            Did you know when two or more people are entering a vehicle, the lower rank always gets in first and the same is actually correct with a lady. The lady is last in case the vehicle is wired to explode. The vulgar, coarse and common lower ranked do have their privileges.

            You may stop with the strange world usage now, I had to look up the meaning of the word “plebeian”. It did sound Latin though and it is. 😉

          • cunudiun

            Disqus is getting deathly slow on this thread, so if we’re going to continue this nonsense, it would probably be best to move it elsewhere. And it’s 1:30 AM where I am, so maybe time to call it a night. But seriously, what is “Vpoodude”? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Michael Stone

            The GW denier who is now following CB is named Voodude. I have been joking with you of course with the nonsense. Later

          • cunudiun

            Usual rules. Remove the onanistic upper and I’ll replace it.

          • Michael Stone

            And I’ll replace it ,,, sir. Okay, I’ll erase it just to be nice. My wife caught me and ordered me to stop lying and made me sleep on the floor again. I was not a colonel, I was an enlisted swine. Snifff.

            EDIT:… Oh, please don’t tell Starfire,,,, sir.

          • Starfire

            Very scary indeed!
            But what about this?
            It was a featured link on Global BC news this evening.

          • cunudiun

            Almost as ridiculous as Monckton! Who would have believed?

          • Robert

            ” If Michael Stone is the paid Communist troll “CD” (and I note that though he denies being paid he does not deny being a Communist)”

          • rainwash

            Ant the record ice in the Antarctic missed your gaze?

          • rainwash

            You very deftly left out news about the Antarctic.

            Thanks for proving you alarmists are cherry-pickers.

          • Michael Stone

            You are replying to one of my posted comments… You have not read all of the comments I have posted on this thread or you wouldn’t have written that ignorant comment about me.

            You jump to conclusions and make false assumptions and generally just make a fool of yourself.

            You have the right to open my comment history it isn’t blocked and see what I have posted about the Antarctica ice situations..

            Or you can go out someplace and try to fly a kite. Whatever you do is no concern of mine, you re just another jerkoff mouthy blowhard.

          • cunudiun

            How fiendishly clever of the Communist Party of the United States to get its ‘dopey diagram’ published by the IPCC, the world’s foremost scientific authority on climate change! How fiendishly clever of CB to use that pseudonym rather her true initials CP! And how brilliant of you to have uncovered her ruse!

          • monckton

            One of the most ingenious deceits perpetrated by the KGB’s one million Western agents of influence in the media and in academe was to sneer at anyone who questioned the extent of Communist interference with phrases such as “Reds under the bed”.

          • CB

            Lol! Yes, it’s the Communists that made you look like a paranoid-delusional lunatic.

            You had absolutely nothing to do with it…

            /s

          • cunudiun

            This is snark??? I mean I would never have known without the tag.

          • CB

            lol! It’s always better to be safe than sorry. People really are that insane out here.

            …as our good friend Christopher happily demonstrates.

          • cunudiun

            Yes, the KGB is everywhere these days. Look out!

          • monckton

            Try reading rather than shouting. Start with Ion Mihai Pacapa’s Desinformatsiya. That shows the extent of Communist infiltration into the media and academe under Soviet communism. No great surprise, therefore, that the climate communists posting here are using much the same techniques that were pioneered by their heroes the KGB.

          • cunudiun

            With all due respect, you are a complete idiot.
            Have a nice day.

          • monckton

            The climate Communists paid, like “cunudiun”, to hurl childish insults at those of us who publish real science in the learned journals because we are demonstrating the falsity of the climate Communist party line no longer convince anyone, not even themselves. There has been no global warming for getting on for two decades. This result is of course contrary to the climate Communist party line, but, unlike the climate Communist party line, it has the merit of being true.

          • cunudiun

            LMAO. I’m the one hurling insults. NYEH NYEH NYEH COMMUNIST

          • monckton

            Paid climate Communists post under cowardly pseudonyms so that the influence of the Party (and of course of the Party Line) on the climate debate can be concealed. I am not hurling any insults, because there is no identifiable person against whom the insults might be directed. I am merely pointing out, accurately, that “Cunudium” is the pseudonym of a paid agitator of the hard Left, funded by an unduly wealthy environmentalist extremist group to try to divert attention from true science by parroting naively but with rebarbative repetitiveness the climate Communist Party Line. “Cunudium” cannot deny that it is on the hard Left. It cannot deny that it is not a climate scientist, has never had anything published in a reviewed journal, and knows nothing of the climate except what is handed down as the climate Communist Party Line. On this website, more intelligence, more honesty, and more science are expected.

          • cunudiun

            Monckton (if that is your real name), you are quite a comedian. I have to hand you that.

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “cunudiun” continues to contribute nothing of value to the scientific discussion about the fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month; that not one of the models predicted that long stasis as its central estimate; that vanishingly few predicted it even at the extreme end of their least projections; and that, if the mean rate of warming since 1950 continues till all fossil fuels are exhausted, there will be scarcely any global warming to fantasize about.

          • RealMrTea

            Simple Question. That you have not answered…..

            Have you (or any legal entity you control) accepted money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            Simple question (that “RealMrTea” has not answered): who is “RealMrTea”, and how much is it paid to peddle the climate-Communist Party Line here? If it were capable of independent thought, and if it had enough math to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a simple dataset, it would find there has been no global warming at all for 18 years 1 month. And how many of the profiteers of doom had predicted that?

          • RealMrTea

            Here is reality…

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Ahhh… That ad hominem attacks continue…. Pretty hillarious (to the onlookers) that you assert a bunch of “bad” things about me, and then in the same sentence admit that you have no idea who I am…..THAT is funny :)

            No problem…

            RealMrTea is an engineer on the West coast of the United States that is paid to develop physical control systems. He is not (and never has been) paid by a lobby group (or anyone) to speak, write, or convey anything to anyone about climate change…

            Now answer the question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • Robert

            “actually a paid troll for the Communist Party of the United States ”

            Well, that was quick……

            “Communist Party’s dopey diagram”

            Seems pretty clearly labeled; maybe you should bring something substantive to the table in support of your claims.

          • monckton

            See graph of global lower-troposphere temperature in head posting, and read any elementary textbook of thermodynamics

          • Robert

            Perhaps you could explain how you know it is the”Communist Party’s dopey diagram”….

            Then, inatead of some childish snark and name calling, act like an adult and actually bring the facts to the table as proof.

            Bring your, or the author’s, best research to the table.

          • monckton

            See explanations upthread.

          • Robert

            So, basically; no clue.

            Got it. Thanks m’lord.

            No proof of “Communist”.

            No rationale for “dopey”

            Insult and namecalling; not science.

          • monckton

            So sorry that “Robert” has “basically no clue”. For its information, those who parrot the Party Line regardless of its manifest falsity and failure, simply because it is the Official Position, are Communists. Or “Robert” may prefer the equally applicable term “Fascists”.

            Meanwhile, the science is clear. The atmosphere has not warmed for 18 years 1 month according to the RSS satellite data. The upper stratum of the ocean, therefore, has not warmed either (elementary thermodynamics dictates that in a coupled system in approximate thermal equilibrium any warming of the denser of two coupled bodies will warm the less dense body. If, therefore, the less dense body (the atmosphere) is not warming, it follows that the upper stratum of the ocean is not warming. Since we have no method of measuring ocean heat content reliably (too few measurements are taken over too vast a volume), we have no means of knowing whether the benthic strata are warming: and, even if they were, if that warming occurs below the thermocline it will leave the temperature of the near-surface strata largely unaffected. In any event, we are not monitoring the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes and cannot tell whether any warming of the ocean deep (even if it were occurring) is caused by us or by volcanism.

            In short, it is not acceptable simply to assume that the ocean is warming because that is what the Party Line requires. The truth is that we know the ocean surface is not warming because otherwise the atmosphere would be warming, which it is not; and, even if the deep ocean is warming (which may or may not be the case), we do not know why it is warming and, even if we did, warming of the deep ocean is harmless.

          • Robert

            “…is the Official Position, are Communists.”

          • monckton

            “Robert” advertises itself as a climate Communist: but that is already self-evident from its childish repetitions of the Party Line, and its puerile inability to comprehend the extent of the massive failure of the climate models on which the Party Line was based. The world is laughing at the climate Communists, and the more they indulge in mere otiose repetition of what has long been debunked the more the world laughs at them. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, as the head posting makes quite clear. Indeed, there has been no significant warming for more than a quarter of a century. That is why sea level is not really rising, sea-ice extent has been stable for 35 years, and the area of the Earth under drought has been declining for 30 years. None of the childish climate-Communist scare stories that were deployed in an attempt to shut down the West has come to pass. Climate Communism, like all forms of Communism, has been a cruel and dismal failure.

          • RealMrTea

            WOW…. Really LOVE the name calling…. It makes you sound so “rational” and “over 12” LOL!!

            Do you have any other tricks other than the ad hominem attacks? Or is it just this one trick you do?

            ROFL!!!

          • monckton

            I agree with “RealMrTea” that the ad-hominem name-calling by the climate-Communist trolls who cower behind pseudonyms on threads such as this is childish in the extreme. Indeed, they have no other tricks than ad-hominem attacks. And how they shriek when I point out that they know no science. I cannot, of course, be legitimately accused of attacking them ad hominem, for I do not know who they are. If they shriek insults from behind a cloak of anonymity, they must expect their childish climate Communism to be sneered at, as it deserves to be. With no global warming for 18 years 1 month, it is becoming harder and harder for them to produce any arguments in support of their indefensible Party Line that sound anything like science. So they accept money from the environmental-extremist lobby to aim at the reputations of the few who, like me, are not frightened to point out the scientific defects in the Party Line.

          • RealMrTea

            You are supposed to “love thy self” and you are the KING of ad hominem attacks.. Lets see… This ONE post:

            climate communist trolls

            childish in the extreme

            childish climate communism

            All in ONE post..

            PS: As most people know by now, the climate has NOT stopped warming for 18 years, wich can be seen here…

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            And 2014 is on track for being the hottest calendar year ever recorded…. As can be seen here

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/10/20/after-record-warm-september-2014-is-on-track-to-warmest-year-noaa-says/

            And ice continues to melt, as can be seen here

            http://www.wired.com/2014/09/melting-antarctic-ice-shifting-gravity/

            And the seas continue to rise, as can be seen here

            http://www.climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

            PS: I am curious…. Are you the Christopher Monkton that claims you have developed a cure (or “therapeutic treatment”) for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, and Multiple Schlerosis?

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea”, like other paid climate-Communist trolls posting here under cowardly pseudonyms, appears not to understand that an ad-hominem attack can only be directed at someone whose identity is known. Cowards who post under pseudonyms are fair game because their identities are not known. If “RealMrTea” would like me to send it a violin for Christmas so that it can accompany its whingeing, it had better reveal who it is.

            The RSS data show the climate as not having warmed for 18 years 1 month. And in the satellite data, inherently less unreliable than the constantly-tampered-with and largely fictitious surface temperature data, there is not the slightest chance that 2014 will be the warmest year evaaah. And even the tampered-with terrestrial datasets will not be able to show the temperature rising at a rate that is dangerous: for the warming rate in the quarter-century since 1990 has been half of that which the climate Communists at the Intergummintal Panel on Climate Change predicted in that year with “substantial confidence” that was substantially misplaced.

            Global sea-ice extent reached a satellite-era maximum just a few months ago. Antarctic sea-ice extent reached a satellite-era maximum just a few weeks ago. Arctic sea-ice extent is currently growing at the rate of two Manhattans a day.
            Sea level is barely rising, if at all. The Envisat satellite showed it rising at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches/century from 2004-2012, and the GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites showed it actually falling over a near-coincident period.

            Research into treatments for infectious diseases is off topic.

          • RealMrTea

            Let’s be perfectly clear here….. You are the only one between the two of us that is getting paid to do anything having to do with climate science….

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            By the Heartland Institute no less, which is a Coal/Oil/Gas lobby

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

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

            Heartland aggregates money from the fossil fuel industry and doles the money out to people JUST like you to blog, write, and generally shill for the fossil fuel industry in hopes that the stalling effort keeps their (and your) benefactors from having to pay any money, mitigate any damage, or undergo any regulation…

            And is the Heartland institute is a low level palyer in this scurilous cabal…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            And all your other bogus blathering and obfuscation of real data, is just that. THAT is exactly why I provided reputable links for the data I posted… Your make it up as you go data? Worthless…Actually worse than worthless, as you fool some people with it, although less daily it seems….

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            Glad to know it was in fact you, that claimed to have a cure fot HIV.. Your silence on the matter was deafening :) It figures you would quite literally be a snake oil salesman…

          • monckton

            And here we go again with the ad-homs about funding from the wicked fossil fuel lobby. Let us be plain about three things. 1. “RealMrTea” is a paid climate-Communist troll whose job is to try to blacken the reputations of any who become effective in pointing out what spectacular nonsense the climate scare has proven to be. The intention is not to silence me – that cannot be done. It is to frighten off others who might by now have spoken up if they had not been terrified of the climate Communists’ relentless viciousness. However, now that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, more and more are speaking out, and the climate Communists are running out of money to pay to shut us all up, which is why they have had to dredge “RealMrTea” from the slimy bottom of the tea-chest.

            2. I am not paid anything by anyone to conduct my climate researches, to publish in the reviewed literature or to give talks from time to time. However, anyone wishing to subsidize me is of course free to do so. However, I sing to my own tune, not to anyone else’s (unlike “RealMrTea”).

            3. The rate of global warming since 1990 has been half what IPeCaC’s models then predicted with what they described as “substantial confidence”. That substantial confidence was manifestly misplaced. No amount of whingeing by the hapless “RealMrTea”, whoever it is, will alter the unalterable fact that the models were wrong. Get used to it. Get a life.

          • RealMrTea

            “I am not paid anything by anyone to conduct my climate researches” LOL

            LOVE the carefully worded reply…. Do your tip toes hurt?

            Simple Question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) accepted money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            Asked and answered. Simple question: who is “RealMrTea”, and how much is it paid to peddle the climate-Communist Party Line here? If it were capable of independent thought, and if it had enough math to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a simple dataset, it would find there has been no global warming at all for 18 years 1 month. And how many of the profiteers of doom had predicted that?

          • CB

            No, you are not chatting with fake scientist and professional liar, Christopher Monckton, though he referred to Mr. Monckton both in the first and 3rd person.

            He’s just a fanboy hoping someday to be so reknown for his dishonesty…

          • RealMrTea

            A fanboy for Monckton? Wow… THAT is just sad…..

            But I guess even lobbyists have to retire some day… I guess he is positioning for the “big leagues”?

          • zlop

            Christopher is a Warmist. Without evidence, states 1.2°C for CO2 doubling.

            If he revived high school physics and plotted energy/molecule against height, he might gain insight.

          • gwsmith

            Here you are again CB, spewing hatred and insults, and repeating the same old lines with the same old evidence. Don’t you think if NASA and BO really believed the AGW myth they would be shouting from the roof tops instead of leaving it up to gullible true believers like yourself? You’re just another Chicken Little making a fool of yourself over and over and over again. Don’t you have any friends to play with?

            I doubt if you have read this. Take out your frustrations:
            http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

          • Robert

            I wonder if “monckton” could give a rationale for repeatedly calling posters names.

            The explanation of “Climate Communist” seems to be worth a couple of paragraphs alone.

            If the moderators at this site accept that sort of behavior, it is a tacit admission of the failure of those agreeing with the article being unable to defend the position in a civil and scientific manner.

          • monckton

            See detailed scientific discussions up- and down-thread.

          • RealMrTea

            Not detailed… and the only proof linked proves you WRONG… ROFL!!

          • monckton

            See detailed scientific discussions up- and down-thread. The head posting is entirely clear: there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. The climate-Communist Party Line looks sicker by the month.

          • RealMrTea
          • Tony Lear

            …at least the Greens have shed their camouflage and have started wearing red. They are over confident now and have come out openly stating classic Communist goals.

            I for one never expected that.

          • Robert

            “paid troll for the Communist Party of the United States -…”

            “.. Communist Party’s dopey diagram… ”

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • monckton

            “Robert” is childishly repeating itself

          • Robert

            If you’d rather discuss why the only data set used in the article we were discussing was picked, we could go forward on that.

            Your choice was to use derogatory language instead of bringing forward sources that would support your claims.

            I stopped trying to discuss the science and point out your language choices and discussion techniques. And it seems you’ve wanted to go down that course. Why, other than there is a paucity of resources supporting your claims, would be for you to say.

            “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

            A tacit admission you are “…attacking the opponent personally……”

            As you said,

            “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

            http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

          • RealMrTea

            Simple Question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) accepted money from the Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea” is childishly repeating itself. Simple question: who is “RealMrTea”, and how much is it paid to peddle the climate-Communist Party Line here? If it were capable of independent thought, and if it had enough math to determine the least-squares linear-regression trend on a simple dataset, it would find there has been no global warming at all for 18 years 1 month. And how many of the profiteers of doom had predicted that?

          • RealMrTea

            Much simpler than that…. Measure:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/10/20/after-record-warm-september-2014-is-on-track-to-warmest-year-noaa-says/

            Ahhh… That ad hominem attacks continue…. Pretty hillarious (to the onlookers) that you assert a bunch of “bad” things about me, and then in the same sentence admit that you have no idea who I am…..THAT is funny :)

            No problem…

            RealMrTea is an engineer on the West coast of the United States that is paid to develop physical control systems. He is not (and never has been) paid by a lobby group (or anyone) to speak, write, or convey anything to anyone about climate change…

            Now answer the question: Have you (or any legal entity you control) ever received money from the Heartland Institute?

          • RealMrTea

            “we have no means of telling whether the ocean is warmer or cooler”

            You are an idiot….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/upper_ocean_heat.jpg

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea”‘s idea of a scientific discussion is to describe his betters as “idiots”. That is not very grown up, now, is it? As has been pointed out repeatedly up-thread, the ocean is too big and the measurements far too few to allow us to obtain a reliable estimate of the changes (if any) in ocean heat content.

            However, since the ocean and the atmosphere are in approximate thermal equilibrium, and since the atmosphere (which we can measure) is not warming, it follows that the ocean (which we cannot measure) is not warming. It is as simple as that, and no amount of inveniously-bent data from those who are unwilling to make their error-bars are large as they should be will alter that fact.

            There is another possibility: that the ocean is accumulating heat, but that this is somehow failing to have any influence on atmospheric temperatures. However, no credible explanation of any such phenomenon has yet been offered.

            And why do the paid climate-Communist trolls not write under their own names, rather than using pseudonyms? Why so craven? Why so cowardly?

          • RealMrTea

            I stand by that statement….. Let’s analyze, shall we?
            ————
            id·i·ot
            ˈidēət/
            noun
            informal
            1. a stupid person.

            synonyms:fool, a$$, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile,simpleton;

            ————

            Anyone with any intelligence and a browser can read the AR5 report…. If they are going to post that it is wrong on the internet, then they would be an idiot to do so without reading the report. if they read the report… They would see this…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acoustic_tomography#Acoustic_Thermometry_of_Ocean_Climate_.28ATOC.29

            And even numerous explanationsof it, like this…

            http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/measuring-ocean-temperature

            Which results in this…

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/upper_ocean_heat.jpg

            Which anyone with two brain celss and a browser can find in two minutes…..

            And now we see this…

            “we have no means of telling whether the ocean is warmer or cooler”

            So…Yes….Anyone that makes that statement as if it were FACT…. is in idiot.

            Any questions?

            PS: I am a computer controls engineer. To that end, I do quite a bit of work in cyber security. That experience tells me that unless you are a paid writer, it is foolish to put your name out on the Internet. If that makes everyone that doesn;t devulge their name “paid by extremeist lobbys” then there are about a Billion out there…..

            On the contrary… You have spoken at places such as the heartland Institute. They are registered Lobbyists for the Oil/Gas/Coal/Tobacco industries, and regularly distribute money to people such as yourself. Have you recieved money from teh Heartland Institute?

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” does some more whingeing and tells us it is frightened to put its name on the internet.

            If “RealMrTea” were a genuine engineer it might have learned enough of the scientific method to know that every measurement in physics is subject to uncertainties, which increase inversely with the resolution of the measurements. The ARGO bathythermograph buoys, of which there are about 3500, take automated temperature and salinity profiles throughout the global oceans, but are so sparsely spaced that they provide no more than the equivalent of a single temperature and salinity profile in the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year. Frankly, that is wholly inadequate to determine whether the oceans are accumulating heat, or at what rate, and there is no point in trying to pretend otherwise. The error-bars on the graph reproduced by “RealMrTea” are, therefore, far too narrow.

            Also, the ocean and the atmosphere are in approximate thermal equilibrium, so that if the ocean is accumulating heat then either it is accumulating heat at a rate so small in comparison to the heat already accumulated there that it will have no effect on the atmosphere, or it is not accumulating heat at all. Either way, there is no need whatsoever to do anything about supposed “global warming”, which – in the atmosphere and, therefore, inferentially in the ocean – is not occurring.

            But “RealMrTea” is either taking so much money from the enviro-extremists that it does not care about anything that conflicts with the climate-Communist Party Line or what Lenin called a “useful idiot”, or both. One suspects it is both.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            Nice try – except for the characteristically childish insults from the furtively pseudonymous coward posting as “RealMrTea”. The fact remain..s that there has been no global warming for 18 years, contrary to what the models had predicted. Since the atmosphere has not warmed, nor has the ocean.

            Even if the warming were as great as the endlessly upward-adjusted terrestrial temperature records cited above would have us believe, it is still half the rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990. The models were wrong. Take away the exaggeration and the supposed climate “problem” goes with it.

            Let us do a little physics. The IPCC maintains, foolishly, that there is a very strong net-positive feedback in a climate system that is manifestly homeostatic and thus unlikely to be influenced by strongly-positive feedback. The variation in absolute global temperature either side of the 810,000-year mean is little more than 1%. Why should the alteration of just 1/2500 of the atmospheric composition in the next 100 years change that by much? It won’t, of course.

            Even IPeCaC is beginning to realize this. It has reduced its central estimate of the net-positive feedback from 2 to 1.5 Watts per square meter per Kelvin. That implies reducing climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling from 3.3 to 2.2 K. But IPeCaC has ducked this inevitable conclusion, saying it no longer wants to give a central estimate of climate sensitivity.

            In fact, climate sensitivity is likely to be well below 2.2 K per doubling, because the Bode system-gain equation is manifestly inapplicable to the climate in the form implicit in IPCC (2007, p. 631 fn.). That equation has been improperly used to indicate very high feedback amplifications as the loop gain in the climate object approaches unity. In truth, the temperature record of the past 810,000 years demonstrates that forced temperature change is governed by an asymptote perhaps not more than 2 K above today’s temperatures. The presence of the asymptote is a consequence of the homeostasis inherent in any object (the atmosphere) bounded by two very large heat-sinks (the ocean and outer space).

            The models have tried to be too clever, bolting on inappropriate equations from electronic circuitry to the climate, where they do not fit. That is one of many reasons why we have seen no significant global warming for more than a quarter of a century.

            There are many other grave defects in the models – not the least of which is their estimate of the radiative forcing from CO2, which is obtained not empirically or experimentally but (as usual) by intercomparison between models that are themselves unrealistic. A little common sense applied to these scientific questions, rather than a paid recital of the climate-Communist Party Line, would lead any mature scientist to conclude that insistence on high climate sensitivity and consequently on expensive policies to make non-existent global warming go away is expensively pointless.

          • RealMrTea

            I’ll take that as a “No… Only Yoda speak, do I know”

            Face it… The jig is just about up….. If you REALLY want to study something…. You should look at the reasearch of how long it takes the public to catch up with science. I know the backers of the denial movement think that it could follow the “evolution denial” model and last a long time…. But this is much closer to following the adoption of technology, as the data keeps coming in day after day, and as time goes on, it is effecting people, which introduces a feedback loop, more like adopting cell phones than deying our DNA…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

            Either you are going to have to find another gig, or you are going to end up yelling at yourself in an empty room…. As everyone else moves on, to solve real problems….

            Though plentiful now…..Soon this money will dry up, as the battle has retreated from money in full view, to keeping it secret, based on public shame…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            It is only a matter of time now that this funding will go the way of the tobbaco companies similar efforts…. I am not sure where you will go, or who you will shill for next, but you should start looking for the exit now.,..

            “I discovered, to my amazement, that all through history there had been resistance … and bitter, exaggerated, last-stitch resistance … to every significant technological advancement that had taken place on earth. Usually the resistance came from those groups who stood to lose influence, status, money…as a result of the change. Although they never advanced this as their reason for resisting it. It was always the good of humanity that rested upon their hearts.”
            ~ISAAC ASIMOV~, lecture at Newark College of Engineering, Nov. 8, 1974

          • monckton

            Let us be blunt. The world has warmed since 1990 at half the rate that was then predicted. Therefore it is the climate-Communist Party Line that has been proven wrong, which is why my peer-reviewed papers, like those of a growing body of researchers, are examining the reasons why the models went wrong. That the models were in substance incorrect and exaggerated the future rate of global warming and the climate sensitivity to CO2 is no longer in doubt. The intelligent observer would do as I have done, and adjusted his opinions when the facts changed.

            I think it was Keynes who said, “When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, sir?” Even that old leftist did not simply continue to parrot the climate-Communist Party Line. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. That makes a mess of the Party Line. Time for a new Party Line, for those who are incapable of independent thought, and for a new thought for those who are.

          • Robert

            “… world has warmed since 1990 at half the rate …”

            “There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month…”

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1651307426

            (both time-stamped the same…..)

            ” Time for a new Party Line, for those who are incapable of independent thought,….”

            Seems there is a lot of “independent thought” going on…..

          • monckton

            There is indeed a lot of independent thought going on. A substantial shift in the peer-reviewed literature on climate sensitivity is discernible. Sensitivities below the entire IPCC interval are now commonly appearing. These papers are an appropriate response to the mounting evidence – on all datasets – that there is less global warming going on than the models had predicted.

          • Robert
          • RealMrTea

            Yes…. Let us be blunt…. shall we?

            You are a shill… for Oil/Coal/Gas companies

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

            https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20121220234250-10842349-5-ways-to-begin-designing-your-life-in-2013

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            Paid by the Heartland institute

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

            To come up with (anything) to keep Gas/Oil/Coal companies from having to deal with the reality of climate change, and to keep people burning what they are selling….

            As part of THIS…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            And THIS is the reality

            Record High CO2
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            Record High Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Rising Worlwide Temperature:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend, caused by “something”….

            And THERE it is… In a nutshell. With REAL data… from the REAL (and reputable) sources….

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
            ~Albert Einstein~

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” now resorts to ad-hominem attacks by calling me a shill for fossil fuel companies. It is paid by environmentalist extremists to toe and tout the climate Communist Party Line. Like it or not, though, there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, and the warming since 1990 has been at half the rate predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPeCaC.

            There is little or no sea-level rise (see the ENVISAT results for the past 8 years, showing sea-level rise at a rate equivalent to 1.3 inches/century).

            The climate Communists are flogging a dead horse. IPeCaC had made specific forecasts of global atmospheric temperature change. Those forecasts were wrong.

          • RealMrTea

            The Monckton is paid by the Hearthalnd Institite (an Oil/Coal/Gas lobbyist) to write anti climate change propaganda as a shill for the fossil fuel industry….

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            It is angry at me right now because I have “outed” it for what it really is….. And illustrated to people how he (and a cabal of other people willing to sell you out for some ccash) get their “dark” money.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            The Monckton works VERY hard to conceal where it’s mony comes from……. That is because geeting money from Oil/Gas/Coal companies ( through their lobby group) is a direct conflict of Interest, much like getting money from the tobacco industry to write that smoking is fine would be….. And of course the Heartland does that also :)

            If anyone wants the REAL scientific data and report from the worlds climate scientsis…
            It is here..

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

            PS The models are doing exactly what they are intended to do…

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

          • RealMrTea

            CLEARLY….The oceans are rising.. And the sea level rise is also accelerateing, as can be see by the concave nature of this graph….

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg

            The Monckton (paid by thye Heartland Institute) thinks it can convince people by yelling over and over…. It doiesn’t know that peoplke aren’t that stupid…

            The jig is up on this… The climate denial “stream of income” is about to dry up…..

            Better start brewing up some more of your “cure all” snake oil…

          • monckton

            Sea level is barely rising: the ENVISAT, GRACE and tide-gauge records all confirm a continuation of the pre-1900 rate of 17 cm/century equivalent (about 7 inches/century, probably attributable chiefly to the natural recovery since the Little Ice Age).

            And I am not paid by the Heartland Institute. Further attempts by anonymous paid climate-Communist trolls to post libels here will result in a policy change banning any anonymous contributor who makes such allegations against a named and properly identified contributor.

          • RealMrTea

            TOTA BS….. From a Oil/Gas/Coal PAID climate denialist….

            This is who “The Monckton” REALLY is…

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/#comment-27052

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            He is PAID by an Oil/Coal/gas lobby called the Heartland Institute to lie for them…

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

            Here is the REAL information…. From a TRUSTED source…

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the graphs all bending UP… at the right (the present). That shows acceleration of the trend…. In other words… sea levels are rising faster…

          • monckton

            More childish ad-homs in an increasingly frenetic and desperate attempt to avoid facing the fact tha there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month; that the rate of global warming has been half what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990; and that sea level shows no acceleration on any of the records, specifically including the Colorado record, which was only able to push the rate of rise fractionally above a miserably trivial 3 mm/year by bringing in a bogus “glacial isostatic adjustment” just at the moment when the rate of rise would otherwise have declined below 3 mm/year. Such tamperings do not impress, particularly when other sea-level records show no increase in the 1.7 mm/year rate observed since 1900.

          • RealMrTea

            The fact that you are payed by Oil/Gas lobbyists to create propaganda is VERY pertinent information. Therefore explaining that to people is not in any way an “ad hominem” attack…

            And the REAL data does in fact speak for it’self

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

          • monckton

            I am not paid by anyone.

            The science is indeed clear. The models made predictions in 1990 that were recorded in the first assessment report by IPeCaC. Those predictions were wrong in just about every material particular. For instance, they predicted with “substantial confidence” that the rate of global warming from then till now would be exactly twice what it has proven to be. The failure of the models is unalterable by the childish accusations of paid climate-Communist trolls such as “RealMrTea”, whose illiteracy is as self-evident as its lack of scientific objectivity, its failure to contribute anything to the reviewed literature on climate, and its cowardly allegations from behind a craven curtain of anonymity. It does not impress.

          • RealMrTea

            Yes… The SCIENCE (that I link and YOU lie about)

            Is exceedingly clear…

            This is is MEASURED information. dfrom NASA, NOAA, and CSIRO

            Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            (in spite of) Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            (long term) Rising Temperature:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            (long term) Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            And of course it is CAUSED by THIS:
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            And of course this is the background of “Moncktion”

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

          • RealMrTea

            Monckton,
            I want this to be very straight forward… with no room for misunderstanding….

            Answer this VERY simple and DIRECT question…. YES or NO

            Have you (or any entity which you control) revceived any money from teh heartland Institute in 2013 or 2014?

            YES ___ NO ___

          • Robert

            “Even IPeCaC is beginning…”

            http://ipecac.com/

          • Robert

            “..no global warming for 18 years..”

            An ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking point based on cherrypicking.

            The conscious choice of selecting data that supports a pre-conceived conclusion.

          • monckton

            The trouble with craven, cowardly, paid climate-Communist trolls like “Robert”, who do not declare their identities in a forthright fashion, is that they are incapable of reading the head posting, which makes it quite plain that the period of data is a function of the data themselves. All five datasets show no global warming for many years: the RSS dataset shows no warming for 18 years 1 month.

          • Robert

            “..no warming..”

            Go for it.

          • monckton

            What the above graphs posted by “Robert” conceal is that the rate of global warming, even if one takes the mean of the terrestrial (or of the satellite) datasets is half of what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. The correct stance to take, in the face of this evidence that the warming trend is a very long way below what was predicted, is to accept that the models were wrong and that the problem of global warming may not be much of a problem at all.

          • RealMrTea

            And what this infographic (and the underlying data) shows (FROM NOAA) is that all you world salad is “hokem”

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            No warming my hind end…..

          • monckton

            The atmosphere has warmed at only half the rate predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPeCaC. The models were wrong.

          • RealMrTea

            TOTAL BS from a paid huckster.

            Being that you are paid by at least one Oil Lobbyist (The Heartland Institute) to write this garbage….How you do look yourself in the mirror knowing you are selling your fellow humans out? Daddy would be SO… proud…

          • monckton

            The infantile, cowardly, paid climate-Communist “RealMrTea”, unable to find any scientific method of refuting the fact that there has been no global warming for close to two decades and that the rate of global warming since 1990 is half what IPeCaC then predicted with what it called “substantial confidence”, resorts to libel. It says I am paid by the Heartland Institute. I am not paid by Heartland, nor am I paid by anyone else. What I write in the peer-reviewed journals of science – such as my recent paper in Energy and Environment demonstrating that the rate of global warming over the medium term has been half that which IPeCaC had predicted – is written not because I receive grants from the socialist State to do science but because I am interested and, therefore, conduct my own research, either independently (as with Energy and Environment) or with distinguished scientific colleagues (as with Legates et al. (2013), in which the fraudulent, anti-logical, Communist notion of a “97.1% consensus” that most of the negligible global warming since 1950 was manmade was debunked).

            And what is all this childish guff about “selling my fellow-humans out”? CO2 fertilization is increasing the total plant biomass on Earth by 2% per decade, and, if currently forecast CO2 emission trends continue to prove broadly accurate, crop yields will have increased by some 40% by 2100 as a direct result. CO2 emissions are the key to greening the planet. They are a good thing. It is the enemies of humanity, such as the paid troll “RealMrTea”, who are trying to deny to the poorest of their fellow-humans the inexpensive, clean, fossil-fueled electricity that is the fastest, surest way to lift them from poverty, disease, and death.

            Restoring to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that was once there is beneficial to trees and plants, whose ancestors throve at concentrations far higher than those which now prevail. CO2 increases plants’ resistance to drought (though, admittedly, drought is slowly becoming less prevalent worldwide as the slight moistening of the atmosphere that true scientists would expect from a planet that has been warming for 300 years works its magic).

            It would be wiser if “RealMrTea” and other paid trolls stopped peddling the climate-Communist Party Line and started thinking a little. None of the bilge they parrot here would find its way into any credible peer-reviewed journal.

          • RealMrTea

            Wow…. I think you might have set a record for “ad hominem” attacks and name calling!!!! ROFL!!!

            I obviously hit a nerve….. Sorry…..(he he he)……OK…. NOT sorry at all LOL!!!

            It seems “The Monckton” doesn’t like it when people actuall know ALL of who he is and how he gets paid by Oil/Gas?Coal lobbyists to write and speak climate change propaganda………

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            As for the REAL information about climate change….. The whole story can be found at the IPCC, which is where the worlds REAL climate scientists present their thousands of peer reviewed studies, and where the group of thousands of REAL climate scientists create a periodic report on the status of the climate, now in it’s 5th revision….

            ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

            And here is the short version… complete with links….. and REAL data from NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO….

            We start with this…

            Rising CO2 due to burning masssive amounts of fossil fuels for 200 years:
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            Annd in spite of this…

            Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            We get this… due to the “green house” effect of the added CO2 in the air

            Rising Temperature:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend,

            Which has resulted in THIS

            The current temperature has set a RECORD:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Whith no relief in site….

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea” is in fact a paid climate-Communist troll who received $145,000 last year alone from various extremist foundations for trying to obfuscate the true science that shows no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Global temperature has only set a bogus “record” high on the three terrestrial datasets, all of which have been adjusting themselves upward without proper justification, and in stark and growing contrast to the far more tamper-proof satellite record.

            I receive nothing from anyone for my work as an expert reviewer for the IPCC, or for my reviewed papers on the climate question in the learned journals, or for my monthly temperature series, or for any other climate-related matter.

          • RealMrTea

            And of course….. That is a 100% bald faced lie…..

            And of course….. “the Monckton” has ZERO evidence of any kind… because ZERO evidence exists… Because it is (as mentioned) a bald faced lie….. AND “the Monckton” knows that full well….

            THIS is the real “Monckton” who is not an “expert” in ANYTHING except misinformation… and who repeatedly exxagerates his credentials, ovestates his resume…. and litterally makes things up…… and gets caught doing it…

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/#comment-27052

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            I have asked Monckton (repeatedly) to ask this very simple question…. And he has refused to answer EVERY SINGLE TIME….
            —————-
            Have you, or any legal entity you control, accepted money from the Heartland Institute in 2013 or 2014?

            YES ___ NO ___

            —————-

            And of course here is the REAL data…..

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-on-track-to-be-hottest-year-on-record/

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            As for me, I am an engineer from the West Coast US, that creates control systems, and am paid only for doing that. I am not, and have never been paid by enyone to write, say, or do anything about climate change, ever…. Nor do I belong to any climate groups, or political groups (extremist or otherwise). My interest is the real science…the truth, and leaving a habitable world for my kids…Just in case anyone is wondering :)

          • monckton

            Let’s get this straight. The lavishly-paid and cowardly “RealMrTea”, who has made up a fictitious background for itself and is terrified of revealing to us who it is, considers it pardonable for it to say that I have received certain funding from the Heartland Institute, but that it is not pardonable for me to point out that it has received money from environmentalist extremist groups for paid trolling to try to blacken the reputations of those few of us who dare to face the screeching hordes of enviro-zombs and paid climate-Communist trolls and question the science?

            Well, it appears that the usual Communist double standard is being trotted out. One law for Them and one for us. Meanwhile, there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Let us stick to the science (although, of course, the true science is embarrassing to the climate Communists, for the Party Line is that global warming should be happening, but it is not happening.

          • RealMrTea

            Lets get this straight. I am exactly who id=say I am….I am also paid by NOBODY regarding cliamte change, and only foir the engioneering work I do…

            And of course you have ZERO evidence I am, because I don;t, and therefore that evidence doesn’t exist……

            YOU on the other hand ARE paid by the Heartland Insrtitute, and have nuerous other shady business dealings, and evidence DOES exist for it….

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            Which puts your motives in direct question…

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            And you continue to obfuscate, cherry picj data, and overlook mounts of data that don’t make your case (which makes you the opposite of a scientists) in an ever more difficult job of trying to deny climate change…

            The data from reliable sources (NOAA, NASA, etc.) is exceptionally clear

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            And that is exactly why the VAST majority of REAL climate scientists have come to a strong concensus that cliamte change ius here, and accelerating..

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

            Which they have said (also very clearly) in the latest global climate report

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

          • monckton

            The now-desperate paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” says it is who it says it is, but it does not say who it is, so one must infer, both from that fact and from the drivel it writes, that it is a nobody. It certainly has no track-record of publishing papers in reviewed journals of climate science. It has no more capacity than to accept money to accuse me (incorrectly) of having accepted money. It is pathetic.

            Sticking to the science, there has been no global warming for more than 18 years. Nor has there been any increase in sea-level rise, indicating that such additional “missing heat” as may have gone into the oceans has had remarkably little effect. If “RealMrTea” is capable of doing science rather than ad-hom attacks from behind a cowardly curtain of anonymity, it may like to work out what the total heat content of the global ocean is, and then work out what fraction of that total heat content is represented by the alleged increases in ocean heat content, and then work out what, in turn, would be the increase in the temperature of the global ocean that that claimed additional heat content would cause.

            Let it, in short, stop regurgitating climate-Communist hate-speech talking-points. Let it stop regurgitating non-reviewed sources. And let it do some actual climate science, or let it shut up. It is impressing no one but itself and – inferentially – its climate-Communist paymasters.

          • RealMrTea

            Unfortunately for you… it is you that is getting quite desperate, as you are being found out as a fraud, a scammer, and a fool all over the world….

            meanwhile climate change marches on…

            Here is some measured……KNOWN (and accellerating) climate information.

            Current Temperature:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            (in spite of) Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            Rising Temperature:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            That cannot be explained Without THIS:
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

            ~Albert Einstein~

            You will sooon need to change your scam to something else….

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

            Might I suggest Mercury… I hear their is good money in denying that putting mercury into the system is deterimental to human health…..

            If that doesn’t pan out… you could always try taking over for Maddoff, and when all else fails… there is 3 card monty :) After all, it has the same properties as what you do, hide the truth, and shjow only the information you want, to gove a false impression….. ROFLMAO!!!!!~!!

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” continues, from behind its cowardly curtain of anonymity, to make childish accusations from non-peer-reviewed sources, and tediously repeats itself without really thinking through the meaning of the data it presents. I have answered its above points up- and down-thread.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            Mere repetition of childish yah-boo. Carl Mears has acknowledged that the RSS data on which I have relied in the head posting are indeed the RSS data. They do indeed show no global warming for 18 years 1 month. As Dr Mears’ own graph shows, there is a clear discrepancy between the models’ predictions and the trend in global warming. The predictions were exaggerated. the models were wrong. The world is warming at half the rate predicted in 1990. One cannot be taken seriously if, instead of addressing these facts, one merely links to climate-Communist smears on long-discredited websites one of which is funded by a convicted internet-gaming fraudster. Why am I not surprised that “RealMrTea”, whoever or whatever it is, moves in such unsavory company? Why am I not surprised that it is incapable of mustering a coherent scientific argument to explain why the models so abjectly failed to predict the Great Pause?

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            The data show the models are wrong, the game is up and the scare is over. And why is “RealMrTea” so cowardly as to accuse me (on no evidence) of being a “liar” when it is not even courageous enough to admit who it is? Meanwhile, the Pause goes on and on – and that is not what the climate-Communist Party Line predicted.

          • RealMrTea

            As usual… Your babble is COMPLETLY devoid of reality…..

            The Models are working EXTREMELY well…….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

            And you are COMPLETELY full of BS….

          • monckton

            If the models were “working extremely well”, why did they predict that global warming would occur at twice the rate that has actually been observed in the quarter of a century since 1990?

          • RealMrTea

            Simple….. They don’t…..

            Here are the models (as of AR4) overlayed on reality…..

            http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png

            Notice reality is right in the middle of the projections…… The onnly projection that is off at all is seal level, and that is because it is LOW….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

            PS: Just a remider who “The Monckton” is for people….

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

          • monckton

            Too much ad hom: too little science: too much bending of graphs. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. Get over it, and get a life.

          • RealMrTea

            Silly fake scientist Monckton…..

            I showed you the REAL data…. the REAL models…. Not the bad fantasy models in your head…..

            It is REALLY FUNNY that you discount the REAL data every time… without actually saying it is wrong…..

            And then provide NO verifiable data with you BS claims…. ONLY your anecdotal pablum……

            Over.. and over… and over….

            I got your number :)

            PS: According to NOAA we just had the hottest 12 months ever measured……
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            PPS: You are a fraud….
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

          • monckton

            No scientific argument is disclosed in the above comment. The serious allegations against Lord Monckton are made from behind a pseudonym and should be disregarded unless the commenter is prepared to make his or her identity plain, in which event proceedings for libel will follow.

          • RealMrTea

            ROFL!!!

            Nothing to see here……. Keep moving…. Don’t look at the ACTUAL data…..

            LOL!!!!

            How about the New York times summarry of the IPCC AR5 sythesis report?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

            Clear…. explanitory….and easy to read……

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”
            ~Albert Einstein~

          • monckton

            Since legal proceedings are in contemplation, further libels from this commenter will be ignored. Readers will note that the commenter has been unwilling throughout to reveal his or her identity, inferentially for fear of legal proceedings, indicating plainly that the commenter knows his or her libels to be, in substance, false.

          • RealMrTea

            I am an engineer from Seattle…..

            I rely on climate scientists… I rely on the thousands of scientists that worjed for years on the IPCC, and the AR5 report they just released….

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            (summary from the New York Times here)

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

            I don’t make false claims, falsify data, and misrepresent data like Monckton does. I link the real thing…. (see above)

            Monckton on the other hand… has a NASTY habit of altering, misrepresenting, and plain old making up data……

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            Do you see the difference now? Open your eyes…. How about now?

          • RealMrTea

            Just checking in to see how your “contemplation” is going?
            he he he…
            Can you tell me how long this usually takes?

            Bua ha ha ha ha ha….

          • Robert

            “Lord Monckton ( http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1678977915 ) ” says, “Since legal proceedings are in contemplation…”

            And I am “… in contemplation …” of pulling my pants on – two legs at a time – and walking the dog……

          • RealMrTea

            He threatened “to sue me” me about a month ago when I replied to him also…..

            Apparently he is still in “contemplation” on that…. ROFL!!!

            You can’t make this stuff up…. :)

          • Robert

            ‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.’

            — Ralph Waldo Emerson

            http://creatingminds.org/quotes/consistency.htm

          • Robert

            While meddling is a bit soft for what is really going on, marplot comes to mind…..

          • Robert

            “…RSS data on which I have relied… ”

            And the only one that fits the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ desired conclusion.

            Yea for cherrypicked data!

          • RealMrTea

            The Fossil Fuel Lobby paid charlatan, husckster “The Monckton” continueshis lying ways, making up data, cherry picking data, and otherwise obfuscating the REAL science to make childish accusations from non-peer-reviewed sources, and tediously repeats itself without really thinking through the meaning of the data it presents. I have answered its above points up- and down-thread, with the REAL data fro TRUSTED sources…. And the implications are just as CLEAR…

            record Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            Rising Temperature:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            Which is Explained by rising CO2:
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            Which is reported by the words REAL climate scientists here:
            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

            Which is a scientific concensus… which is shown in this PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED scientific paper…

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

          • monckton

            Why, if reduced solar output is canceling global warming, did the models not predict that.

            Why, if temperatures are still rising, do the data show temperatures not rising?

            Why, if sea level is rising at more than the rate at which it rose in the 20th century, does only one much-tampered record notoriously subject to intercalibration errors show this?

            Why, if CO2 is rising, is global warming not occurring as expected?

            Why is the IPCC cited, when it is not a peer-reviewed source?

            Why is a scientific “consensus” mentioned, when Legates et al. (2013) established that the supposed “consensus” that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade turned out to be only 0.5% of 11,944 papers published in climate and related journals from 1991-2011?

            And why does anyone claiming an interest in science talk of “consensus”? Are these people not aware that the argument from consensus is one of the dozen logical fallacies commonest in human discourse? I am not concerned about whether there is a consensus as to whether there has been as much warming as was predicted: I am concerned about the fact that there has not been half as much warming as was predicted over the past 25 years.

          • RealMrTea

            Lets start with…. YOU ARE A FRAUD.. and I KNOW IT!!!

            Insteadof obfuscating REALITY with all of you blabber…..Try explaining what is HAPPENING …. (look up one post)

            This is MEASURED DATA… from NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO (which you would already know if you bothered to look).

            And the trends are ACCELERATING (which can also be seen clearly)

            This article sums up the latest IPCC report produced by over 4000 scientists

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

            You can certainloy not agree with the report…. Just not with misfrepresenting datat and cherry picking science (which is what you repeatedly do)…

            And YES… There is a concensus of climate scientists. It is now documented in a peer reviewed an published study…

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

            As you SHOULD know….scientific concensus does not mean evryone agrees…. It means that vast majority agrees, and the body of science moves on to more detailed questions….

            http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/scientific-consensus-has-gotten-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/

            Which you WOULD know…. IF you were a scientists… which you are not…..

            As you grasp at straws… The cliamte warms… the seas rise… the models work… and the obvious becomes more obvious…. To the point that even insurance companies are grappling with it now…

            And you are about to ne out of a job…. Better brush up on your three card monty

          • monckton

            The one undeniable fact that none of the trolls posting here has even attempted to refute is that since 1990 the atmosphere has warmed at half the rate the models then predicted with “substantial confidence”. The models were wrong.

          • RealMrTea

            MORE BS….. It has been refuted…OVER and OVER and OVER

            This straight from NOAA

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            But of course you know this… because I have showed it to you about a dozzen times……

            AND the IPCC AR5 synthesis report is now out…. Which is the final AR5 report and is a summary and findings for the other AR5 reports…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            Based o the accuracy of the models predicting what is NOW the present, along with acceleration of the trends, and MORE mountains of data in support of human caused climate change….. The report delivers it’s most STARK warnings yet….Which is summarized here…

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

            PS: Here is you “rap sheet” again :)

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            The models were wrong. With “substantial confidence” they predicted in 1990 that the rate of global warming would be twice what it has proven to be in the 25 years since then.

          • RealMrTea

            TOTAL BS..(as usual) Notice he links NOTHING……

            The models (projections) have been well within range… Except sea level which was to LOW!!!!!

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

            He doesn’t link data, because every time he does… somebody points out that the data is either cherry picked, (as in the 18 year baloney) is altered, or just plain bogus….

            Here is “The Monckton’s” lengthy rap sheet….

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            Ad-hom after ad-hom. Grow up, o cowardly “FalseMrTea”. You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face. The truth is that the world has warmed at half the rate the IPCC had predicted in 1990. The models were wrong. The game is up. The scare is over. Get used to it.

          • RealMrTea

            BUA ha ha ha ha…

            If you could ONLY see how funny it was to see you say “ad hom… RIGHT before slinging out a litany of childish insults…..

            Bua ha ha ha ha…. man my side hurts….

            And as for your assertions that VOID of fact? and VOID of data? You make it TOO easy to show you are a fool…

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

            This is from REAL climate scientists…. with REAL data

          • monckton

            More hate speech from “RealMrTea”, the paid climate-Communist troll. No science, of course: merely a reference to a website whose controllers are currently under criminal investigation for fraud by misrepresentation of scientific results.

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!!!! And of COURSE you are lying… unless of course YOU have promoted yourself from NOBEL LAUREATE to What?? FBI agent? Go-Go Gadget?

            You are a RIOT!!!

            For those watching… Read this… all the way to the bottom in bold… and look at the claims he has been caught making….. It’s a real hoot :)

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            And when you stop laughing… read this one…..

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton

            Sorry if I made your side hurt LOL!!!

          • monckton

            The writ of the FBI does not run in Queensland. The Queensland Police are the relevant agency to investigate the irregularities in the assertion by researchers at the University of Queensland. They are in possession of at least one witness statement setting out the facts that demonstrate clearly that a deception has occurred, and they have agreed that a deception has occurred. However, at present they are taking further advice on whether the deception – which is dissimilar from other deceptions that constitute fraud – itself constitutes fraud. They have, however, understood that the deception has been influential and very costly, in lives as well as treasure, and are therefore taking the matter very seriously indeed.

          • RealMrTea

            So what? You made a complaint….. Am I supposed to be surprised? You “threatened” to sue numerous people…. Even recently…..Even me…… I don’t give a rats patooty what kind of “complaint” you come up with, and I am SURE… nobody else does either….

            What this shows…. is what we already knew….. You are an idiot with delusions of grandure….

            We get it…. You don’t have to keep proving it….. Over…. and Over…. and Over…..

          • monckton

            It is not clear what relevance any of the above has to the head posting.

          • RealMrTea

            I agree…. why did you write it?

          • monckton

            The commenter agrees that his or her comments have been irrelevant, scientifically speaking. This is a belated but nonetheless welcome admission. The commenter also raises the question why Lord Monckton wrote the head posting. He did so to convey information which – given the hundreds of comments the information has generated, and the rapid consequent increase in the hit-count of these monthly reports on global temperature – is of more than passing interest to the general public.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            The commenter asserts that everything he has himself written is irrelevant. We accept that. We do not accept the commenter’s oft-repeated contention that Lord Monckton is a “fraud”. The data relied upon in the head posting are publicly available. The method of determining the least-squares linear-regression trend on a dataset is well established and is available in the textbooks of elementary statistics. Any independent and honest enquirer would surely have taken more than a little care to identify errors in the data or the method before asserting that the author of the head posting was a “fraud”: but what strikes us very forcefully is that, though Lord Monckton’s replies have been thoughtful and well backed up with science, the commenters here – who are careful not to identify themselves – appear to have no track-record of publication in any peer-reviewed journal of science; appear to know no science; and appear to rely upon mere repetition of manifest untruths, inferentially in the hope that the frequency of the repetition will somehow compensate for the inadequacy of the content.

            Lord Monckton’s fascinating head posting makes it entirely clear that he is right and that his detractors are wrong. There has been a prolonged and unexplained failure of global atmospheric temperatures to increase. As Lord Keynes used to say, “When the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do, Sir?”

          • RealMrTea

            It is No WONDER you get all the cliamet science backward….. You seem to get EVERYTHING backward….

            You are irrelevant… What you write is irrelevant….

            You want something rellevant….. REALITY is rellevant…..

            THIS is reality

            RECORD Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            IN SPITE OF Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            LONG TERM Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            LONG TERM Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend…..

            Now…. Explain these KNOWNS (in simple english)…..

            Without THIS:

            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

            ~Albert Einstein~

            I’lll wait….

          • monckton

            The above commenter appears to be more than somewhat repetitive: yet the content of what is repeated is insubstantial. For most of the past 11,400 years, global temperature was above today’s value, from which it follows that any assertion that today’s temperature is a “record” temperature is questionable.

            If sea level is rising at a greater rate than it was rising before our influence on the climate began in about 1950, that fact is by no means agreed among the various datasets. Envisat, GRACE, and the tide-gauges do not show the imagined acceleration. And, even if one were to grant the acceleration, it is very difficult to attribute the acceleration to Man given that Man’s influence on the climate arises – in theory, at any rate – from his enriching the atmosphere with CO2 and thus warming it. Yet the atmosphere is not warming. Therefore, if the rate of increase in sea level is itself increasing, then Man cannot be to blame. Some natural cause must be at work.

            The commenter makes much of the fact that solar activity has declined somewhat. However, in the absence of any quantitative analysis of the decline and its putative impact on global temperatures on the part of the commenter, we are left wondering why, if solar activity has declined by enough to reduce global temperatures, this decline was somehow not anticipated by the models on the basis of whose predictions we were told there was a “climate crisis”.

            Perhaps the commenter would be kind enough to do some research, rather than merely offering links to information that, even to the extent that it is accurate and fairly represented, seems to offer little support or comfort to whatever cause the commenter espouses.

          • RealMrTea

            I have two goals here….

            1. Show who Monckton REALLY is….. Which can be see here…

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

            2. Show the REAL data DIRECTLY from the sources….that Monckton uses and ALTERS…….

            Here is REAL data from REAL scientists… at NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO….

            RECORD Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            IN SPITE OF Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            LONG TERM Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            LONG TERM Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend…..

            Which is due to THIS:

            STEADILY Rising CO2
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            Explain THIS….. Explain why the data DIRECTLY from teh SOURCES…. is SUPPOSED to be the SAME……. but is DIFFERENT

            Come on… Don’t be shy…

            I think I have done enough today so that it can’t be avoided :)

          • monckton

            It seems to us that the above commenter has not been able to marshal an effective scientific case. In particular, he has responded neither to Lord Monckton’s detailed scientific responses nor to our own. These repetitions of disjointed and unsatisfactorily sourced data (one of the sources is funded by a convicted internet-gaming fraudster) do not impress us. The facts in the head posting are in no way challenged by any of the comments made by the above commenter. Most of that commenter’s contributions have been altogether irrelevant and off the topic.

            The fact remains that there has been no global warming for almost two decades; that, therefore, recent sea-level rise cannot be attributed to global warming and must have arisen from some other cause; that if solar activity has declined by enough to depress global temperatures the models should have predicted that fact but manifestly failed to do so; and that the discrepancy between the models’ predictions and observed reality is consequently serious.

          • RealMrTea

            How on earth would you know ANYTHING scientific? You are a MISINFORMER!!!!

            Here is REAL data from REAL scientists… at NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO….

            RECORD Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            IN SPITE OF Reduced Solar Output:

            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            LONG TERM Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            LONG TERM Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend…..

            Which is due to THIS:

            STEADILY Rising CO2
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            Explain THIS….. Explain why the data DIRECTLY from teh SOURCES…. is SUPPOSED to be the SAME……. but is DIFFERENT

            Come on… Don’t be shy…

          • monckton

            Perhaps the best place to prevent the above commenter from failing to answer the many scientific replies to the points repeated yet again above would be the libel court. If the commenter would be kind enough to let us have his or her name and address, we shall arrange for proceedings to be served, whereupon in the disciplined forum of the court the commenter will be able to explain what – if anything – is incorrect about the presentation of the temperature data in the head posting. If the commenter is unable to find anything wrong with that presentation, the court will find – expensively – in His Lordship’s favour.

            However, we are instructed that nearly all of those who post on these fora from the point of view of climate alarmism prefer to remain anonymous and to perpetrate their libels from behind pseudonyms. If the above commenter is reluctant to provide his or her name or address, all who read this increasingly popular blog will be able to draw the appropriate conclusion: that the commenter is only willing to make these grave allegations against His Lordship from the safety of anonymity and that, therefore, the allegations are baseless.

          • RealMrTea

            Perhaps the passers by might want to look at REAL data from REAL climate scientists, rather than faked data from a known climate misinformer….. such as Monckton……

            Monckton has been caught now so many times, that in climate science….his name is synonymous with the word “:alter”…. Such as….

            “He didn’t like the data so he decided to “monckcton” it”

            The REAL climate reports…. Froim the Real climate scientists…. are here…. They are from the direct work of over 4000 climate scientists, and represent nearly 12,000 peer reviewed scientific papers on climate…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

            And here is a summary in teh New York Times….

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

            They are essceedingly clear in their findings… and they show the opposite of what “the Monckton: shows after he altered the data….

          • monckton

            Since legal proceedings are in contemplation, further libels from this commenter will be ignored. Readers will note that the commenter has been unwilling throughout to reveal his or her identity, inferentially for fear of legal proceedings, indicating plainly that the commenter knows his or her libels to be, in substance, false.

          • RealMrTea
          • Robert

            “Lord Monckton’s fascinating…” ” …Lord Monckton’s replies have been…”

            This post references “Lord Monckton” in both the first person and third person…. (unless ” Lord Monckton’s replies have been..” is referring to another person posting as ‘monckton’……)

            Do they even cover that in journalism class?

          • RealMrTea

            The only desperate person here is you….. As you sre being outed as a FRAUD…..

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            Meanwhile…. climate change marches on…

            Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            Rising Temperature:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            Now…. Explain these KNOWNS (in simple english)…..

            Without THIS:

            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

            ~Albert Einstein~

          • monckton

            I do not see a single peer-reviewed reference here. Of course the rent-seeking agencies will bend the data to suit their profit-stream: but the fact remains that their predictions of increases in atmospheric temperature have been wrong in at least two crucial respects. First, despite record increases in CO2 concentration there has been no global warming for almost two decades. Secondly, the rate of global warming has been half of that which IPeCaC had predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. Over a quarter of a century, the models have been proven wrong.

            There is really no point in the paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” calling me a “fraud”. It is a paid climate-Communist troll too cowardly to post under its own name and to admit that it has had nothing published on climate science in any learned journal after peer review. So let it be silent until it has done a little math and physics of its own, rather than relying upon long-discredited rent-seeking agencies whose funding will be drastically cut in the coming fiscal tightening on both sides of the Atlantic.

          • RealMrTea

            Then you can’t read……. Scientific Papers are”Peer Reviewed” which you might know if you had a background in science…. Which you don’t Your only training is journalism…

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            The data comes from NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO… AND is irrefutable….

            Speaking of “Peer Reviewed” Papers…..Here is a peeer reviwed (and puiblished) papers showing the statistical proof for the FACT…. that

            97% of REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS that have submitted papers on climate change agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is HAPPENING NOW and is caused by HUMAN actions.

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

            Since this istudy has been “Peer Reviewed” and checked for accuracy in methods and data…. and has been “Published” in a respected scientific journal…. I am SURE you will now accept it, as FACT…

            RIGHT?

            BUah HA Ha ha ha hah!!!!!

          • monckton

            Science is not and has never been done by mere headcount. Besides, the “consensus” imagined by many of the climate-Communist trolls here is non-existent. The true number of peer-reviewed papers saying that most of the global warming in the 21 years 1990-2011 was manmade was just 64 out of 11,944 papers, or just 0.5%.

          • RealMrTea

            Bua ha ha ha ha……… BALONEY!!!

            Which can easily be PROVEN… by this BLIND PEER REVIEWED…. and VERIFIED……then…. PUBLISHED scintific paper on the subject…..

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

            You are more full of BS than a constipated bovine…

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            Fortunately… you are also not that bright…

            Which can also be seen here….

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            The supposedly “peer-reviewed” paper by Cook et al. is manifest nonsense, as the properly peer-reviewed paper by Legates et al (2013) demonstrates by the simple expedient of using Cook’s own datafile to show that Cook and his cook-the-books conspirators had themselves marked only 64 papers out of 11,944 – i.e. 0.5% – as endorsing the standard IPCC consensus, stated at the beginning of Cook’s paper, that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. Yet Cook reported this as 97.1%. Sorry, but 0.5% is not 97%. One realizes that the climate Communists do not like to face the fact that the Party Line is supported by so few scientists publishing in the reviewed literature: but facts are facts.

            There have been at least two complaints to Queensland Police about the Cook paper, and the police – initially reluctant – are beginning to realize the monstrosity of the deception that has been perpetrated. Also, magistrates at a university town in England are to hear the matter in December. Whether in the end the public authorities will dare to go against the climate Communist party line and risk enduring the flow of malevolence and hatred which is all that cowardly trolls like “RealMrTea” are capable of mustering remains to be seen. One is not confident: so savage is the hate-speech directed at anyone who dares to question the climate Communist party line that police and courts tremble at the thought of being asked to do their job. However, the forces of law and order are at last closing in on the fraudsters. Expect arrests in due course. Those who contribute to the learned journals and misrepresent their results therein and thereafter, and those editors and reviewers who connive at outright deception, are about to find out that they are subject to the same law as the rest of us.

          • RealMrTea

            FIRST.. I want to point out Moncton’s MO….How Monckton works….

            Keep in mind…. He doesn’t actually need you to believe him to be succesful……..His job is to muddy the waters… to create doubt…..

            Notice he doesn’t actually link to anything verifiable…..That is because he can’t.. That is because the data dosn’t exist… except on Oil/Gas lobbyist lobbysist websites, anti climate blogs, and various FAKE groups that when scrutinized.. are direct “fronts” for Oil’Gas lobbyists….

            He has actually tried it before.. and gotten a sound (and deserved) thrubbing….. before everyone started laughing at him in unison…. Well at LEAST he learns :)

            Also notice he says things like “complaints….were filed” but doesn’t show them. doesn’t link to them, or say what happened to them… Ths=ese things are important to catch…Because he does it all the times….

            In this case (and similar cases) He is trying to use this as “evidence” without actually telling everyone that the “complaints” were from climate deniers (like him)… And that they ended up being unfounded and thrown out….

            And so on.. and so on….

            Once you get the hang of it, all his lies and obfuscations are pretty easy to spot….but it is worth pointing them out here so that others can later can see how it works….

            “bookmarked” :)

            Now on to businesss….
            There is no “supposedly” about the paper being peer-reviewed… The paper WAS peer reviewed … AND you know it… of COURSE you don’t accept it… Just like you don’t accept ANY real science…..

            NOW it is not only Monckton vs the worlds climate scientists….. but also now Monckton vs Peer Reviewed journals…. and Monckton vs the Journal IOP Science…. Next it will be Monckton vs the dictionary…

            Th paper really speaks for it’self…. and especially when compared to Monckton’s sullied record…

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            There is NO comparison….

            But… for the benefit of others…Here is more information….:)

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

            And the 12,000 scientific papers are IN FACT real… and are in FACT on climate science…. and in FACT 97% agree that climate change is happening and caused by humans…..The paper PROVES that…. That is why you HATE it….

            Beyond the proof…. The 12,000 papers come from climate scientists ALL OVER THE WORLD… That work for diffferent governments (many of which don’t even like each other) and differenty universties everywhere…. Scientists don’t HAVE to submit their papers to the IPCC… They have to do it on PURPOSE….

            There have also been climatologists for well over 100 years….. They study the climate. The climate doesn’t have to do ONE particular thing for them to keep their jobs… They study it regardless of what it does….. They study finer and finer details……

            The assertion that tthey need to find climate chnage to keep their jobs, is as ridiculous as saying gravity has to accelerate for physicists to keep their jobs…

            I can see the next one coming … so lets just handle that now…..

            The idea that they ALL also faked DIFFERENT data (ice cores, vs lake sediments, vs tree rings, vs sea level, vs CO2…etc. etc. etc…) in different parts of the world….That all HAPPENS to corroborate other data.. is patently absurd…. and not even possible… much less having a real motive…. and after that….these “scientists” ALL deciding to cheat and THEN clandestinely figuring out how to do it AND match their DRASTICALLY disperate data…..

            When you actually consider it…. It is laughable…

            So…. You can see clearly that “The Monckton” rejects peer reviewed data, (and reality) in favor of what he “wants” to believe… whaich is heavily influenced by his right wing agenda…. Did I mention that he is also a “birther”? That will give you an idea of his “science”

          • monckton

            Anyone wishing to verify Lord Monckton’s conclusion that the scientific “consensus” is in fact 0.5% and not 97% need look no further than the data file prepared by the Queensland University researchers now under criminal investigation. The data file shows quite clearly that they themselves marked only 64 papers out of 11,944 as saying that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by Man. That is not 97%: it is 0.5%. The criminal investigation will in due course be widened to include the university itself, which corruptly rejected at least two complaints that research misconduct by false reporting of results had occurred; and also the journal in which the defective paper appeared, which refused to investigate or correct the irregularity when it was drawn to the attention of each member of the editorial board. All of these are potentially guilty of acting as accessories to scientific fraud. If a conviction against any one of the paper’s authors is obtained, prosecutions of all other participants in the fraud will inevitably follow.

          • RealMrTea

            I can prove beyond doubt that it is just ANOTHER one of his misrepresentations of data… and I can ILLUSTRATE that it is a plain old LIE…..

            HERE is a PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED study… that looks at almost 12,000 scientific papers on climate science… and tallies whether they are for… against cliamte change….. Data checked…. and rechecked……

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

            And it proves that Moncktons MADE UP….. and NON PEER REVIEWED….BOGUS ….data is just another Monckton fraud….

          • monckton

            Since legal proceedings are in contemplation, further libels from this commenter will be ignored. Readers will note that the commenter has been unwilling throughout to reveal his or her identity, inferentially for fear of legal proceedings, indicating plainly that the commenter knows his or her libels to be in substance false.

          • RealMrTea

            The Monckton is stuck…. somebody give it a “kick”

            PS: I noticed you didn’t repond to my proof that you were lyiing :)

            Figures……

          • Robert

            ” …unable to find any scientific method of refuting the fact that there has been no global warming for close to two decades…”

            Well, that would explain why the author of the article had to cherrypick a database to ‘prove’ their point. And why commenter ‘monckon’ is so steadfast in name-calling and attacks.

            Choosing the data that fits to a pre-conceived conclusion ….. not really sciencey. Rhetoric, on the other hand, and claiming it is ok to personally attack posters does seem rather par for the course from those trying to prove CC is ‘anything but my tailpipe’.

          • monckton

            If “Robert” were as capable of reading as it is of sneering from the cowardly cover of incomplete and probably false identity, it would know that I regularly produce updates taking into account the three (much-tampered-with) terrestrial databases as well as the two satellite databases. However, the RSS satellite database is usually the first to report each month, and it is considered less unreliable than the others in that it comes closest to representing the very large spike in global temperatures caused by the Great el Nino of 1998, which caused coral bleaching on a scale consistent with a Great el Nino (two further such events have occurred over the past 300 years).

            The three terrestrial datasets, in particular, have been so often tampered with to increase the apparent rate of global warming that they are no longer reliable.

          • Robert

            “…less unreliable ..”

          • Robert

            Thanks for yet another link to an article pointing out all the data. I really wonder what goes through a ‘skeptic’ ‘s mind when facts don’t fit their opinion; what makes them think they know more than those with demonstrated expertise ?

          • RealMrTea

            I think it is connected with the fact that they are PAID…. to “think” those things :)

          • BruceMWilliams

            We have 15 years of ARGO data on ocean surface layer temps. Quite statistically robust, if you care to examine it. Your claims are like an old flag in a hurricane. Quickly getting shredded.

          • monckton

            The ARGO bathythermographs are the least ill-resolved of the ocean heat content measurement systems: however, their coverage is so sparse that they take the equivalent of a single measurement less than once each year to cover the whole of Lake Superior. Plainly, no such ill-resolved measurement method can be considered sufficiently reliable to represent ocean temperature changes to the nearest thousandth of a degree. Nor are the wide uncertainties properly displayed.

            However, the ARGO measurements – insofar as one can rely on them at all – appear to suggest that the oceans are accumulating heat at a rate about one-sixth of that which the climate models have over-confidently tried to predict. And that rate – as a matter of observed fact – has proven insufficient to warm the atmosphere, for the atmosphere has not warmed in 18 years 1 month.

            When I first wrote publicly about global warming, in 2006, I said that some warming was to be expected as a result of global warming, but on the evidence probably not very much. In 2008 I said in a reviewd paper that the warming would be less than 1 K per CO2 doubling. As the evidence has unfolded, I now consider it possible that – as the paleoclimate evidence powerfully suggests – the influence of CO2 on temperatures in today’s conditions might be barely measurable. However, I remain open to the very small possibility that a warming >1 K per doubling may occur: and, on that basis, I published in 2013 a reviewed paper in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Annual Seminars on Planetary Emergencies pointing out that it is 10-100 times costlier to act today to try to make global warming go away, even if global warming occurs at the exaggerated rate that has been predicted, than it would be to let the warming occur and then pay the far lesser and far later cost of adapting to any of its consequences that might be net-adverse.

            I have since published a further reviewed paper, in Energy & Environment this summer, demonstrating that the UK Government’s subsidies to electric cars are 128 times costlier than letting global warming happen and adapting to it. The case for principled inaction, and for defunding the various profiteers of doom, seems to me to be overwhelming, both scientifically and economically. However, given the climate-Communist party line on this topic, and given the viciousness to which those of us who dare to raise questions about the Party Line in the reviewed literature are routinely subjected – all too often by anonymous trolls too cowardly to admit who they are and how much they are being paid to trash our reputations – I do not consider it at all likely that governments will take rational decisions on the climate question until one of the five principal global-temperature datasets shows no warming for 20 years – two full decades. At that point, the scare will become unsustainable and the climate Communists will be heeded no longer. The world will be a better place for their disappearance.

          • BruceMWilliams

            I find it quite revealing that you lump all us so-called “alarmists” under the banner of “climate communists”. Why do you insist on bringing politics into every debate you enter? Can’t you debate on the merits of the science? Name calling and broad brush labeling destroy your credibility. This belies your true motives. I am no communist, and I guarantee you neither are the vast majority of people worried about this issue. Grow up and drop the name calling, and people will take you more seriously (at least less comically).

          • monckton

            In just about every reply I have given here, I have included plenty of climate science. Plenty of references have been provided. I describe climate Communists as climate Communists because certain of the anonymous trolls who post here are following a pattern of misconduct that has been observed elsewhere in this debate: shrieking unscientific and hate-filled allegations against named participants in the debate from behind a cowardly curtain of anonymity. Since these trolls choose to remain anonymous, they must expect that if they behave as paid climate Communists behave they will be described as what they are – paid climate Communists. If they are not paid, and if they are not climate Communists, they have only to find the guts (if any) to declare openly who they are and, in future, post under their own names, avoiding personal attacks on their betters.

      • cunudiun

        MY BOLD FACE CAPS BEAT YOUR BOLD FACE CAPS BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! DELUSIONAL IDIOT CHERRY-PICKER. SO THERE.

      • RealMrTea
    • zlop

      “honourable Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, has been selectively choosing his data”

      Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is a British MI7 disinformer. Propagates the Arrhenius lie, states that CO2 doubling would increase temperatures by 1.2°C

      • Michael Stone

        That’s the same Christopher Monckton who claimed he was a member of the House of Lords and was a recipient of a Nobel Peace Laureate for his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007,,, among other lies he had told about himself.

        The House Of Lords state that Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords and there was no such thing as an honorary member.

        Monckton persisted with the lie so the House of Lords took the unprecedented step of publishing an open letter to him, demanding that he cease and desist.

        Christopher Monckton also finally publically admitted he had lied about having recieved the Nobel Peace Laureate sayng he had been joking aboth that lie.

        The man is a certified pro, global warming denier, who has done severe damage to all life on this planet while posing as a scientists which he is not, not even close.

        He has creating much doubt in so many people’s minds about the most serious issue humanity has ever faced and has helped a great deal to prevent world governments from taking strong and immediate action to reverse what humanity has done to our fragile eco-system by burning fossil fuels for so many years.

        He is like you and so many other pro GW deniers zlop, a person who should be arrested and made to stand trial at a world court for attempted genocide of all life on Earth.

        • zlop

          Destroyed the coal mining industry, Christopher Monckton was science advisor to Evil Maggie. Similar to Piers Morgan, Brits like Monckton, are promoted mislead.

          • monckton

            No, I wasn’t science adviser to Good Maggie. I was one of her six special advisers.

          • zlop

            Tim Ball mentions corruption during the days of Maggie. The scam was to replace Coal with Nuclear. Now, the scam is Windmill subsidies.

            “Climate Corruption-Sheila Zilinsky & Dr. Tim Ball on the Global Warming Swindle — youtube” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCRF4VgI9VY

          • monckton

            And how many new nuclear plants were ordered or brought into commission during Margaret Thatcher’s time in office? Time to ditch the conspiracy theories. Coal was and remains a mainstay of UK electricity generation, though there has been a shift to gas in recent years.

            In any event, what has this nonsense about nuclear plants in the UK got to do with the failure of global temperature to change, according to the RSS dataset, for 18 years 1 month? Try to stick to the main point: there has been no global warming for close to two decades, and it is now clear to all but the most prejudiced of climate communists that the rate of warming is far slower than they had tried to predict.

            The increasingly childish and desperate contributions of the climate communists to this thread neatly exposes their intellectual bankruptcy.

          • zlop

            No conspiracy theory that, Maggie was promoting climate falsehoods. http://iaindale.blogspot.ca/2009/02/margaret-thatcher-climate-change.html

            As for you Christopher Monckton, use your platform to point out that, Arrhenius warming does not exist. Atmosphere is warmed from above the Troposphere, where there is more energy/molecule (potential included)

          • monckton

            The main point is that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month. The atmosphere is warmed from above by the Sun and from below by the ocean, and from within by excitation of greenhouse-gas molecules. But at present it is not being warmed at all: it is at a remarkably constant temperature.

          • zlop

            “The atmosphere is warmed from above by the Sun and from below by the ocean, and from within by excitation of greenhouse-gas molecules.”

            There are zones, in the atmosphere, which (net) radiate and zones which (net) absorb. Tropopause and Stratosphere absorb, as indicated by increased energy/molecule. Net energy flow is from above the Troposphere to the Troposphere. This is opposite to what the IPCC preaches. Additionally, greenhouse gases Cool (lowering of clouds reasoning)
            http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/atmosphere-temperature.jpg

          • monckton

            We are wandering ever further from the main point. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, and the rate of global warming over the past quarter of a century was half what the IPCC predicted in 1990. Therefore, it is clear that the models were wrong.

          • zlop

            Almost 2 decades of no warming. Go back to the 1930 decade, 8 decades of no warming . .. …

            Point behind the point, behind the point, is that IPCC, Royal Society, NOAA, NASA . .. … all lie in unison, to manufacture fear and motivate acceptance of the $92 Trillion Carbon Disclosure Project. “Abel Danger 9-11-2014 $92 Trillion Dollar Carbon Disclosure Project Gambling on Contrived Disaster” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7QlmtOMNGM

        • monckton

          “Attempted genocide of all life on Earth”? Not guilty. How can 18 years 1 month without any global warming kill anyone or anything? How can my reporting the fact that the RSS data show no global warming for 18 years 1 month kill anyone or anything? Why do the climate communists demand the death penalty for those of us who show that the scientific facts and data do not fit the Party Line, which is therefore wrong?

          And when have I “posed as a scientist”? I contribute papers to the learned journals from time to time and, to the extent that those papers are published (most are) I am doing science that the reviewers find acceptable enough to recommend publication. Keep writing, Mr Bentun: every word you write reminds the world of the absurd and now panicky extremism of the climate liarists, who have profiteered so mightily for so long and are now desperate as they watch the gravy-train of global warming grants beginning to tip inexorably and irrecoverably into the gulch.

        • monckton

          More pathetic ad-homs from Mr Bentun, who seems to know even less about peerage law than he knows about the climate. I am not an “honorary member” of the House of Lords but a real member: and I have my grandfather’s letters patent to prove it. They have not been withdrawn by legislation, and only a specific law can withdraw them. Unless and until that has been done, as the Mereworth case established, the letters patent remain in force and I remain a member of the House, whether the House itself likes it or not. By the 1999 Act I have no right to sit or vote, but in all other respects I remain a member of the House, as learned Counsel opined when I asked for clarification of the position.

          Nor have I admitted to having lied about having received the Nobel Peace Prize. I have never said I had received that prize. However, after I had given a lecture on the physics of climate sensitivity to the Faculty of Physics at Rochester University, the Professor of Physics, David Douglass, presented me with a Nobel Peace Prize pin that he had made with gold recovered from a physics experiment 35 years previously. He was making a serious point: for I had identified and corrected an error in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. However, the prize pin was of course a light-hearted gesture. Given that Mr Bentun cannot even be accurate enough about his own name, let alone about my titles and honors, one wonders how he ever became a Professor of anything. Perhaps the standards at Princeton are a great deal lower than they are at Cambridge.

          And what is all this apocalypticist bilge about “global warming” being “the most serious issue humanity has ever faced”? Surely he is aware that all but 5000 of us were wiped out by the Sumatran supervolcan 70,000 years ago? Now, there was something to get genuinely apocalyptic about. But I fail to see how global warming that has not occurred for up to a quarter of a century could possibly threaten the planet with extinction. Time for Mr Bentun or Stone or whatever his, her or its real name is to be a little more adult about this question. He is making himself look ridiculous.

      • monckton

        “Selectively choosing data”? I merely started with the most recent month for which data were available and explored how far back one can go without finding an uptrend. The answer – like it or not – is 18 years 1 month. Not one of the various models on which the climate scare was profitably constructed predicted that.

        • zlop

          “McKitrick paper: no warming for 19 years”

          I have not looked into the method used. Least Linear, not Least Squares, horizontal line fit?

    • cunudiun
    • Robert

      ” Well, Mears, look up any dictionary to see what ‘cherry-picked’ means, it will say to be selective in choice, how can you be selective in picking 207 contiguous months of data”

      By choosing the database that meets the author’s pre-conceived conclusion and ignoring the rest of the data……

      Pretty simple really, and the epitome of cherry-picking.

  • Walpurgis

    The pause in the Y2K catastophe is almost 15 years old.

    • zlop

      “‘Global warming has been on pause for 19 years’: Study reveals Earth’s temperature has remained almost CONSTANT since 1995”

      Calm before Ice Age Doom.
      Remember Willie the Woolly Mammoth.

  • https://plus.google.com/111658787134687480269 Dan Pangburn

    A physics-based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037. The current trend is down.

    Search “AGWunveiled” for the drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610), predictions (to 2037) and an explanation of why CO2 is NOT a driver.

    • Icarus62

      Let us know when you have successfully predicted the course of global warming for well over 30 years, as real climate scientists have.

      http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/JH1981vsobsmygraph-116567751702.jpeg

      • https://plus.google.com/111658787134687480269 Dan Pangburn

        The
        equation hind-casts accurately through all measured temperatures, and credibly
        back to 1610.

        The equation allows prediction of temperature trends using data up to
        any date. I had already done it since 1990. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data
        to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend
        calculated using data through 2013. The predictions depend on sunspot predictions which are not available past 2020. The predictions to 2037 for two assumptions of SS numbers are graphed in Figure 1 of the “AGWunveiled” paper.

        The trend temperature in 2020 calculated using data through 1990 is 0.016 K warmer than the trend temperature in 2020 calculated using data through 2012.

        The graph using data through 2013 is shown here.

      • https://plus.google.com/111658787134687480269 Dan Pangburn

        The equation hind-casts accurately through all measured temperatures, and credibly back to
        1610.

        The equation allows prediction of temperature trends using data up to any date. I had already done it since 1990. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013. The predictions depend on sunspot predictions which are not available past 2020. The predictions to 2037 for two assumptions of SS numbers are graphed in Figure 1 of the
        “AGWunveiled” paper.

        The trend temperature in 2020 calculated using data through 1990 is 0.016 K warmer than
        the trend temperature in 2020 calculated using data through 2012.

        This graph shows the predicted trend and expected limits on reported measurements.

      • monckton

        Icarus62 appears to believe that climate scientists have successfully predicted the course of global temperatures over the past 30 years. Well, 25 years ago the IPCC predicted that global warming would occur at more than twice the rate that has been observed since them. And almost 30 years ago James Hansen predicted it would occur at about three times the rate that has been observed since. Who then, were these climate scientists who correctly predicted that the rate of warming would be around a seventh or an eighth of a degree Celsius per decade? In truth, the scientists have been profitably exaggerating future warming for a quarter of a century. Now the facts have caught up with them: and, for some of them, the fraud police will not be far behind.

  • Icarus62
    • Tony Lear

      In other words nothing as margin of error must be about 0.1C at least! Never mind that 1C (10 times that) is deemed natural variability by science itself. They must be kicking themselves for ever agreeing to that !

  • EDMH

    A little judicious cherry picking !!

    The diagram below shows the UK Met Office CET (Central England Temperature) data set for the years since 2000.

    Over the period here has been a trend of minus 0.8 deg C and a concomitant lowering of winter temperatures of minus 1.5 deg C.

    This lowering of temperature over the past 13 years has been mirrored in Europe and also throughout the Northern hemisphere.

    Over the same period the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa has risen from 370 to 395 ppmv.

    This would seem to cast some doubt on the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming caused by increasing CO2 concentrations.

    A more likely catastrophe would be the return to little ice age conditions or worse, which these official data seem to presage.

  • EDMH
  • Voodude

    ALL global temperature sets show the pause, the hiatus, or as FRANKSW said, “it could be a peak not a pause” -of at least, the last nine years… All temperature data sets exercised above INCLUDE the end of the data (today, last month, whatever is the latest), however current that is, and all show a flat trend, or a little cooling trend. None show a warming trend, given the start-point.

    GIStemp for the last 9 years
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2005/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2005/trend
    hadcrut3gl for the last 13 years
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
    hadcrut3vgl for the last 164 samples
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:164/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:164/trend
    hadcrut4gl for the last 12 years
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
    RSS for at least 17 years
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

    UAH for the last 9 years
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
    Five global data sets, from 2005
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2005/plot/gistemp/from:2005/trend

    woodfortrees doesn’t have any more “global” temperature sets. At least, not at the moment of this posting…

  • MOLON LABE

    Antarctic Sea Ice On Turbo-Steroids…Mutates To A Behemoth…Sets Quantum All-Time Record High Extent! 27. September 2014

    In track and field a sprinter setting a new world record in the 100 or 200-meter dash by a few hundredths of a second is already considered a sensation.

    Now imagine a sprinter breaking the 100 or 200-meter dash record by a whole half second, or a pole-vaulter beating the old record not by an inch or two, which would be spectacular, but by an entire foot! That would be unworldly and observers would call it a mutation leap forward.

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/27/antarctic-sea-ice-on-turbo-steroids-mutates-to-a-behemoth-sets-quantam-all-time-record-high-extent/

  • cunudiun
  • docg

    I’ve recently completed a pretty serious blog post dealing with climate change, with reference especially to the new NASA report on deep ocean (non) warming, which as I see it, could make a huge difference to the debate. And no, I’m not a “denier,” but a card carrying lifelong Democrat, liberal to the gills. I’d appreciate feedback from anyone reading here in the form of comments, positive or negative. http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2014/10/common-sense-on-climate-change.html

  • rainwash

    There is an entire generation of people that are graduating from high school this year that has never experienced global warming during their lifetime.

  • zlop

    “the computer models are simply wrong about
    the sensitivity of temperature to manmade
    greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.'”

    Greenhouse gases Cool. CO2 is a weak greenhouse
    gas and the effect is close to saturation. CH4, a gas
    in low present concentration, would have more of a
    Cooling effect.

    Why not model the atmosphere? Mapping of
    F = -GmM/r² and F=mω²r is one to one and onto.
    Build a merry go around sized centrifuge and put
    a Sun lamp in the middle.

  • Robert

    “Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 217 months September 1996 to September 2014 – just over half the 429-month satellite record. This is as far back as it is possible to go in the global instrumental record and find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked…”

    Right, “..the start-date is not “cherry-picked.”

    But making a conscious choice to use only RSS is.

    And choosing the data that fits to a pre-conceived outcome is the epitome of cherry-picking.

    Being ‘skeptical’ doesn’t give a license to misuse science; so it seems rather off-the-mark to engage in behavior that is so intellectually dishonest.

  • Robert

    “….what we may call a “liarist” – one who is prone to push the evidence in the profitable direction of greater alarm than is scientifically justified.”

    It seems rather early in the game to start with labeling and name-calling…..

  • Robert

    IF the science above were as solid as the author implies, it gives one pause to consider that it was posted to a blog rather than being sent to a journal for peer-review for publishing to the body of literature on the topic.

  • Robert

    “The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.”

    Interesting. Picking data -“.. IPCC had then predicted” – to argue against that is nearly a quarter of a century old.

    Yet another example of the cherrypicking, and in this case, strawman-argumentation, that it took to present the ‘skeptical’ case.

  • Robert

    “.. IPCC’s predicted…”

    There is a reason why projection is the preferred term; so here it seems that the author has decided to engage in rhetoric rather than science….

  • Robert

    “Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. ”

    An advantage of submitting a paper for peer-review is to catch sentences that don’t really make sense; or at least to query the author(s) about the meaning or for supporting data. Either hopefully providing expansion of the thought for better coherency.

    • RealMrTea
      • Robert

        I should have used four ellipsis marks to designate that the whole para was included. Sorry. (I’m leaving it as is, even though Disqus allows editing after responses. And will be more careful here on out.)

        The para rambles and makes ipse dixit unsupported claims; and that particular sentence should have cited something to support it. It doesn’t. The lack of peer-review (or at least, good editing) is part of that whole intellectual rigor aspect that goes missing in so much of the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ thinking.

        The SkepticalScience (http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm) link expands thoughts and concepts to make coherent points that are clear and supports those points by linking to the scientific literature. Thanks for that link.

  • Robert

    Well worth noting in the following exchanges between CB & monckton is who brings more data and published science and who quickly resolves to name-calling, insulting, and empty claims.

  • Robert

    RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, there has now been no global warming for 18 years 1 month

    So the post starts out with an admission of cherrypicking the data set that supports the preconceived conclusion.

    Could someone please give a scientific rationale for doing that?

  • Tony Lear

    Parts of the ocean may be warming (though NASA disagrees), however the
    actual temperature on Earth is not and its a travesty…………for the
    nasty AGW crowd.

    Can they not go five minutes (or words) without comparing the thoughtful with Holocaust deniers?
    Why must they revert so quickly to being lowlifes?

    • Icarus62

      The climate system as a whole is absorbing heat faster, not slower. How do you explain that, given the fact that all natural climate forcings are negative and have been for half a century?

      • Tony Lear

        I don’t have to explain the rambling sophistry of the confused. The problem for scientists is that anyone can look at the observable results and see that the theory of runaway CO2 warming is wrong.

        • Icarus62

          {chuckle}… evasion noted.

          • Tony Lear

            Just read it over and over until you get it…..I can wait.

  • Robert

    I wonder if “monckton” could give a rationale for repeatedly calling posters names.

    The explanation of “Climate Communist” seems to be worth a couple of paragraphs alone.

    If the moderators at this site accept that sort of behavior, it is a tacit admission of the failure of those agreeing with the article being unable to defend the position in a civil and scientific manner.

    • monckton

      If people use their real names and are polite, I shall also be polite. If they sneer and make false allegations from behind the cowardly shelter of anonymity, they can expect to get as good as they give. They are anonymous and can come to no harm. Let them grow up, find the energy to learn some climate science, the courage to reveal who they are and the address to conduct a civil debate and I shall cease to call them what they are – climate Communists.

      • Robert

        People all over the world use screen names and discuss issues like adults. Several are here. In fact, it seems about the only person throwing insults is the one claiming they are someone famous.

        IF your claims about CC had any solid basis in fact, you could argue the facts. You could bring your facts to bear on the topic

        You don’t. Don’t have the facts. Don’t have a scientific position to argue from.

        • monckton

          18 years 1 month without global warming is a fact. Warming at half the rate predicted in 1990 by the IPCC is a fact. Sea level rise-showing no acceleration except at the moment of changeover to ill-calibrated laser-altimetry satellites in 1993, and not showing acceleration on any other method, is a fact. No increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, tropical cyclones, extra-tropical cyclones is a fact. Insufficient resolution in the measurements to make credible claims of an ocean warming significant enough to warm the atmosphere is a fact (not least because the atmosphere has not in fact warmed for 18 years 1 month).

          The paid climate-Communist trolls who call me names here would not have been called out as the paid climate-Communist trolls they are unless they had behaved not as adults but as childish climate-Communist trolls. The scare they are paid to promote is collapsing. With luck, they will fail to intimidate governments as they have tried to intimidate those of use who have dared to challenge the Party Line, and the world will cease to waste trillions on the climate nonsense.

          • Robert

            And now, we have a sterling example of a gish’s gallop mash up.

            All the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking points in one post.

            No supporting documentation, of course…. and ultimately, just a bowl of cherry pits.

          • monckton

            See detailed answers, with references, up- and down-thread. Do some thinking, and be honest, rather than simply trotting out the climate-Communist Party Line. We all know what the Party Line is: the Marxstream media tell us every day. So do some real science, rather than name-calling from behind a cowardly curtain of anonymity, or waste someone else’s time.

          • Robert

            “… climate-Communist Party Line…” “..Marxstream media..”

          • cunudiun

            Same thing I just told MrTea: You got too close to a nerve and got the full paid climate commie troll ad hominem response. So-called “Monckton” has nothing else in his arsenal.

          • Robert

            Funny how measuring from space is only ok if it fits the talking points…..

            Thanks!

          • monckton

            For the intercalibration errors in the Jason/Topex/Poseidon satellites – errors more than double the entire sea-level rise they purport to have measured – see Nerem (2010).

            See Moerner (2011) for an account of how a member of the Colorado University team that measures sea-level rise admitted to him in 2004 that the team tampered with the sea-level data by tilting the entire graph to show an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise that is in fact entirely absent, as all other methods of measurement (tide gauges, GRACE, Envisat) show quite clearly.

            If the ocean heat content were indeed increasing at the rate at which it is said by climate-Communist agencies such as NOAA to be increasing, then one would have expected global mean lower-troposphere temperature to have increased as well. But, for almost two decades, it has failed to increase.

            A paper about to be published by Purkey et al. (2014) shows sea-level to be increasing at 1.5 mm/year, which is if anything a little less than the rate of increase in the past century, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration. Sorry, but the constant repetition of obviously unsound data from NOAA does not impress. The balance of evidence is now strongly against any significant increase in ocean heat content (see, for instance, the ARGO bathythernograph results, which show ocean heat content increasing at one-sixth the rate spuriously claimed by NOAA). ARGO also shows the steric component in sea-level rise to be equivalent to 1.5 mm/year.

            Frankly, the game is up.

          • Robert

            “.. Nerem (2010)…”

            Might want to review the literature since 2010, lots of new papers

          • monckton

            If there is a paper denying the existence of the intercalibration errors, perhaps the paid climate-Communist troll “Robert” would like to cite it.

          • Robert

            Again, just like the author of the article did, we have yet another example of cherry picking.

            The author of the article used one database because that particular database’s results met the conclusion the author wanted to reach.

            While the author could have discussed why they made the conscious choice not to include all the available data, they made that conscious choice not to. And now, we have a commenter doing the same thing. Citing a single paper because it meets the commenter’s desired conclusion.

            This is an active area of research; choosing a single paper as ‘proof’ is cherry picking. A real scientist, a real skeptic, would look at all the data and crunch the numbers. And look at how and why certain papers come to their conclusions. Is the analysis substantive; do the results fit within a range supported by the body of knowledge; do the individual papers withstand the test of time; how do they fare in the discussions and followup studies. All questions that get answered in the analysis.

            And again, fully half of the response is name-calling.

          • monckton

            Don’t whine. Declare who you are, if you are not a cowardly climate-Fascist troll paid to parrot the Party Line. The Party Line has failed.

            “Robert” has plainly not read the paper that describes the intercalibration errors in the sole satellite series that purports to show accelerated sea-level rise, in contrast to the Envisat, GRACE and tide-gauge records.

            Besides, if sea-level is rising at an accelerated rate, it is known that we cannot be the cause, for there has been no global warming for the past decade and a half.

          • RealMrTea

            That is stupid even for you…..

            Is there a paper denying that there is a ghost sitting next to me? NO?????

            There MUST be a ghost next to me…. then..RIGHT?

            The logic is EXACTLY the same……

            PS: Monckton is a paid climate misinformer…… According to the IRS filings of the Heartland Institute… (an Oil/Gas/Coal Lobbyist) He has recieved money from them… Fortunately for the truth…. He isn’t educated in climate science… and isn’t very bright…

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” continues to hurl childish insults from behind the cowardly curtain of anonymity in which climate-Communist trolls habitually enwrap themselves. The intercalibration errors between the various Jason/Topex satellites are established in the literature, and “RealMrTea” is so unscientific that it starts burbling about ghosts rather than producing even a single peer-reviewed reference to counter that which I had cited.

            It continues to repeat links to climate-Communist websites whose operators are handsomely paid (one of them by a convicted internet-gaming fraudster) to try to blacken the reputations of the few of us who publish reviewed articles in the learned journals questioning the climate-Communist Party Line – a technique whose purpose is not to silence us but to discourage others from daring to speak out.

            It was creeps like “RealMrTea” who did similar service for Hitler and Goebbels, cowing into silence all but a few (such as the Catholic Church) who had the courage to speak out against the unspeakable. Considering the number of people being killed quite unnecessarily by climate-Communist policies such as the vast and needless inflation of fuel and power prices, these Fascist thugs are quite likely to kill as many in the 21st century as the 120 million that totalitarianism killed in the 20th.

            It was creeps like “RealMrTea” who did similar service for Stalin, cowing into silence all but a few (such as the Catholic Church) who had the courage to speak out against the unspeakable. The technique of attempting relentlessly to destroy the reputations of those who speak out against totalitarianism, particularly in its Communist manifestation, is well described in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (“Radical” being the term that U.S. Communists use to describe themselves).

            Consider the number of occasions on which, in this thread alone, “RealMrTea” – inadequate intellectually but well enough able to be a good little Fascist – has repeated off-topic links to personal insults against me. Well, this childish technique did not silence the Catholic Church, and first Nazism and then Soviet Communism passed into history – blots, both of them, on the escutcheon of humanity.

            And let no one whine that I am making a personal attack on “RealMrTea”, for it has not revealed who it is, and I am attacking it for its words not for who (or what) it is. There are too many like it, paid by Fascist and Communist groups to spread hate-speech. But it will not work. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, and the rate of warming over the past quarter of a century has been half of what IPeCaC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. The scare is over, and no amount of petulant shrieking and name-calling on the part of “RealMrTea” or on the part of the Fascist/Communist websites to which it links with rebarbative and pointless repetitiveness will alter that undeniable scientific fact.

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!!!

            I hit a nerve…. Bi=ua ha ha hah ha

            He doesn’t like it when yoiu know his past exploits (and numerous FAILURES)

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/..

            It is also really funny to watch him quote a study, and then see the author of the study denounce his (typically cherry picking) use of the data, and his 180 degree wrong “interpretation” of it….

            Over… and Over… and Over…..

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            It is actually QUITE comical….

          • monckton

            The argumentum ad hominem, in which “RealMrTea” is paid by his climate-Fascist masters to specialize, is a disfiguring and intellectually-bankrupt subspecies of the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, the fundamental fallacy of not knowing how a proper argument is conducted.

            If “RealMrTea” wishes to conduct a proper argument, it must first identify itself. Then it must refrain from making personal attacks on its scientific and intellectual betters. Then it must try to muster a serious scientific argument. Then it must try to get that scientific argument published after review in a learned journal, as I have done with this temperature record and with several other matters related to the climate. Then it might be taken seriously. Otherwise, its misconduct and its cowardice are on a par with those of the climate-Communist trolls who infest blogs such as this in the hope of deterring anyone from joining us in pointing out the obvious: that the models were wrong and the scare is over.

          • RealMrTea

            As YOU know…. an ad n=hominem attack is against the person, having nothing to do with the subject at hand….

            Nothing could be futher from that here…..

            Your lack of training and background is certainly pertinant….
            Your history of getting paid by the aheartland Intitrute (an Oil/Gas/Coal lobby is certainly pertinant
            As is your history of misusing and exaggerating data to make false points..

            I am SURE that most if not everyone would agree that your “rap sheet” is vry pertinant to this conversation…

            Ad hominem? Not in the least……

            And as far as the real data?

            Here it is….Compiled from the work of over 4000 climate scientists from all over the world (not paid fossil fuel industry shills) such as yourself…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

          • monckton

            And your scientific point is?

          • RealMrTea

            My scientific point is that your lack of education in climate science (or any science) along with you rVERY poor record of, exaggerating your credentials, exaggerating climate data, cherry picking data, making up data, and generally being WRONG on your “science…..

            Makes you about the last person on eatrth people should be listening to when it comes to climate science…

            Clear?

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            PS: I am sure you saw that the AR5 synthesis report is now out……

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            It is likely to much “data” for you to get through…And far to much truth for you to bare… So here is a nice summary of the report in the New Yoirk Times…..

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

          • monckton

            The anonymous climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” has made its tedious ad-hom points over and over again. But it has no scientific point other than the mention the IPCC’s Fifth ASSessment Report, for which I was an expert reviewer.

          • RealMrTea

            OOOOHHH I hit a nerve again…..

            And “The Monckton” like other immature children thinks it is “cute” to give childish names to the report from the IPCC….

            Which is the body representing the VAST majority of REAL climate scientists… And the AR5 synthesis report is the summary and findings of the other AR5 reports making it the culmination of AR5.

            based on the accuracy of the models, the MASSIVE amounts of data, and the acceleration of cklimate change, the IPCC is giving their most STARK warnings yet on climate change…..

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            If you want a summary…. Here is a very good article on it from the New York Times

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

            PS: This is what the worlds climate scientists think of “The Monckton” misusing and cherry picking their data to make the exact wrong assertions….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

          • monckton

            The paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea” is boringly repetitive. I have read the IPCC’s report, because I was an expert reviewer for it. I have exposed some of its errors in a peer-reviewed paper out this month, and there is a further paper, due early next year, which will go into further detail. One realizes that the Party Line is all to those who, like this coward unable to post under its real name, are devoted climate Communists. However, those of use who contribute regularly to the peer-reviewed literature on the subject are not impressed with the incoherence and absence of argument displayed by “RealMrTea”, who appears to believe that providing repetitive links to various climate-Communist websites that call me names is a substitute for doing science.

            The very fact that so many such websites regard me as sufficiently dangerous to be subjected to the Saul Alinsky tactic of being described in uncomplimentary terms is an advertisement not only of their intellectual bankruptcy but also of the effectiveness of the arguments that I and others deploy to demonstrate that the attempts of the totalitarians to persuade the world of the climate nonsense are doomed to failure. One can repel the truth for a time, but inexorably the world will continue to fail to warm at anything like the exaggerated rate predicted with such foolish over-confidence by the IPCC in 1990. The models were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

          • RealMrTea

            It is pretty funny to watch “The Monckton” go off in a frenzy when I point out who he really is, along with his past exploits….

            As with everything else he does… he likes to make stuff up about the people that point out his daata is made up, and what isn’t is cherry picked to TRY and show something that isn’t there……

            And he is now OBSESSED with the models… even though they are in FACT accurate…..

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

            The FACTS really don’t matter to “the Monckton”..he steps right over them… and makes up his own stuf….

          • monckton

            Lord Monckton’s graphs show quite clearly the discrepancy between the models’ predictions and the far less exciting reality over the past 25 years. He will shortly be publishing a major peer-reviewed paper, of which he is the lead author, pointing out some of the errors in the models.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            Lord Monckton’s graphs may be verified by contacting the original sources of the data to verify that the data are correctly represented, and by conducting a calculation no more complex than a least-squares linear-regression trend on the data.

            It is indeed noteworthy that His Lordship has so many critics in certain quarters. One view that might be taken is that His Lordship is right, and that this makes some people uncomfortable.

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!!!!!!!!! TOO Funny…..

            he MUST be OK because he has been exposed so many times by REAL scientists…….

            Wow….THAT is really scraping the bottom of the logic barrell… but FUNNY!

            LET ME REPEAT……. The DATA is FAKE… It can ONLY be linked back to Monckton and his pals…. That do ZERO science…… The people that ACTUALLY collect the data…. DENOUNCE Monckton….. AND this DATA…

            EVERY time Monckton starts with someobnes data and alters it (like THIS) The people that actually collected the data DENOUNCE HIM……Over…. and Over… Just like the link below….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

          • monckton

            We are not yet instructed on whether any refutations of Lord Monckton’s peer-reviewed results have appeared anywhere in the reviewed literature, but no doubt those of the commenters here who appear not to welcome the scientific truths set forth in the head posting will be able to enlighten us. We are not impressed with the qualifications or abilities of the soi-disant scientists who have contributed to the various hate-speech blogs referenced rather repetitively by the above commenter.

            Vain repetition of hate-speech is not a good or effective substitute for science.

          • RealMrTea
          • monckton

            Most people will have better things to do with their time than to read the blogs mentioned with irrational repetitiveness by the above commenter. One of these blogs is paid for by one Lefebvre, a convicted internet-gaming fraudster whom the court ordered to repay $185 million in ill-gotten gains. It is not likely, therefore, that anyone reading such hate-filled blogs funded by such questionable sources would be at all likely to take them seriously. But those few who do will find that the blogs are written in a tone that is neither scientific nor intellectually the equal of the numerous distinguished contributions Lord Monckton makes to the reviewed literature on climate. His latest paper in Energy and Environment is a particularly comprehensive deconstruction of the conduct of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

          • RealMrTea

            Doubt it….. Monckton has been demasked…… More and more people are finding out what a fraud he is…… This infpormation is useful as it is MUCH more likely that what ever he says is untrue… than true…. so having a heads up is a good thing….

            As usual… Your balther is just more smoke… with ZERO substance…….meant to deflect….. and muddy the waters…… We are on to you…….. You may catch a few people….. But less and less as the truth gets out…. Which is gettin easier…

            Here is REAL data from REAL scientists… at NOAA, NASA, and CSIRO….

            RECORD Current Temperatures:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            IN SPITE OF Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            LONG TERM Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            LONG TERM Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend…..

            Which is due to THIS:

            STEADILY Rising CO2
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            Explain THIS….. Explain why the data DIRECTLY from teh SOURCES…. is SUPPOSED to be the SAME……. but is DIFFERENT

            Come on… Don’t be shy…

          • monckton

            No scientific argument is disclosed in the above comment. If sea level rise is accelerating (which is far from clear, since only one of the relevant datasets shows acceleration, and there is evidence that that dataset has been tampered with), the question arises why it is accelerating, given that the atmosphere that is the sole potential anthropogenic source of significant ocean warming is not itself warming. This is an elementary point, but the commenter has failed to address it.

            The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is indeed increasing, yet the atmosphere is not warming. The correct scientific response to these two facts is to consider the probability that the models’ assumptions about climate sensitivity to increased CO2 concentration are to some substantial degree incorrect.

          • RealMrTea

            Your data is made up….Everyone knows it….

            This is DIRECTLY…..FROM……NOAA…..and…. NASA…..

            RECORD Current Temperatures:

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            It CLEARLY shows….you are full of BS

          • monckton

            The commenter may perhaps wish to refer to Jouzel et al., 2007, where it is made manifest that today’s global temperatures are far from unprecedented in geological time. For a more recent comparison, Ljungqvist (2010) will be found helpful. From these two sources, supported by many others, one can discern that today’s temperatures are not “record” temperatures, but are cooler than they were during two-thirds of the past 11,400 years. Temperatures were warmer than the present in the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Old Kingdom and Holocene climate optima – the last and warmest endured for 4000 years.

          • RealMrTea

            The commenter may want to contact NASA… and NOAA….. as it is THEY that said….

            “The last 24 months are the hottest year ever measured”

            But of course “The monckton” knows better than NASA… and NOAA…. RIGHT?

            PS: Your other BS about it being warmer that the midevil warming…. is just that..BS…. It wasn’t warmer then that now

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

            And of course…. NASA is correct…. and Monckton is a fraud…

          • monckton

            Since legal proceedings are in contemplation, further libels from this commenter will be ignored. Readers will note that the commenter has been unwilling throughout to reveal his or her identity, inferentially for fear of legal proceedings, indicating plainly that the commenter knows his or her libels to be in substance false.

          • RealMrTea
          • RealMrTea

            BUA HA HA HA… ANOTHER LIE!!! You shoukd know better. Yiu have been caught in THIS lie before…..

            ANYONE can comment on IPCC preliminary reports… ANYONE……

            And doing so DOESN’T make you an EXPERT REVIEWER……OR a NOBEL LAUREATE

            ROFL!!!!!

            For anyoine watching YOU HAVE to read THIS…… Keep reading all the way to the bottom…. It is absolutely HILLARIOUS!!!

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

          • monckton

            More hate speech with no science from the cowardly, furtive, paid climate-Communist troll “RealMrTea”. Like it or not, I am listed as an expert reviewer in the published version of the IPCC’s latest assessment report. And I have never claimed to be a Nobel laureate, though others have said that of me. Perhaps “RealMrTea” is thinking of his climate-Communist associate Michael Mann, who has been taken to task not once but twice by IPeCaC for falsely claiming to be a Nobel laureate.

            Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at the predicted rate. And, as a published author of peer-reviewed papers in the reviewed literature of climate science, I am no less competent to comment on IPeCaC’s reports than others: and at least I am trying to get the science right, which is more than can be said for “RealMrTea”, who is so craven that it cannot even tell us who it is.

          • RealMrTea

            Boy you are REALLY on a Lying roll tonight “Monckton” I LOVE it… It gives me more to lionk to, and turn in the various sites that track your lies….. And such goofy lies too (Mann etc.) …. THANKS!!

            AGAIN…. ANYONE can be an “expert reviewer” ANYONE…. RIGHT? Boy..CONSTANTLY trying to pad your resume”

            Meanwhile the world continues to steadliy warm…… Which is shown difinitively in the AR5 report…

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

            AND here is a summary…. In nearly EXACT CONTRAST to your fake science babble……. It is quite STARK in it’s findings…..

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

          • monckton

            Lord Monckton has pointed out, correctly, that he is listed in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report as an Expert Reviewer. The quality of his review may be deduced from its content, available at scienceandpublicpolicy.org.

            Lord Monckton is qualified to be an Expert Reviewer by his publication record in the reviewed journals. The sign-up page for those offering their services as Expert Reviewers made it plain that only those with at least four such publications to their credit should apply to be Expert Reviewers.

            The “summary” mentioned by the above commenter is not peer-reviewed, and consists largely of predictions and speculations. Lord Monckton’s head posting, however, concerned itself with facts – and facts much at variance with earlier predictions by the IPCC.

          • RealMrTea

            LOL….. An article “about” the report “peer reviewed”? Who said anything about that? That is just plain stupid…

            Is your post peer reviewed? You don’t even have any idea what you are talking about…..

            As I mentioned…ANYONE can comment on an IPC report…. What that listing means… is that you took the time to write them…. and likely pressed them to include you….

            You are a fraud…..

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

          • monckton

            In those countries that permit free speech, anyone may comment on any report. However, to qualify as an IPCC Expert Reviewer it was expected that a list of four publications in the relevant reviewed literature should be provided. In Lord Monckton’s case, that list was indeed provided. His Lordship continues to contribute actively to the literature, either alone or in collaboration with other distinguished men of science.

          • RealMrTea

            BS… More trying to make “The Monckton” look like something he is not. He is a nut job, with ZERO science background…. and ZERO climate background….. That has bee caught lying and making up information numerous times…..

            Including that he is in the House of Lords…..

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

          • monckton

            Lord Monckton’s latest peer-reviewed paper, in Energy and Environment, demonstrates a formidable breadth and depth of knowledge of various climate issues. And Lord Monckton is indeed a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote. The Clerk of the Parliaments, in a letter confirming Lord Monckton’s statement that he has no right to sit or vote, says that by virtue of this fact His Lordship is not a “member” of the House of Lords. The Clerk is the person mentioned in the House of Lords Act 1999 as the person capable of certifying whether or not a Peer is a “member” in the narrow sense envisaged by the Act.

            In all other respects, however, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House and, as a legal opinion obtained on his behalf makes clear, he is fully entitled to say so, and continues freely to say so.

            It is not clear what benefit is thought to be gained by diverting the discussion on to personal attacks on Lord Monckton. The science in the head posting is entirely clear and readily replicable, and our review of the comments here discloses not one that in any way challenges the accuracy of his representation of the data. There has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration, and notwithstanding numerous predictions by various climate models that global warming of the atmosphere would continue. It has not continued, wherefore it is legitimate to conclude that the predictions made by the modelers were incorrect.

          • RealMrTea

            Energy and Environment is FULLY funded by Exxon Mobile and other Fissil Fuel companies… specifically to have a place to put the propaganda they pay people like Monckton to write….

            They have to create their own magazines, and events…. because nobody else takes them seriously, as the REAL scientists KNOW they are part of this dirty cabal of dark money….

            http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

            PS: The paper is “peer reviewed” and is from REAL scientists

          • monckton

            More anonymous allegations. Disregard them. Lord Monckton is not paid by anyone to write his distinguished contributions in the reviewed literature – including contributions to some of the oldest-established journals in the world.

            And what is the evidence that Energy and Environment is funded by any method other than the usual commercial methods?

          • RealMrTea

            “reviewed literature” Buah ha ha ha ha

            CONSTANTLY trying to sell up…..

            If “the usual commercial methods” means getting direct funding from Exxon Mobile…. Then we are in agreement….. If you disagree with that…you are wrong…..

            HERE is the REAL Monckton….
            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            It is REALLY funny to watch you try and pump up “the Monckton” and then actually read the truth….

            It is an illustrative exercise on what “propoganda” is.. and how it is used….

          • monckton

            Since legal proceedings are in contemplation, further libels from this commenter will be ignored. Readers will note that the commenter has been unwilling throughout to reveal his or her identity, inferentially for fear of legal proceedings, indicating plainly that the commenter knows his or her libels to be in substance false.

          • RealMrTea

            Buahhhh ha ha ha ha ha ….. Ooooohhhhh Threats……. I am QUAKING…..

            ROFL!!!!! LOL!!!!! Oh my side hurts…. Ohhh stop….. Please…… I can;t breath…..

            Tt is absolutely HILLARIOUS to watch you talk to yourself and make believe you can command people on the Internet……

            Buah ha ha ha ha ha….. Ow….there goes my side ache again….LOL! Ow…

            Here is the real Monckton…… as compiled by various climate scientists….

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

          • cunudiun

            You got too close to a nerve and got the full paid climate commie troll ad hominem response. So-called “Monckton” has nothing else in his arsenal.

          • RealMrTea

            It reminds me of fishing… and hitting the fish on the head…. They REALLY flop around for a while when you do that….. Just like “The Monckton” :)

          • cunudiun

            Except fish are more pleasant.

          • RealMrTea

            And honest…. :)

          • RealMrTea

            You would think that “the Monckton” would have used up his entire lifetime allotment of the words.. “climate communist”…. LOL!!!

          • CB

            I think we should start calling each other that…

            What’s up, my Climate Communist?

            …really rolls of the tongue, doesn’t it?

            ;p

          • RealMrTea

            LOL!! “Climate Comrades”?

            I guess when you have so far right you are on a different planet (like Mockton) EVERYTHING else looks “left” :)

          • CB

            Da! Ochin Khoroshov!

            Both real Monckton and fake Monckton are neither right nor left, they’re up in space somewhere. Cuckoo!!!

          • RealMrTea

            Yes. And that’s understated. I swear one (or both) of them is going to bring up reptile aliens, as “keepers of the temperarure” Not allowing climate change…. No matter what his Coal buddies do :).

            Whacked? Sure…. But I wouldn’t put it past em…

          • Robert

            “..Moerner (2011)..”

            Maybe you meant (Mörner 2004)

            or did you mean his article in The Spectator Rising Credulity>/i> (3-12-2011) ?

          • monckton

            No, I meant Sea Level Is Not Rising, published by the Centre for Democracy and Independence, London, and with a foreword by a learned Viscount.

          • RealMrTea

            How about the the tide gauges….

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html….

            They show the same trend (accelerated rise) as the satellite data….

            PS: Monckton is a paid climate misinformer…. with a LONG “rap sheet”

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • monckton

            See the tide-gauge analyses by Moerner (2011, 2014) and Purkey (2014) for an indication that the tide-gauges show no acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. Besides, since the atmosphere – on all measures – has not been warming for a decade and a half, it is Nature and not Man that is causing any sea-level rise that may be occurring. For global warming arises almost entirely from our emissions to the atmosphere. If the oceans are warming, and it is a big “if” for the methods of measurement are not sufficiently resolved to provide a reliable indication, then perhaps it is increased subsea volcanic activity that is the cause. No one knows for sure what the cause is (assuming that the rate of sea-level is indeed, as “RealMrTea” is paid to suggest to us, rising faster than it was in 1900). But everyone knows for sure what the cause isn’t. It isn’t Man, because the atmosphere has not warmed while the ocean (if “RealMrTea” is correct, and that is a big “if”) has.

          • RealMrTea

            And there you go…. Cherry picking again…. Instead of looking at all the data.. you insist on looking at a small subset that you think might eek out your position….

            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Both the LONG term….. and the SHORT term CSIRO data CLEARLY show BENDING curves… which shows accleration…..

            And they show the same trend in multiple places across the globe… including the US, the UK, and Greenland…

            No NEED to cherry pick data…. And the satellite data follows the tide gauge data almost pefrfectly…. (as can also be seen).

            As usual….all wet… and cherry picking….

          • monckton

            The CSIRO has been caught out bending data before, and it is not a peer-reviewed source. The ENVISAT and GRACE satellite data both show little or no sea-level rise in the past decade or so.

          • RealMrTea

            MORE BS from a BS machine….

            CSIRO has been ACCUSED by low lifes like you…. And NOTHING found…
            Just as others have been ACCUSED…. And NOTHING found…
            And ALL of them have been absolved…. ALL the “scandal” BS is just that BS…. That you just “hope” sticks enough for people to “think” there might be a scandal.. When you dig beyond the Oil lobby bloggers…..NOTHING….

            YES…..IT IS STEAMING PILE OF BS…..

            From a master FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) thrower which is what you are… and what your job is….Muddy the waters….Obfuscate.,….Create doubt… Do ANYTHING….. as long as it delays the Oil and Gas companies from having to do anything….

            You disgust me….

            EVERYONE….READ ….THIS…….IT …SAYS….IT….ALL….
            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • Robert

            “A paper about to be published …”

            Interesting how so often the ‘soon to be published’ or ‘just released’ or ‘newest’ seems to be the best ‘anything but my tailpipe’ claim of evidence. Generally because once the paper is published, the discussion starts and those ‘anything but my tailpipe’ papers so often don’t hold water (though often some hot air).

            Two centuries of research; no substantive alternative hypotheses ………

          • monckton

            The substantive alternative hypothesis is that CO2 causes too little warming to be worth worrying about. So far, the evidence indicates that that hypothesis is correct. Svante Arrhenius, the first to attempt a detailed calculation of CO2’s warming effect, erred in his paper of 1896 by vastly exaggerating the warming effect of CO2. In a paper 10 years later he reversed himself – but the climate Communists cite only the first paper, suppressing the second.

          • Robert

            “…. he reversed himself …”

            Do tell, quotes and cites.

          • monckton

            In ahnlicher Weise berechne Ich, dass eine Verminderung des Kohlensauregehalts zur Haelfte oder eine Zunahme desselben auf den doppelten Betrag Temperaturaenderung von minus 1,5 bis plus 1,6 grad Celsius entsprechen wuerde.

            Svante Arrhenius, in Vol. 1 No. 2, Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, 1906.

          • Robert

            I don’t think that says what you think it says. Pretty typical….. cherrypicked quote…

            So maybe you should read the whole, not just copy paste what you were fed from the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blog.

          • monckton

            Read the paper before sneering about its contents.

          • Robert

            Interesting that you make an assumption / conclusion with nothing to support it

            You’d think that someone posting as ‘monckton’, ostensibly being the author of the article would be able to actually bring facts and data to support their claims. Not spend a lot of time name calling and throwing out attempted insults.

          • monckton

            Lord Monckton has already provided a reference to and a citation from the relevant scientific paper, as requested. The only fact that required to be established was that Dr Arrhenius had reversed himself ten years after his 1896 paper, reducing by two-thirds the central estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling (or halving) of CO2 concentration. That fact is established in the passage quoted.

          • Robert

            “…CO2 causes too little warming to be worth worrying about. So far, the evidence indicates that that hypothesis is correct.”

            Really? You’ll need a lot of evidence to dislodge the IPCC likely range. But knock yourself out. Show us how your selected list ‘disproves’ that.. Published analysis.

          • monckton

            See the head posting: there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration. Also, the rate of global warming is half what the IPCC predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990. Continuation of this discrepancy would indeed indicate that we had nothing to worry about, for the fertilization effect of the CO2 will far outweigh its warming effect (which, up to the 2 K maximum that I consider likely, would prove net-beneficial anyway).

          • Robert

            “… for the fertilization effect of the CO2..”

            Oh boy! A new meme!

            Now, best resources, full cite.

          • monckton

            If “Robert” spent less of its time in Marxo-Fascist trolling here, it could read the extensive literature on the well-understood CO2 fertilization effect for itself. I am disinclined to do its homework for it, since it merely sneers from behind its cowardly curtain of anonymity, and it has no interest at all in science, or in the hard work necessary to learn it. It has no publication track record in the reviewed literature. Let it start at http://www.co2science.org, where hundreds of relevant peer-reviewed papers are listed.

          • Robert

            “…extensive literature on the well-understood CO2 fertilization effect for itself. I am disinclined to do its homework for it…,”

            Sbasically a link to an ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blog.

            If there were anything substantive, the commenter would have bern quick to expound on the findings.

            Nice to see the continued use of “It”…., real sciencey…

          • monckton

            Since “Robert” continues to cower cravenly behind an undisclosed identity, it must stop whining at being described as “it”.

            It should stop whingeing here and go to co2science.org to learn about CO2 fertilization from the numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized and linked to at that site. Time to grow up.

          • Robert

            Thanks for acknowledging that ‘monckton’ has no real data to bring. No bibliography, no list of publications -peer reviewed or not – no substantive analysis, no meta analysis.

            Just a continued blathering about “it”.

            So, no data and name-calling. And from someone who seems to represent themselves as the author of the article. Interesting…….

          • monckton

            The list of publications is at http://www.co2science.org. Lord Monckton has already pointed out that source to “Robert”.

          • Robert

            Kinda funny that your source relies heavily on one study. And that study doesn’t look at the nutritional level of the harvest; just the size of the whole plant…….

            So the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blog misinterprets, willfully, the science in an effort to provide its sycophants with a talking point.

            Which our poster, the “Lord Monckton ( http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1679032911 , http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1678977915, etc )” seems quite willing to carry water for.

            Cherrypicked data as the only support for the original article, misinterpreted data in “Lord Monckton” ‘s comments, namecalling, insulting, avoiding substantive responses, redefining words used in common science, ………

          • Robert

            ” it must stop whining at being described as “it”. “

          • Robert

            ” stop whingeing here and go to co2science.org to learn about CO2 fertilization from the numerous peer-reviewed papers summarized…”

            Your search result for: ‘co2 fertilization ‘

            Sorry, no hits.

          • Robert

            “.. Marxo-Fascist trolling…”

          • monckton

            … and this is “Robert’s” scientific response to a scientific argument?

          • Robert

            No, that’s why it is in quote marks. Basic English.

          • RealMrTea

            The climate fascist Monckton… continmnually calls anyone that doesn’t buy his load of BS a “paid climate communist”

            When in reality… he cherry picks data, exaggerates constantly (including his credentials) which are minimal, and in journalism….. and generally makes things up to obfuscate the clear reality….

            This is reality….

            RECORD Current Temperatures: (AGAIN)
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            IN SPITE OF Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            GIVING US LONG TERM Rising Temperatures:

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            AND LONG TERM Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            WHICH CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED Without THIS:
            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            AND in context, CO2 has not been this high in at LEAST 400,000 years…
            https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            Which resulted in a VERY STARK warning (and rightly so) from the IPCC

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

            And still… The Monckton blows more smoke than a coal fired power plant…..

            Monckton is a fraud….
            ———–

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
            ~Albert Einstein~

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea”, having no arguments worth repeating, merely repeats itself.

          • RealMrTea

            Monckton… being caught red handed misrepresenting and exaggerating data…..

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            Lashes out at those who let the public know who he REALLY is… LOL!!!

          • monckton

            More childish yah-boo. More failures to produce a single piece of scientific evidence or argument against the head posting, which plainly shows no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

          • RealMrTea

            I did that a LONG time ago Now I am just havig fun showing people who you are.,…

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            But OK….. Here it is straight from NOAA and NASA…..

            “The HOTTEST 12 months in recorded history”

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            Don;t tell me…. YOU have done calculations… and all these poeple are wrong…. Am I close????

            BUA ha haha hahahahah I think I have heard tthat before…..

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

          • Robert

            “The substantive alternative hypothesis is that CO2 causes too little warming to be worth worrying about. So far, the evidence indicates that that hypothesis is correct.”

            OK, the popcorn is ready; Will ” Lord Monkcton (http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/03/its-official-global-warming-pause-or-standstill-extends-to-over-18-years-pause-has-endured-for-a-little-over-half-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comment-1678977915 ) ” point to the resources ?

          • Robert

            “..climate-Communist agencies such as NOAA..”

          • monckton

            Purkey et al. (2014) has been accepted for publication. It has, therefore, passed peer review. As with any paper, on publication it will become subject to the usual scrutiny from scientists worldwide. It has, however, some evidential value in that it has survived peer review. If the climate Communists were a little less willing to sneer at all evidence that has fatally discredited the Party Line, and a little more willing to think, listen and learn rather than shrieking and gnashing their National Health dentures as their pet theory collapses in response to the failure of the planet to warm at even half the predicted rate over the past quarter of a century – well, they would not be climate Communists.

          • Robert

            “.. paid climate-Communist troll..”

          • Robert

            “childish climate-Communist trolls. “

          • Robert

            “…waste trillions on the climate nonsense.”

  • RealMrTea
    • zlop

      “CBS Propagates Climate LIE! (No Agenda 5/20/12) ” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI0OouprbxA

      “No Agenda – Investigating climate change’s 97% agree claims” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yMetc4ZBjk

      114 out of 117 (97%) climate models were wrong.

    • monckton

      One scientific paper tells the story: Monckton of Brenchley (2014), in Energy and Environment

      • RealMrTea

        ROFL!!!…. One link tells the story of Monckton of Benchly….

        http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/#comment-27052

        • monckton

          Meanwhile, the data speak for themselves. I merely report them accurately, as “RealMrTea” would be able to check for itself if it had any competence whatsoever in mathematics, climate science, meteorology, or statistics. Regrettably, all it can do, as a paid climate-Communist troll, is parrot the Party Line. The childish Bickmore will be dealt with firmly via the libel courts in due course, when I have the time to lodge the next batch of libel claims.

          • RealMrTea

            LOL… Libel courts ROFL!!! You can’t be libelous if you are telling the truth…..

            PLEASE… by all means… keep us updated on this “court case”. When y=do you plan to sue? Please provide us a docket # as SOON as the case is sumbitted…..

            Until then, you are doing what you always do… Blowing smoke….

            I have degrees in physics, electronics, and computer science… I can assure you I know my science….

            It is YOU that is mispreprenting data…

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

          • monckton

            “RealMrTea” has no degrees at all, or it would have been able to cite authoritative sources, not climate-Communist blogs. It has never had a paper on climate published in a reviewed journal. It is paid to try to disrupt threads such as this. However, the data are plain: there has been no global warming for more than 18 years, and there is not likely to be anything like as much warming in the coming decades as the Party Line had predicted.

          • RealMrTea

            If “the Monckton” had bothered to read the posts that I have made, he would knpw I have dgrees in physics, electronic technology, and computer science…. and work in developing and engineering control systems……..which is the ONLY way I get paid (unlike Monckton the gets paid by Fossil Fuel lobbyists)

            My education FAR surpasses “The Monckton”…. who’s only education is is journalism…. He likes to call himself an “expert” in climate change because his Fossil Fuel funded think tanks (like the Heartland Institute) “say” he is…

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

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

            “The Monckton” has created quite a name for himself as a FRAUD…. a CHARLATN and a LOONEY….

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

            PS: You never did answer the VERY straighf forward question:

            Have you, or any entity you control ever revieved money from the Heartland Institrute?

            PPS: Still waiting on the “lawsuit”. Here is a hint… You will not win a lawsuit because somebody tol the truth about you…. I can however point out that you are “blowing smoke” about it….

            Bring it on!!! Come on!!

          • monckton

            I am not paid by anyone, unlike the paid climate Communist “RealMrTea”, that hopes it will blacken my reputation by citing various climate-Communist websites. However, the personal attacks that it and other cowards that do not publish under their own names make are an advertisement of the fact that the climate Communists have no answer to the embarrassing fact that the world has warmed – on any measure – at half the rate predicted with “substantial” confidence by IPeCaC in its First ASSessment Report in 1990, and has not warmed at all for the best part of two decades, notwithstanding record rises in CO2 concentration,

            Let us do some science, and stick to the point of the head posting, unlike the paid climate Communist “RealMrTea”, who lays claim to various degrees it does not have and is too much of a coward to tell us its name, and far too much of a coward to admit it has never had anything published after peer review in any journal of climate science.

            Some 26 pretexts for the Great Pause in global warming appear in the reviewed literature, with about as many more pretexts offered by various climate Communists elsewhere. Of these pretexts one of the most popular was the notion that ocean heat content was increasing dramatically – until it became apparent that the increase in ocean heat content was so minuscule as to represent a tiny fraction of existing ocean heat content, and might raise global temperature by 0.05 K, if that. In any event, the ocean notion was roundly dismissed by a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It was implausible a priori, since the ocean is intimately coupled with the atmosphere not only by contiguity but also by processes such as tropical afternoon convection and subsidence, and evaporation and condensation, and cyclonic mixing, and Hadley-cell circulation, to name but a few.

            From these considerations it follows that, since the ocean is three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere, any significant warming of the ocean will also warm the atmosphere – which, embarrassingly, has failed to warm for approaching two decades. Accordingly, the increasingly desperate claims of the climate Communists that the ocean must be warming at the fanciful rates predicted by the models and published by rent-seeking agencies such as NOAA are manifestly false: indeed, this is perhaps the most significant reason why the Great Pause is itself of such great significance. For it calls into question the very notion of a supposed “energy balance” that has been supposedly “perturbed” by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

            But let us be kind to the climate Communists. The ocean-atmosphere system is by its nature homeostatic and, in particular, thermostatic. That is why the variance in global mean surface temperature over the past 810,000 years is thought to have been little more than 1% in absolute terms (Jouzel et al,., 2007). Therefore, our altering only 1 part in 10,000 of the composition of the atmosphere over two and a half centuries has proven incapable of altering the planet’s temperature by very much: for the atmosphere in which the warming is supposed to take place is sandwiched between two near-infinite heat-sinks – the ocean and outer space.

            Furthermore, at all points below the upper troposphere the principal absorption wavebands of CO2 are already overlain by those of CO2. Therefore, it is only in the upper atmosphere, where subsidence drying occurs (see Paltridge, 2009, for a discussion), that CO2 can even in theory cause detectable warming. However, a quick look at the American Standard Atmosphere will reveal that the density of the atmosphere in the upper troposphere is a small fraction of the density at the surface, so not much in the way of global warming can occur there either, and much of it would pass harmlessly to space in any event. This altitudinal asymmetry in the atmospheric response to CO2 enrichment is one of the many reasons why the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing – already slashed by 15% in Myhre et al. (1998) after intercomparison between three models – is now being called into question again. It may be smaller, and perhaps an order of magnitude smaller, than is now estimated. The consequences for climate sensitivity are self-evident.

            Even if – per impossibile – the CO2 forcing were correct, it is also self-evident that IPeCaC’s original estimates of the various feedbacks were much exaggerated: see AR5 for a reduction in the central estimate of the net-positive feedback from 2 to 1.5 Watts per square meter per Kelvin. This reduction causes a corresponding reduction in IPeCaC’s central climate-sensitivity estimate from 3.3 to 2.2 K: however, IPeCaC is also a rent-seeking body and cannot be seen to admit that it has previously overstated its central estimate of climate sensitivity by half. So it has simply refused, in its latest multi-thousand-page document, to give any central estimate of climate sensitivity at all – though that, of course, was and is the main purpose of IPeCaC’s climate assessment reports.

            In practice, there is growing evidence that temperature feedbacks, far from being net-positive in any degree, are somewhat net-negative. Take that consideration together with what increasingly appears to have been an overestimate of the CO2 forcing and one is left with a possibility – no less plausible than the 2.2 K climate sensitivity implicit in AR5 – that climate sensitivity is well below 1 K and may even be below 0.5 K, as Fred Singer thinks. If so, then we need not worry about global warming at all. In any event, we need not worry about it unless and until its rate compared with 1990 comes rather closer than halfway towards IPeCaC’s then prediction.

          • RealMrTea

            “The Monckton” is a paid hack that masquerades as a scientist, when in reality is a fraud with no creddentials and “science” (term used extremely looslely) that is even worse….

            It would be quite impossible for me to darken “the Monckton’s” reputation and further than he has done himself….As he has proven to the world, time and time again that he is a FRAUD, a CHARLATAN, and a HUCKSTER……

            According to the reacords of the IRS records of Heartland Institute…. “The Monckton” recieved money DIRECTLY from them…. Which makes him also a liar…. but nobody should be surprised at that, as it isn’t the first time he has been caught…

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/01/monckton-myths/#comments

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

            Meanwhile… the REAL climate scientiists continue to monitor the status of the climate, and are seeing rapid change….

            Record Current Temperature:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/20/climate_change_records_the_earth_just_had_the_warmest_12_month_period_recorded.html

            During Reduced Solar Output:
            http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/sunspot-1900-2012.gif

            With Longterm Rising Temperatures:
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

            And Rising Seas:
            http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

            Notice the STEEPENING curve in both of the last two graphs as time goes on….. That illustrates ACCELERATION of the trend.

            Which gives us THIS…

            And the Obvious Culprit is THIS…

            http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            And is giving us the most RAPID CIMATE CHANGE IN 65 MILLION YEARS

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

            And the worlds VAST MAJORITY of REAL climate scientists have a concensus of 97% (which is equivilant to the agreement on evolution) and though “The Monckton” also denies this, the data is now a “peer reviewed” and published report

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

            All of this information is irrefutable…. And the result is “the Monckton” starts callling people like me (that point out this now obvious data) “communists” and other childish names, while making silly accusations that he has ZERO information to back up….

            And of course he posts (not links) some preposterous bit of made up or cherry picked garbage data……

            Over… and….. Over…..

            Luckily… the entire world is beinning to laugh at hiom as he is repeatedly caught being WRONG….

          • monckton

            … and your scientific point is?

          • RealMrTea

            My scientific point is that your lack of education in climate science (or any science) along with you VERY poor record of, exaggerating your credentials, exaggerating climate data, cherry picking data, making up data, and generally being WRONG on your “science…..

            Makes you about the last person on eatrth people should be listening to when it comes to climate science…

            Clear?

            http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

            PS: I am sure you saw that the AR5 synthesis report is now out……

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

            It is likely to much “data” for you to get through…And far to much truth for you to bare… So here is a nice summary of the report in the New Yoirk Times…..

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

          • monckton

            Don’t be childishly repetitive. If you are unable to produce a scientific argument, don’t advertise your feeble-mindedness by continuing to refer almost exclusively to non-reviewed and questionable sources such as IPeCaC, which are a scientific laughing-stock.

          • RealMrTea

            That is funny.,.. You righting “what is you scientific point” 12 times in a row…. and accusing ME of being repetitive…. TYPICAL MONCKTON….

            Let’s’be CLEAR… YOU are a FRAUD. YOU are NO scientist. YOU have NO authority… and YOU have ZERO credibility… with ANY credible science organization… The ONLY people that listen to YOU…are thos ethat are SO DESPERATE… that the will take ANYONE, as londg as they are singing the OIL/GAS party line….

            Are we CLEAR now Monckton?

            SO…Your dismisssal of the IPCC and the AR5 report only shows that you reject legitimate science..THAT IS ALL….

            None the less.. The IPCC represents the world’s REAL climate scientists, and the repoirts they produce (now the 5th revision) are the difinitive state of the climate report worldwide….PERIOD….

            The reason you make fun of them and it (as if you were 7 years old) is becuase you KNOW it is the standard… and you KNOW it shows you to be a liar…. And becuase it is comprehensive it blows all your bogus BS stories out of the water….

            And so… you try to “shoot the messenger” so that somebody.. somewhere… “might” discount it….so you can pass on your baseless, factless, anecdotal drivel….

            THESE is the AR5 reports….http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ And they have the current difinitive “state of the science” information on climate change…PERIOD.

            The synthesis report is a sunnary and a set of findings from the other three reprts, which makes it the report to read if you only have the time for one of them….

            If you have less time than that… You can read one of the many summary articles in all MAJOR news outlets. Here is one from the New York Times…

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/europe/global-warming-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change.html?_r=1

          • monckton

            Since legal proceedings are in contemplation, further libels from this commenter will be ignored. Readers will note that the commenter has been unwilling throughout to reveal his or her identity, inferentially for fear of legal proceedings, indicating plainly that the commenter knows his or her libels to be, in substance, false.

          • RealMrTea

            You have been in “contemplation for about 12 posts now…… Any idea when you will be done? (snicker)…… I do have work to do….

            Most of us aren’t paid climate propagandist s you know…….

  • Tabludama

    Is the satellite data the same as the surface data? Isnt the warming of Earth at its surface more significant that the lack of warming in the atmosphere above 4000 feet elevation? What about the claims that the earth is warming at its surface with global maps showing the anomalies?

    The satellite data is impressive in its own right but we live on the surface not in the atmosphere.

    • monckton

      Unfortunately the greatest uncertainty in the surface-temperature datasets is the alterations made by the profiteers of doom who tamper endlessly and always upwardly with the scientific data. The satellite datasets are a lot more tamper-proof and, for this reason, more reliable.

      Until recently, the satellite and terrestrial datasets have shown roughly the same rates of warming over recent decades. Howeer, the recent (inevitably upward) revisions of the warming rates in all three terrestrial datasets, combined with the forthcoming (honestly downward) revision of the UAH satellite dataset, will soon demonstrate an ever-widening margin between the trend taken as the mean of the satellite datasets and the trend taken as the mean of the terrestrial datasets, with the latter increasingly representing pure fiction.

  • Robert

    I don’t know how many words it took to ‘prove’ to the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ sycophants that there’s nothing to worry about, but it takes a lot less to show what happens when the entire argument is based on the intellectually dishonest practice of cherrypicking – selecting data to fit, and eliminating data that doesn’t, to a pre-conceived conclusion.

    “If 2014 breaks the record for hottest year, that also should sound familiar: 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 all broke NOAA records for the hottest years since records started being kept in 1880.

    “This is one of many indicators that climate change has not stopped and that it continues to be one of the most important issues facing humanity,” said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.

    Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but “no one’s told the globe that,” Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.

    The record-breaking heat goes back to the end of last year — November 2013 broke a record. So the 12 months from October 2013 to September 2014 are the hottest 12-month period on record, Blunden said. Earth hasn’t set a monthly record for cold since December 1916, but all monthly heat record have been set after 1997.

    September also marks the fifth month in a row that Earth’s oceans broke monthly heat records, Blunden said.”

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/079ed0ae0f5049019ea25d8e1897c81e/another-month-another-global-heat-record-broken

  • Robert

    If poster monckton or the author of this article would rather discuss why the only data set used here was picked, we could go forward on that.

    Poster monckton’s choice was to use derogatory language instead of discussing the cherrypicking.

    Pointing out poster monckton’s language choices and discussion techniques doesn’t more the conversation forward. And it seems poster monckton wants to continue the attempts at insulting and namecalling. Why, other than there is a paucity of resources supporting your claims, would be for poster monckton to say.

    “…but I am not permitted to say that they are dopey, cowardly, craven, bogus, creepy, paid climate-Communist trolls, even though that is exactly how they are behaving? They can come to no harm fro[sic] what I call them,…”

    “.. fro[sic] what I call them,…”

    A tacit admission that poster monckton is “…attacking the opponent personally……”

    As poster monckton said,

    “Right: let’s try again. Now, I was taught that if one is discussing a scientific argument advanced by an opponent, attacking the opponent personally rather than addressing his argument is a white flag of abject surrender to the opponent.”

    http://www.thinkorswim.ie/index.php/its-not-fair-i-can-prove-im-better-than-bod/#comment-1268566534

    • zlop

      Monckton is a gate-keeping Luke Warmer, states 1.2°C for CO2 doubling. Warmers are insulting each other.

      Is he a MI7 agent dispatched by the Rothschild Carbon Bankers, to protect the $92 Trillion Carbon Disclosure Project?

      • monckton

        In reply to the postings by “Robert” and “zlop”, one cannot be legitimately accused of attacking “personally” those who do not have the guts to admit who they are. And I do not state 1.2 K for CO2 doubling: I state that if one uses IPCC’s method of determining climate sensitivity the warming at CO2 doubling is 1.2 K. It is, however, possible that the CO2 radiative forcing has been exaggerated and that temperature feedbacks, particularly over the short term, are net-negative, in which case – although some warming may result – there could be warming of less than 1 K. For a discussion, see Monckton of Brenchley (2008), in which the conclusion is that the warming in response to a CO2 doubling is likely to be less than 1 K.

        • zlop

          “those who do not have the guts to admit who they are”

          Admittedly, zlop is a nobody. Like Russel Brand and Piers Morgan, Christopher Monckton is a publicly promoted figure. “Monckton parachutes into Durban Climate”

          “warming in response to a CO2 doubling is likely to be less than 1 K”

          From clear sky calculation and assuming unchanged surface pressure, Ferenc Miskolczi calculated 0.23°K, but believed, if other factors are taken into consideration, no change in average surface temperature.

          Recent thinking is that greenhouse gases cool. “Greenhouse gases cool planets: Volcanos warm them | Tallbloke” — “Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth! .. Nasif Nahle”

  • BruceMWilliams

    I can’t believe this crap still gets published. Look closely at the first graph. It shows delta T, not T. For those of you that don’t know what delta means, it is change over a given time period. What the graph actually shows is that the average annual increase has been about 0.23 deg. C for the last 18 years. Only a high school dropout should be fooled by this crap.

  • BruceMWilliams

    This article would not pass a grad school science class in any reputable university. So much fudge I don’t know where to begin. For starters, Figure 1 shows delta T, not T, so the conclusions are completely wrong. It actually shows an average warming gradient. Fig. 2 doesn’t include uncertainty bands on the models, so you can’t say we’re outside the predictive capacity of models. I could go on….

  • RealMrTea

    I just found this video at NBC News that describes Monckton’s MO PERFECTLY!!!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nbcnews-com/its-getting-hot-in-here-climate-change-myths-debunked-332179011748

    I think he uses EVERY ONE of these debunked myths….

  • Robert

    1. Observed Changes and their Causes

    Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. {1}

    1.1 Observed changes in the climate system

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}

    Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

    CLIMATE CHANGE 2014

    SYNTHESIS REPORT

    Approved Summary for Policymakers

    1 November 2014

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf

  • cunudiun

    Here is the full RSS data set going back to 1979. It’s obvious that for your entire “No global warming” period, the temperature has surged far ahead of the trend it was on pre-1998. In fact, the average temperature of this period, represented by the horizontal line, is so warm it would not have been reached until about 2020 without this surge. This entire period should be known as a surge rather than pause.

    See also
    Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

  • Bruce Crockett

    To Robert, CB, Icarus62, Michael Stone, RealMrTea, cunudium, etc, etc. Please take a look at the following graphs taken directly from ARGO data. Your scary, catastrophic joules, mega joules, zeta joules OHC graphs from Skeptical Science amounts to………..well, nothing, nada, zip….2/3’s of 5/8’s of FA!

    0m-700m, Sept 2004 – Sept 2014 = <0.05c

    http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/ArgoSept04-14_0-700m_zps15fbe803.jpg

    700m-1900m, Sept 2004 – Sept 2014 = <0.02c

    http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/ArgoSept04-14_700-1900m_zps9f67a940.jpg

    If you like, I can also do these graphs using Reynolds SST.

    Oh…..before you rant on about 'cherry picking' my start date, ARGO didn't 'reliably' start to measure sea temperatures until 2004……so if you have a problem with the above graphs, take it up with ARGO…not me.

  • Philip Shehan

    How can the pause be “offical” when it is based on the trend for one temperature data set, and without consideration of the error margins?

    Here is the graph for RSS and UAH satellite data the 18 years and one month from the beginning of September 1996 to the end of September 2014.

    http://tinyurl.com/oqfj387

    The trends according to Kevin Cowtan’s algorithm are

    UAH: Trend: 0.102 ±0.183 °C/decade (2σ)

    RSS: Trend: -0.001 ±0.180 °C/decade (2σ)

    Note however that at the 95% confidence level, the trend for UAH data is somewhere between a warming trend of 0.285 and a cooling trend of 0.081°C/decade.

    The RSS trend is between warming of 0.179 and cooling of 0.181°C/decade.

    You can drive a bus between the error margins for wither data set.

    Furthermore, as the margins overlap between 0.179 and -0.081 °C/decade, they are in statistical agreement.

    There is no basis to conclude that there is statistically significant evidence for a pause, “official” or otherwise, or even non-statistically significant evidence given that the zero slope is specific to the RSS data.

    Kevin Cowtan’s algorithm:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

  • johnny

    after debating this issue for a long time with alarmists or whatever you call them..It will always comes to this after all of their arguments are debunked. air temperature hasn’t risen since 1998..ocean temperature hasn’t risen since 2003 when they started measuring correctly…then there was a calibration error that suddenly made the ocean temps start to creep up just a tiny bit after 6 years of no rise…some alarmists don’t even buy this bs…so what they are left with is sea level is rising and somehow now that is the only valid proxy for global warming. air and sea temperature mean nothing for 18 years. ” Sea level will not rise without anthropogenic global warming”. I have heard alarmists say this. That is a lie. Most scientists know that sea level has been rising since the last ice age and has been rising slowly but steady through this century. So they will not refute their religion unless sea level rise completely reverses. That is now the level of absurdity they are at.

  • hadenough48

    I would like to see the names of all GOREBULL WARMINGS scientist who got grant money to push the carbon trading scheme that is still going on. Hussien Obama is still pushing this for the gangsters in gangsterment. Name them and shame them. Flood the red schools of so called journalism as well as all the lying main stream journalist with the list of all the frauds and how they fake the data.

  • Dirk Galisson

    in any law school you will learn about logical reasoning. there is a very basic logical reasoning flaw called ” Appeal to Closure”

    any first year law student knows what that is. they can also see that this is the perfect description of the climate change debate..or lack there of

  • ROBERTSTENECK

    https://books.google.com/books? THE 4 QUARM id=S7s4AQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA613&ots=X3F765KK7w&dq=THE%204%20QUARM%20IN%20HEALM&pg=PA316&zoom=1&img=1&w=98https://books.google.com/books?id=S7s4AQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA613&ots=X3F765KK7w&dq=THE%204%20QUARM%20IN%20HEALM&pg=PA316&zoom=1&img=1&w=98