I must admit I was wrong about Lord Monckton. I thought his speaking tour of New Zealand, which started on April Fools day, would be a huge yawn. Local climate scientists have learned that debating the man may be a huge plus for Monckton’s CV, but it was a negative for their own. So what interest could there be in a speaking tour where the audiences were basically fellow climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and extreme political libertarians – all singing from the same hymn sheet.
After all, even his own publicity makes clear that his message is political, not scientific. That he is here to tell us all about the international conspiracy of greenies, fascists, communists, capitalists, imperialists and the United Nations to impose a single world government, put us in concentration camps, etc. Those horrible climate scientists are only a small part of Monckton’s international conspiracy.
But I should have learned from Monckton’s Australian tour. His antics there managed to keep his name in the public eye – and give Australians something to laugh at. He threatened climate scientists with court action and called prominent Australians Nazis!
Well, he seems set to do the same for us. He’s only been here a few days and he is threatening (“in the first instance”) a complaint to the New Zealand Press Council (yes he is not happy with the way his beliefs are reported). He expects the press Council to investigate not only a recent Herald article about his tour but also “whether the Herald has given balanced coverage to both sides of the debate on the climate, having regard not only to the present article but to its previous record of publication on the climate “science” issue.” He expects (or demands) a lot, doesn’t he?
Monckton also promises to invite “authorities in the United Kingdom to remove the name of one of [our] universities . . .from the list of academic institutions whose degrees are recognized in Britain.” No, he is not happy with what our climate scientists tell us about their findings (or indeed the findings themselves), or what they think of his scientific credibility. So we are all going to be punished.
It’s enough to make us shiver in our boots – he must be such a powerful man. Our scientist’s degrees won’t be recognised in the UK in future.
I think we are shivering – but out of laughter, not fear.
The man is certainly good for a laugh. I look forward to more of this humour as his speaking tour, and threats against our media, scientists and educational institutes, progresses over the next few weeks.
Monckton is hardly ever seen and rarely mentioned in the UK. Even the climate fake sceptics find him embarrassing. I guess it’s because he’s associated with an oddball, right-wing, anti-Europe party. Just ignore him and he’ll go away. He’s only coming over there to visit you because of the attention you give him.
Yes, John, I guess Monckton is so discredited in his own homeland he has to spend the Northern winter down here. This produces a silly (for him) situation where he is attempting to mobilise local climate change deniers while we have been suffering a country-wide drought and record summer temperatures. meanwhile ha can’t take advantage of the record cold winters in the UK!
He is actually basically ignored down here too – probably why he is indulging in these sort of tricks to get the publicity he can’t get legitimately.
Ken, instead of doggedly clinging to your climate denier ways, how about looking for another barrow to push before you become NZ’s ultimate science-groupie embarrassment? (If it isn’t too late already).
Theoretically, yes.
The difference is that climate alarmists are in imminent danger of embarrassment (model failure, shenanigans discovered, global cooling).
In contrast, creationism and other ‘origins’ hypotheses aren’t ultimately scientifically provable – so we can both continue with our chosen ‘faith’ for the foreseeable future.
However, you give away the motivation by admitting you rely on your chosen faith. Scientists rely on evidence and reason to draw the best inference. An inference which can change with time and more data.
The key point – it’s no skin off my nose if there is a god, raven, taniwha or whatever designing and making animals. I will happily accept that if the evidence and reason supports it. But the current fact is that it doesn’t. We have an excellent understanding of how life evolves and this explanation just seems to get better with every passing day.
I don’t rely on faith.
As for models failing – that happens all the time to some degree or other. That’s why science is continually improving models, and the computers which run them.
Shenanigans – always a problem but we seem to have far less of them in the science community than the faith community. They usually are found out, and disciplined in the end. In contrast to the faith community we don’t rally around to defend such people in science. We expose and get rid of them.
Global cooling – well if that occurs it will be the scientists who demonstrate it. We currently understand a number of mechanisms, both natural and man made which could do that. We think that in the verylong term it will actually be a problem because of removal of CO2 from the planet’s surface pools.
Monckton appeared on a talk show here in Ireland a few years ago in a segment devoted to “fringe” beliefs. The other person interviewed was a 9/11 “truther”.
Even the political party of which he was supposed to be Deputy Leader (the anti-EU anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party) is giving him a wide berth.
It is amusing to watch the adulation he seems to attract in the USA, NZ & Australia. One suspects he is stopping to more and more outrageous tactics as his audiences diminish. In the US he has joined the Tea Party “birther circuit” claiming he has proof of the President’s Kenyan birth. And did you know about his claims of a cure for cancer? And his one-time call for AIDs sufferers to be segregrated from the healthy population?
Monckton is a gift that keeps on giving.
I am pleased that Moncton has come to NZ to expose the global warming religion cranks for the hoax they are. Even the biased UK Met service have admitted that there has been no warming for the past 16 years
Copie, you need to read my article Climate change is not simple. That will help you understand the issue of so-called “no warming for the past 16 years.”
That is if you can be objective about the issue. You seem to have some extreme interpretations. Which may be why you welcome Mad Monckton because his basic purpose here is to push a very extreme political line.
Hot weather – Global warming, Cold. Weather- Global warming, wet weather- Global warming, Dry weather – Global warming
It is all a sham, designed to make money for Al Gore and his carbon trading buddies.
Where he walked out on the interview after just a little bit of questioning about his “hitler youth” incidents in Copenhagen. Here’s a quote:
“He had got the huff and walked out of the interview. It is very difficult to walk out on an interview when the only place you have to walk out of is the living room in the house where you are staying and into the kitchen where the person you are walking out on has to follow you to get to the front door.”
“He had got the huff and walked out of the interview. It is very difficult to walk out on an interview when the only place you have to walk out of is the living room in the house where you are staying and into the kitchen where the person you are walking out on has to follow you to get to the front door.”
What a fantastic scene for a comedy sketch. So very Mitchell & Webb.
Actually, Monckton’s recent tour of Australia was a complete bomb. He seems to be stuck in a self-defeating spiral. The media only give him attention for saying extreme things, and as his profile diminishes it forces his position to be more and more extreme. As the author correctly noted, it’s no longer a scientific presentation. He’s now preaching against “Agenda 21”, a non-binding agreement that’s achieved little in 20 years.
As he becomes more outlandish, the media tune out, forcing him to become more extreme. This is where the toothless and, frankly, pathetic threats against scientists and institutions come into play.
Here in Australia Monckton launched his tour by attacking a Tasmanian scientist, threatening to jail all climate scientists for fraud (with the help of an unnamed policeman friend) and helping launch fringe anti-Muslim nationalist, right-wing parties. Upon his leaving these scientists remained distressingly free to roam the streets, researching with impunity while Rise Up Australia, presided over by a man who claims to raise the dead, has failed to take the nation by storm.
It’ll get to the point during his next visit that he’ll be trying to crash Gillard’s press conferences dressed as Hitler and even his only current Australian supporter Jo Nova will be quietly backing away.
He didn’t deal well with questions at the talk either. The audience got to ask two questions, both critical of his talk, after which we were ordered out of the theatre on the grounds that they’d get in trouble if we stayed past 9pm.
Having promised there would be an opportunity to ask questions at the end, I don’t imagine this left a very good impression on people, especially after sitting through a one hour, 45 minute talk which opened with the assertion that Agenda 21 was a UN plot to have their lackeys in local government herd us all into concentration camps and sterilise us with vaccines.
You know guys, you make me laugh! They are telling us that global warming is real, and we should be scared. well, we are, I was, the drastic measures the government is introducing are progressive. The aim is to drastically reduce forms of energy for the Country and people will be impoverished by that. You won’t be even able to write in your blogs because you will not have the money at the end of the month to pay for your internet connection. It would all be for good if the global scare was real but is it really? Wouldn’t Monckton represent some kind of hope worth checking before criticising him and the dozens of scientists who agree with him? that’s what I did; I went and look for data, I listened to many other climate scientists and I was cheered up by the findings.
how many researches have you done to check out the facts for yourself? Every week there is a segment dedicated to the disasters caused by global warming in tv; have you healed anyone declaring the exact opposite? No debate has ever been allowed pubblicly? If they are so certain about their theories, then why the opposite opinion is not being heard?
unfortunately you are still asleep, the left parties have always been in history against development and the capital and the good things that money can do gor people. Do you hate Australia so much? iand
They are telling us that global warming is real, and we should be scared.
Yes. Yes they are.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
That’s the “they” you are referring to.
…the drastic measures the government…
Vague, unsubstantiated claims of “drastic” measures by mystery “governments” fail to impress.
Besides, it’s go nothing to do with the science.
Claiming that the cancer treatment is “drastic” does not make the cancer magically go away. You are making an Argument from Consequence.
Reality does not care about your inconvenience.
Reality just is.
It would all be for good if the global scare was real but is it really?
According to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
You can ignore them and the decades of work that they have done in reaching their conclusions if you want but it would make you look very foolish.
Wouldn’t Monckton represent some kind of hope worth checking before criticising him and the dozens of scientists who agree with him?
Hope?
Hope all you like. Go with your gut. Let your feelings guide you. If you don’t want something to be real then click you red shoes three times and say “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home”.
Nobody likes bad news. Nobody like to be told they have AIDS or cancer or that their tobacco product that makes them money is actually slowly killing people. Nobody likes to be told that their fishing practices are systematically killing the core fish stock and will cause a catastrophic collapse which will kill the industry and the community that it supports.
People really hate bad news.
So….they always look for someone to tell them that everything will be alright.
“Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.”
that’s what I did; I went and look for data, I listened to many other climate scientists and I was cheered up by the findings.
Serdeb, having studied economics myself, I fully agree that we should be weighing up the costs and benefits of different courses of action before making a decision. That means making some calculations of the net present value of action versus inaction, hopefully including some reasonable assessment of the costs and likelihoods of different scenarios (both above and below the three degree mark), and making policy decisions, which may well be subject to modification further down the road as new information comes to light.
So far so good, and this is, in theory, what governments do when making policy decisions. Lobby groups, ideology and public opinion polls notwithstanding.
However. Let me just share some of the maths which Lord Monckton uses to convince us that we’ll all be impoverished by efforts to curtail global warming. This is for the Australian scheme, which is what he seems to be beavering away about on this tour. It contains at least two ridiculously basic errors.
Note that the paper does contain other case studies, which I probably could (and perhaps should) pick holes in in turn, but the Australian study is the one he provided in his slides on the night. I did not get a chance to challenge him on it, since he cut off questioning. A distinct mark against his ability to defend his work.
“Carbon trading in Australia, as enacted the Clean Energy legislation (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2011), costs $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at 13 n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus p = 0.0006. CO2 concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 412 to 411.987 ppmv after ten years. Forcing abated is 0.0002 Wm–2; warming abated is 0.00006K; mitigation cost – effectiveness is $2,000 tr /K; global abatement cost of projected warming to 2020 is $300 trillion, or $45,000 /head, or 59% of global GDP to 2020. Action costs 48 times inaction.”
So, Monckton has taken the Australian plan for reducing emissions by 5% over 8 years and extrapolated it to come up with global abatement costs.
Perhaps the most obvious problem is with these words: “global abatement cost of projected warming to 2020 is $300 trillion.” Now, regardless of how much impact you think CO2 has on global temperature (as long as it’s not zero or negative), the only way to prevent 100% of global warming out to 2020 is to prevent any further CO2 emissions. That’s right, shutting down, overnight, everything on the planet which burns fossil fuels will cost us $300 trillion (in net present value over the next 8 years).
And you know what? I think that figure may actually be too low. Especially if we consider the human suffering and misery which would result from shutting down, say, combine harvesters and the trucks, trains and ships which carry food to markets.
It’s a good thing that Nobody. Whatsoever. Is suggesting that we cut emissions by 100% Right This Minute. Actual policy, from various quarters, aims towards a rather more incremental process, according to which developed nations gradually reduce emissions, by 2050, by 80% of present numbers, while developing nations follow a slower curve. Said policy being aimed at holding temperature rises to two degrees by the end of the century, as opposed to three degrees.
Which leads me on to my second problem. Anybody familiar with net present value calculations will tell you that money now is worth more than money later. The further into the future you receive or spend a given quantity of money, the less valuable it is to you in terms of present value.
By compressing his calculations for the cost of carbon emissions reductions into an 8 year timeframe, Monckton weights the calculations towards ‘money now’, then multiplies the number to get cost of mitigation per degree celsius. In fact, he should be working out the cost of mitigating a one degree temperature rise over the course of 87 years. Which, as you might imagine, gives a bit more weighting to the ‘money later’ side of the NPV calculation.
I did some rough calculations of my own based on the Australian figures Monckton provided, assuming that each $13 billion a year spent ($1.08 trillion globally) gets you a 5% reduction in emissions per 8 year period, with a goal of 80% reductions by 2050. Simplified, of course, but illustrative. I came up with a net present value of $64 trillion. Or $9,300 per person. Ever so slightly lower than Monckton’s figures.
The figures for the UK and US schemes (case studies one and two) are closer to the realms of sanity, since they have a time horizon of 38 years, as opposed to 8, but I’d really want to check Monckton’s assumptions and recalculate the numbers for myself before giving them any credence. If nothing else, it looks as if he’s mixing up nominal and real rates of return.
In fact, given my impression of Monckton in general, I’d really prefer to just start from scratch or check somebody else’s figures.
You global warming fanatics are amazing, dreaming up new theories everyday to continue your discredited claims. Antarctica has expanded enormously, so the scientists claim that it is”melting from below” or the record cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere is blamed on global warming! Do you people have no shame?
Listen guys, these “skeptics” don’t actually have to investigate how rising temperatures affect the jet streams and bring cold weather (which climate scientists actually predicted, but the fake skeptics don’t mention that). That’s complicated. Better to go by nice feelings and throw around memes like “no one is allowed to debate” even though it Monckton trying to throw scientists in prison and Delingpole smirkingly insinuating murder.
And finally, “how many researches have you done to check out the facts for yourself?”
I’m guessing many, many, many more than you, since you admitted you stopped when “climate scientists” (they were not) told you what you wanted to hear. Phew! Problem solved!
Will you global warming fanatics never stop your nonsense and be honest for once? Just say,sorry, we got it wrong, record cold is not global warming! Say, “an expanding Antarctica is not global warming! Perhaps you will gain some credibility?
Yes, that’s what I understood from the troll’s vague comment. But I was posing the question of how she explained the phenomenon. Why did she think it has nothing to do with climate change? If she is logical her comment implies that she could provide an explanatory mechanism.
So, Andy, unlike our troll, you would not use this fact as an argument against scientific understanding if climate change?
After all, the current scientific assessment involves increased winds moving ice, and exposing more water to freeze, and entry of cold salt-less water from melt under the continental ice which being less dense is at the sea surface and freezes more easily.
These explanations are consistent with current understanding of a warming planet.
I have got no idea why sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica. It is an observed phenomenon. End of story, from me anyway.
For you? What about the British Antarctic Survey?
(You’ve heard of them, right? Yes, you can look them up on the net.)
Why do you suppose that it’s not the end of the story for them?
Have you even bothered to find out how actual working scientists view it?
No? Didn’t think so.
You are engaged in a logical fallacy known as anomoly hunting.
For moon landing deniers, the “anomoly” could be the flag moving by itself in a vaccuum…therefore the Apollo missons were a hoax.
Or multiple shadows appearing in the photos taken on the moon…therefore it’s a hoax.
For 9/11 Troofers, the “anomoly” could be Building Number 7 collapsing despite not being hit by a plane…therefore 9/11 was an inside job.
That’s not the way to think. You have to be more careful than that. Don’t latch onto some factoid that at first glance seens to support your presuppositions and leave it at that. You may have it all wrong because it’s not your field of expertise. You have to be willing to look at things that don’t necessarily support your suspicions and acknowledge them too. Otherwise you are no better than the Troofers and the moon landing deniers and the ghost hunters out there.
I haven’t studied sea ice so I don’t have an opinion on it. It is really that simple.
Yet there are people that do.
Lots of them.
Step away from the echo-chamber of the denialist blogs for a minute.
There are scientific communities that make it their business to have a scientific opinion on the Antarctic. They are on the web.
You don’t have to just go to a blog and be spoonfed factoids that make you feel good.
It’s ok to think for yourself for a change and independently check out what the experts in the field have to say.
The British Antarctic Survery is a good place to start.
Unless (without knowing anything about them) you are going to pretend that they are…Marxists or something?
That trick gets old. You can’t use it forever. Not for everything and everyone all the time.
Not every scientific community on the planet can be super sekritly controlled by Marxists or whatever. It’s silly.
It would be hard for “them” to sekritly control even one.
You have to have a really solid reason not to listen to the scientific community. Paranoia and conspiracy thinking doesn’t cut it in the real world.
Seriously, did you ever even know that the British Antarctic survery even existed? Did it never occur to you to find out?
Are they “hard left Marxists” too? Would they keep a secret global konspiracy safe?
Don’t you see how insane such an idea is?
A global scientific conspiracy is impossible. There’s no way to make it work.
You are being led by the nose.
Stop it.
The British Antarctic Survey is not lying to you.
It is widely accepted that climate change as a result of human activity, is real, happening now and will have an impact of everyone and everything on the Earth. Antarctica, and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, affects our whole planet through its influence on the Earth’s climate system. Understanding Antarctica’s role in climate change is not only a huge scientific challenge but also an urgent priority for society
What makes Antarctica so important?
The vast, ice-covered Polar Regions are like a global thermostat that regulates the Earth’s climate system. The whiteness of the ice sheets help cool the atmosphere by reflecting heat from the Sun; the darkness of the polar oceans absorbs heat from the sun. Ice cold, salty water from the surface drops into the deep oceans to drive the ocean currents that carry heat around the globe. The Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica is a natural ‘sink’ that absorbs the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Scientists know that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown and shrunk over geological history. Recent analysis of Antarctic ice cores reveal that during the last 800,000 years the Earth experienced eight glacial cycles (each with an ice age and warm period). Understanding this natural rhythm helps scientists get a better picture of what’s happening to the Earth’s climate today and what might happen in the future.
So is Antarctica really melting?
The majority of long-term measurements from Antarctic research stations show no significant warming or cooling trends, and temperatures over most of the continent have been relatively stable over the past few decades. The effects of the ozone hole have shielded much of the Antarctic continent from the impact of ‘global warming’.
Does the Ozone Hole affect Antarctic climate?
We now know that the Antarctic ozone hole has had a profound effect on the Antarctic climate that extends far beyond increasing the levels of ultra-violet radiation. As stratospheric ozone amounts have fallen, temperatures above the continent have also dropped. This creates a bigger temperature difference between the tropics and the Antarctic which affects global weather patterns. For example, since 1980 the strength of winds over the Southern Ocean has increased by about 15%.
What about reports about Antarctica melting?
It is a very different story on the Antarctic Peninsula — the long mountainous landmass that projects from the main continent. Climate records from the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula show that temperatures in this region have risen by nearly 3°C during the last 50 years — about five times the global average, and only matched in Alaska and Siberia. British Antarctic Survey research has shown also that near-surface sea temperatures to the west of the Peninsula have risen by over 1°C over a similar period. It is now accepted that the waters of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current are warming more rapidly than the global ocean as a whole.
Is human activity warming Antarctica?
Experiments with climate models suggest that human activity has contributed to temperature changes observed across Antarctica, including the rapid warming on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. However, these changes also reflect natural factors, such as variations in volcanic dust in the atmosphere and changes in the energy output of the Sun. But the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula is very sensitive to climate change. Stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, were responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the well-publicised retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf. In October 2006, the first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of northern Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves was reported in the Journal of Climate.
What’s the evidence?
The ozone hole and global warming have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2km-high mountain chain. On summer days when this happens temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5°C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.
What next?
It is important that society and political leaders have access to the best scientific evidence and understanding of the likely scale and impact of global climate change. Attributing observed changes to either natural environmental events or to human activity requires reliable observations of past and present climate. A great deal of international effort is focused on using and improving sophisticated climate models that will analyse results of experiments and help determine future change.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by these natural events.
There is growing evidence that a large part of the recently observed rapid change is driven by human activity.
The lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was −89°C
The temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by almost 3°C in the last 50 years causing some of the smaller ice shelves to melt
Around 30 countries operate Antarctica research stations where scientists study global environmental issues like climate change, ozone depletion and sustainable management of marine life. Science Briefing – Antarctica and climate change (BAS)
Andy, do you remember all that wierd shit about the hard left Marxists that you said before? The sockpuppetry and the rest of your bad behaviour?
Can’t you give yourself a little more credit than that and lift your game?
You should.
You see, all the scientific communities on the planet are independent from each other.
The BAS is independent from NASA. NASA is independent from the CSIRO etc.
There is no secret cabal. There is no mass conspiracy.
There’s no good reason to wed yourself to some aged kooks with a blog that are telling you only what you want to hear.
It’s not going to change.
Nothing.
Six month from now, six years from now or sixty years from now. There’s never going to be some wonderous announcement that, gosh darn it, those climate “skeptics” were right all along.
Six months from now, you will be forced to ignore the conclusions of NASA.
Six months from now, the moon landing deniers will also be forced to ignore the conclusions of NASA too.
Six months, six years or whatever.
There’s no moving forward. It’s not going to get “better” somehow.
Whatsupmybutt and Co. are writing endless checks that they can never cash.
You’ve been taken. For years, you have been taken. You’ve allowed yourself to be pursuaded to emotionally invest in some dumb no-name blogs at the expense of turning your back on all the scientific communities on the planet. Every single one on the planet.
It’s unjustifiable.
It’s insane.
Yes, friends of mine were working for it.
Contact their currently working collegues at the BAS. Send them an email.
Ask them if what they are telling you is really real or not.
You have nothing to lose. It won’t cost you a penny.
For information on ice2sea contact Paul B. Holland at the British Antarctic Survey Communications Office, Cambridge.
Tel: +44 (0)1223 221226
Email: paul.b.holland@bas.ac.uk
Fascinating, thanks for the links Cedric.
By the way, I am just returning from a fantastic weeks holiday in France and Spain, which have had record snowfalls, allowing me to enjoy some great backcountry skiing. Therefore, if I appear more relaxed than usual, this may be the reason.
By the way, I am just returning from a fantastic weeks holiday in France and Spain, which have had record snowfalls…
And someone’s Uncle Vinny smoked three packs a day until he died at the age of 101 when he was run over by a bus therefore there’s no link between cancer and cigarettes.
(shrug)
Somewhere in the world, there’s always going to be a record snowfall.
That’s the nature of statistics.
Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate.
The British Antarctic Survery is still not filled with Marxists.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week- “It’s cold. So there’s no Climate Change”
You global warming religion fanatics are amazing, always thinking up a new theory to justify you discredited stories. Why is Antarctica expanding? Quite simple really, because it is not warming.
I didn’t say that there is no change in climate. Climate is always changing, sometimes hotter, sometimes colder. However, none of this has anything do do with human activity.
Antactica is expanding because it sometimes does this.
How do you like this comment from Huub Bakker on Treadgold’s post, though Richard:
“It was in ca 1980 that James Hansen gave his famous talk to Congressmen on global warming. He picked the day of the year with the warmest average temperature and snuck into the building the night before to disable the air conditioning. (I don’t think that they had to lock the windows closed as that is the general case in air conditioned buildings.)
This is not the work of a scientist but the work of an activist.”
I can just see these horrible climate scientists “snucking” around and disabling air conditioning everywhere!
Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN?
Agenda 21? Again?? Wow.
To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity.
Yes, it’s looks innocent. Rather innocent and boring. Yet the wheels within wheels within wheels continue to turn. Tinfoil hattery.
I don’t use the word conspiracy, nor do I believe it. I simply cite public documents. It’s a fact that the UN wrote Agenda 21. Read it.
Comedy that writes itself. Impossible to parody further.
Kook.
Ken, might you please remove the (my) ISP info that appeared at the end of your last reply. I don’t know about assocoiated risks but better safe than sorry.
I heard the Hansen story before, at least the “it was a very hot day” part.
So according to Huub, Hansen can’t have climbed in the windows to disable the air conditioning, that would have forced him to use the secret tunnel.
Open Parachute 
Monckton is hardly ever seen and rarely mentioned in the UK. Even the climate fake sceptics find him embarrassing. I guess it’s because he’s associated with an oddball, right-wing, anti-Europe party. Just ignore him and he’ll go away. He’s only coming over there to visit you because of the attention you give him.
LikeLike
Yes, John, I guess Monckton is so discredited in his own homeland he has to spend the Northern winter down here. This produces a silly (for him) situation where he is attempting to mobilise local climate change deniers while we have been suffering a country-wide drought and record summer temperatures. meanwhile ha can’t take advantage of the record cold winters in the UK!
He is actually basically ignored down here too – probably why he is indulging in these sort of tricks to get the publicity he can’t get legitimately.
LikeLike
Ken, instead of doggedly clinging to your climate denier ways, how about looking for another barrow to push before you become NZ’s ultimate science-groupie embarrassment? (If it isn’t too late already).
LikeLike
Ross, isn’t it a wee bit farcical for a naive self-confessed creationist to lecture me about embarrassment in the science community?
LikeLike
Theoretically, yes.
The difference is that climate alarmists are in imminent danger of embarrassment (model failure, shenanigans discovered, global cooling).
In contrast, creationism and other ‘origins’ hypotheses aren’t ultimately scientifically provable – so we can both continue with our chosen ‘faith’ for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Ross “scientifically provable” is not logical.
However, you give away the motivation by admitting you rely on your chosen faith. Scientists rely on evidence and reason to draw the best inference. An inference which can change with time and more data.
The key point – it’s no skin off my nose if there is a god, raven, taniwha or whatever designing and making animals. I will happily accept that if the evidence and reason supports it. But the current fact is that it doesn’t. We have an excellent understanding of how life evolves and this explanation just seems to get better with every passing day.
I don’t rely on faith.
As for models failing – that happens all the time to some degree or other. That’s why science is continually improving models, and the computers which run them.
Shenanigans – always a problem but we seem to have far less of them in the science community than the faith community. They usually are found out, and disciplined in the end. In contrast to the faith community we don’t rally around to defend such people in science. We expose and get rid of them.
Global cooling – well if that occurs it will be the scientists who demonstrate it. We currently understand a number of mechanisms, both natural and man made which could do that. We think that in the verylong term it will actually be a problem because of removal of CO2 from the planet’s surface pools.
LikeLike
The difference is that climate alarmists are in imminent danger of embarrassment (model failure, shenanigans discovered, global cooling).
Nope.
NASA and every single scientific community cannot be described as “climate alarmists”.
Just how good are NASA climate/weather models?
LikeLike
Monckton appeared on a talk show here in Ireland a few years ago in a segment devoted to “fringe” beliefs. The other person interviewed was a 9/11 “truther”.
Even the political party of which he was supposed to be Deputy Leader (the anti-EU anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party) is giving him a wide berth.
It is amusing to watch the adulation he seems to attract in the USA, NZ & Australia. One suspects he is stopping to more and more outrageous tactics as his audiences diminish. In the US he has joined the Tea Party “birther circuit” claiming he has proof of the President’s Kenyan birth. And did you know about his claims of a cure for cancer? And his one-time call for AIDs sufferers to be segregrated from the healthy population?
Monckton is a gift that keeps on giving.
LikeLike
I am pleased that Moncton has come to NZ to expose the global warming religion cranks for the hoax they are. Even the biased UK Met service have admitted that there has been no warming for the past 16 years
LikeLike
Copie, you need to read my article Climate change is not simple. That will help you understand the issue of so-called “no warming for the past 16 years.”
That is if you can be objective about the issue. You seem to have some extreme interpretations. Which may be why you welcome Mad Monckton because his basic purpose here is to push a very extreme political line.
LikeLike
Hmm, technical difficulties. Pity.
Sorry Ken. Would you mind deleting my previous posts? Must have a bug or something.
LikeLike
Hot weather – Global warming, Cold. Weather- Global warming, wet weather- Global warming, Dry weather – Global warming
It is all a sham, designed to make money for Al Gore and his carbon trading buddies.
LikeLike
Copie, you didn’t read my recommended article, did you? You are just trolling.
LikeLike
Here’s something to make you laugh a bit more.
NOT the APNZ “retraction” in response to Monckton’s threats (ugh), but the NZ Herald’s Michele Hewitson interview yesterday.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10875765
Where he walked out on the interview after just a little bit of questioning about his “hitler youth” incidents in Copenhagen. Here’s a quote:
“He had got the huff and walked out of the interview. It is very difficult to walk out on an interview when the only place you have to walk out of is the living room in the house where you are staying and into the kitchen where the person you are walking out on has to follow you to get to the front door.”
LikeLike
Yes, seems Monckton got upset because the reporter asked him a question.
LikeLike
“He had got the huff and walked out of the interview. It is very difficult to walk out on an interview when the only place you have to walk out of is the living room in the house where you are staying and into the kitchen where the person you are walking out on has to follow you to get to the front door.”
What a fantastic scene for a comedy sketch. So very Mitchell & Webb.
LikeLike
Actually, Monckton’s recent tour of Australia was a complete bomb. He seems to be stuck in a self-defeating spiral. The media only give him attention for saying extreme things, and as his profile diminishes it forces his position to be more and more extreme. As the author correctly noted, it’s no longer a scientific presentation. He’s now preaching against “Agenda 21”, a non-binding agreement that’s achieved little in 20 years.
As he becomes more outlandish, the media tune out, forcing him to become more extreme. This is where the toothless and, frankly, pathetic threats against scientists and institutions come into play.
Here in Australia Monckton launched his tour by attacking a Tasmanian scientist, threatening to jail all climate scientists for fraud (with the help of an unnamed policeman friend) and helping launch fringe anti-Muslim nationalist, right-wing parties. Upon his leaving these scientists remained distressingly free to roam the streets, researching with impunity while Rise Up Australia, presided over by a man who claims to raise the dead, has failed to take the nation by storm.
It’ll get to the point during his next visit that he’ll be trying to crash Gillard’s press conferences dressed as Hitler and even his only current Australian supporter Jo Nova will be quietly backing away.
LikeLike
Pingback: Monkcton’s NZ tour of fraud gets off to a mediocre start | Climate Wars
He didn’t deal well with questions at the talk either. The audience got to ask two questions, both critical of his talk, after which we were ordered out of the theatre on the grounds that they’d get in trouble if we stayed past 9pm.
Having promised there would be an opportunity to ask questions at the end, I don’t imagine this left a very good impression on people, especially after sitting through a one hour, 45 minute talk which opened with the assertion that Agenda 21 was a UN plot to have their lackeys in local government herd us all into concentration camps and sterilise us with vaccines.
LikeLike
You know guys, you make me laugh! They are telling us that global warming is real, and we should be scared. well, we are, I was, the drastic measures the government is introducing are progressive. The aim is to drastically reduce forms of energy for the Country and people will be impoverished by that. You won’t be even able to write in your blogs because you will not have the money at the end of the month to pay for your internet connection. It would all be for good if the global scare was real but is it really? Wouldn’t Monckton represent some kind of hope worth checking before criticising him and the dozens of scientists who agree with him? that’s what I did; I went and look for data, I listened to many other climate scientists and I was cheered up by the findings.
how many researches have you done to check out the facts for yourself? Every week there is a segment dedicated to the disasters caused by global warming in tv; have you healed anyone declaring the exact opposite? No debate has ever been allowed pubblicly? If they are so certain about their theories, then why the opposite opinion is not being heard?
unfortunately you are still asleep, the left parties have always been in history against development and the capital and the good things that money can do gor people. Do you hate Australia so much? iand
LikeLike
They are telling us that global warming is real, and we should be scared.
Yes. Yes they are.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
That’s the “they” you are referring to.
…the drastic measures the government…
Vague, unsubstantiated claims of “drastic” measures by mystery “governments” fail to impress.
Besides, it’s go nothing to do with the science.
Claiming that the cancer treatment is “drastic” does not make the cancer magically go away. You are making an Argument from Consequence.
Reality does not care about your inconvenience.
Reality just is.
It would all be for good if the global scare was real but is it really?
According to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
You can ignore them and the decades of work that they have done in reaching their conclusions if you want but it would make you look very foolish.
Wouldn’t Monckton represent some kind of hope worth checking before criticising him and the dozens of scientists who agree with him?
Hope?
Hope all you like. Go with your gut. Let your feelings guide you. If you don’t want something to be real then click you red shoes three times and say “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home”.
Nobody likes bad news. Nobody like to be told they have AIDS or cancer or that their tobacco product that makes them money is actually slowly killing people. Nobody likes to be told that their fishing practices are systematically killing the core fish stock and will cause a catastrophic collapse which will kill the industry and the community that it supports.
People really hate bad news.
So….they always look for someone to tell them that everything will be alright.
“Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.”
that’s what I did; I went and look for data, I listened to many other climate scientists and I was cheered up by the findings.
No doubt. Sadly, it happens all the time.
Doubt – Tobacco and the Anti Science Movement
LikeLike
Serdeb, having studied economics myself, I fully agree that we should be weighing up the costs and benefits of different courses of action before making a decision. That means making some calculations of the net present value of action versus inaction, hopefully including some reasonable assessment of the costs and likelihoods of different scenarios (both above and below the three degree mark), and making policy decisions, which may well be subject to modification further down the road as new information comes to light.
So far so good, and this is, in theory, what governments do when making policy decisions. Lobby groups, ideology and public opinion polls notwithstanding.
However. Let me just share some of the maths which Lord Monckton uses to convince us that we’ll all be impoverished by efforts to curtail global warming. This is for the Australian scheme, which is what he seems to be beavering away about on this tour. It contains at least two ridiculously basic errors.
Monckton’s figures are sourced under case study 6 here (helpfully provided with his letter to the Herald): http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2-mitigation.pdf
Note that the paper does contain other case studies, which I probably could (and perhaps should) pick holes in in turn, but the Australian study is the one he provided in his slides on the night. I did not get a chance to challenge him on it, since he cut off questioning. A distinct mark against his ability to defend his work.
“Carbon trading in Australia, as enacted the Clean Energy legislation (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2011), costs $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at 13 n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus p = 0.0006. CO2 concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 412 to 411.987 ppmv after ten years. Forcing abated is 0.0002 Wm–2; warming abated is 0.00006K; mitigation cost – effectiveness is $2,000 tr /K; global abatement cost of projected warming to 2020 is $300 trillion, or $45,000 /head, or 59% of global GDP to 2020. Action costs 48 times inaction.”
So, Monckton has taken the Australian plan for reducing emissions by 5% over 8 years and extrapolated it to come up with global abatement costs.
Perhaps the most obvious problem is with these words: “global abatement cost of projected warming to 2020 is $300 trillion.” Now, regardless of how much impact you think CO2 has on global temperature (as long as it’s not zero or negative), the only way to prevent 100% of global warming out to 2020 is to prevent any further CO2 emissions. That’s right, shutting down, overnight, everything on the planet which burns fossil fuels will cost us $300 trillion (in net present value over the next 8 years).
And you know what? I think that figure may actually be too low. Especially if we consider the human suffering and misery which would result from shutting down, say, combine harvesters and the trucks, trains and ships which carry food to markets.
It’s a good thing that Nobody. Whatsoever. Is suggesting that we cut emissions by 100% Right This Minute. Actual policy, from various quarters, aims towards a rather more incremental process, according to which developed nations gradually reduce emissions, by 2050, by 80% of present numbers, while developing nations follow a slower curve. Said policy being aimed at holding temperature rises to two degrees by the end of the century, as opposed to three degrees.
Which leads me on to my second problem. Anybody familiar with net present value calculations will tell you that money now is worth more than money later. The further into the future you receive or spend a given quantity of money, the less valuable it is to you in terms of present value.
By compressing his calculations for the cost of carbon emissions reductions into an 8 year timeframe, Monckton weights the calculations towards ‘money now’, then multiplies the number to get cost of mitigation per degree celsius. In fact, he should be working out the cost of mitigating a one degree temperature rise over the course of 87 years. Which, as you might imagine, gives a bit more weighting to the ‘money later’ side of the NPV calculation.
I did some rough calculations of my own based on the Australian figures Monckton provided, assuming that each $13 billion a year spent ($1.08 trillion globally) gets you a 5% reduction in emissions per 8 year period, with a goal of 80% reductions by 2050. Simplified, of course, but illustrative. I came up with a net present value of $64 trillion. Or $9,300 per person. Ever so slightly lower than Monckton’s figures.
The figures for the UK and US schemes (case studies one and two) are closer to the realms of sanity, since they have a time horizon of 38 years, as opposed to 8, but I’d really want to check Monckton’s assumptions and recalculate the numbers for myself before giving them any credence. If nothing else, it looks as if he’s mixing up nominal and real rates of return.
In fact, given my impression of Monckton in general, I’d really prefer to just start from scratch or check somebody else’s figures.
LikeLike
You global warming fanatics are amazing, dreaming up new theories everyday to continue your discredited claims. Antarctica has expanded enormously, so the scientists claim that it is”melting from below” or the record cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere is blamed on global warming! Do you people have no shame?
LikeLike
No Copie, we have science – we follow the evidence.
LikeLike
You global warming fanatics are amazing…
NASA cannot be described as “global warming fantatics”.
Plus they really did make it to the moon.
LikeLike
Listen guys, these “skeptics” don’t actually have to investigate how rising temperatures affect the jet streams and bring cold weather (which climate scientists actually predicted, but the fake skeptics don’t mention that). That’s complicated. Better to go by nice feelings and throw around memes like “no one is allowed to debate” even though it Monckton trying to throw scientists in prison and Delingpole smirkingly insinuating murder.
And finally, “how many researches have you done to check out the facts for yourself?”
I’m guessing many, many, many more than you, since you admitted you stopped when “climate scientists” (they were not) told you what you wanted to hear. Phew! Problem solved!
LikeLike
Will you global warming fanatics never stop your nonsense and be honest for once? Just say,sorry, we got it wrong, record cold is not global warming! Say, “an expanding Antarctica is not global warming! Perhaps you will gain some credibility?
LikeLike
Perhaps, Copie, you can give us the benefit if your great intellect? Why is Antarctica “expanding?”
LikeLike
Volcanoes?
Hidden tectonic fault lines?
Guano deposits from migrating birds?
LikeLike
I presume that Copie is referring to increasing sea ice extent in Antarctica.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s what I understood from the troll’s vague comment. But I was posing the question of how she explained the phenomenon. Why did she think it has nothing to do with climate change? If she is logical her comment implies that she could provide an explanatory mechanism.
What about you doing so, Andy?
LikeLike
I have got no idea why sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica. It is an observed phenomenon. End of story, from me anyway
LikeLike
So, Andy, unlike our troll, you would not use this fact as an argument against scientific understanding if climate change?
After all, the current scientific assessment involves increased winds moving ice, and exposing more water to freeze, and entry of cold salt-less water from melt under the continental ice which being less dense is at the sea surface and freezes more easily.
These explanations are consistent with current understanding of a warming planet.
LikeLike
I have got no idea why sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica. It is an observed phenomenon. End of story, from me anyway.
For you? What about the British Antarctic Survey?
(You’ve heard of them, right? Yes, you can look them up on the net.)
Why do you suppose that it’s not the end of the story for them?
Have you even bothered to find out how actual working scientists view it?
No? Didn’t think so.
You are engaged in a logical fallacy known as anomoly hunting.
For moon landing deniers, the “anomoly” could be the flag moving by itself in a vaccuum…therefore the Apollo missons were a hoax.
Or multiple shadows appearing in the photos taken on the moon…therefore it’s a hoax.
For 9/11 Troofers, the “anomoly” could be Building Number 7 collapsing despite not being hit by a plane…therefore 9/11 was an inside job.
That’s not the way to think. You have to be more careful than that. Don’t latch onto some factoid that at first glance seens to support your presuppositions and leave it at that. You may have it all wrong because it’s not your field of expertise. You have to be willing to look at things that don’t necessarily support your suspicions and acknowledge them too. Otherwise you are no better than the Troofers and the moon landing deniers and the ghost hunters out there.
LikeLike
I haven’t studied sea ice so I don’t have an opinion on it. It is really that simple.
LikeLike
Come on, Andy, it’s not like you to be so reticent. You often comment, in the strongest possible terms, about things which you have not studied.
And I get the impression by “study” you probably mean check out the climate change denial echo chamber.
LikeLike
Ken,
You appear to be looking for a fight.
I am not interested.
LikeLike
Bit depressed, are we Andy?
LikeLike
I haven’t studied sea ice so I don’t have an opinion on it. It is really that simple.
Yet there are people that do.
Lots of them.
Step away from the echo-chamber of the denialist blogs for a minute.
There are scientific communities that make it their business to have a scientific opinion on the Antarctic. They are on the web.
You don’t have to just go to a blog and be spoonfed factoids that make you feel good.
It’s ok to think for yourself for a change and independently check out what the experts in the field have to say.
The British Antarctic Survery is a good place to start.
Unless (without knowing anything about them) you are going to pretend that they are…Marxists or something?
That trick gets old. You can’t use it forever. Not for everything and everyone all the time.
Not every scientific community on the planet can be super sekritly controlled by Marxists or whatever. It’s silly.
It would be hard for “them” to sekritly control even one.
You have to have a really solid reason not to listen to the scientific community. Paranoia and conspiracy thinking doesn’t cut it in the real world.
Seriously, did you ever even know that the British Antarctic survery even existed? Did it never occur to you to find out?
LikeLike
Seriously, did you ever even know that the British Antarctic survery even existed? Did it never occur to you to find out?
Yes, friends of mine were working for it. I am not really that interested in why sea ice is increasing.
LikeLike
Yes, friends of mine were working for it.
Are they “hard left Marxists” too? Would they keep a secret global konspiracy safe?
Don’t you see how insane such an idea is?
A global scientific conspiracy is impossible. There’s no way to make it work.
You are being led by the nose.
Stop it.
The British Antarctic Survey is not lying to you.
It is widely accepted that climate change as a result of human activity, is real, happening now and will have an impact of everyone and everything on the Earth. Antarctica, and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, affects our whole planet through its influence on the Earth’s climate system. Understanding Antarctica’s role in climate change is not only a huge scientific challenge but also an urgent priority for society
What makes Antarctica so important?
The vast, ice-covered Polar Regions are like a global thermostat that regulates the Earth’s climate system. The whiteness of the ice sheets help cool the atmosphere by reflecting heat from the Sun; the darkness of the polar oceans absorbs heat from the sun. Ice cold, salty water from the surface drops into the deep oceans to drive the ocean currents that carry heat around the globe. The Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica is a natural ‘sink’ that absorbs the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Scientists know that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown and shrunk over geological history. Recent analysis of Antarctic ice cores reveal that during the last 800,000 years the Earth experienced eight glacial cycles (each with an ice age and warm period). Understanding this natural rhythm helps scientists get a better picture of what’s happening to the Earth’s climate today and what might happen in the future.
So is Antarctica really melting?
The majority of long-term measurements from Antarctic research stations show no significant warming or cooling trends, and temperatures over most of the continent have been relatively stable over the past few decades. The effects of the ozone hole have shielded much of the Antarctic continent from the impact of ‘global warming’.
Does the Ozone Hole affect Antarctic climate?
We now know that the Antarctic ozone hole has had a profound effect on the Antarctic climate that extends far beyond increasing the levels of ultra-violet radiation. As stratospheric ozone amounts have fallen, temperatures above the continent have also dropped. This creates a bigger temperature difference between the tropics and the Antarctic which affects global weather patterns. For example, since 1980 the strength of winds over the Southern Ocean has increased by about 15%.
What about reports about Antarctica melting?
It is a very different story on the Antarctic Peninsula — the long mountainous landmass that projects from the main continent. Climate records from the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula show that temperatures in this region have risen by nearly 3°C during the last 50 years — about five times the global average, and only matched in Alaska and Siberia. British Antarctic Survey research has shown also that near-surface sea temperatures to the west of the Peninsula have risen by over 1°C over a similar period. It is now accepted that the waters of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current are warming more rapidly than the global ocean as a whole.
Is human activity warming Antarctica?
Experiments with climate models suggest that human activity has contributed to temperature changes observed across Antarctica, including the rapid warming on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. However, these changes also reflect natural factors, such as variations in volcanic dust in the atmosphere and changes in the energy output of the Sun. But the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula is very sensitive to climate change. Stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, were responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the well-publicised retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf. In October 2006, the first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of northern Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves was reported in the Journal of Climate.
What’s the evidence?
The ozone hole and global warming have changed Antarctic weather patterns such that strengthened westerly winds force warm air eastward over the natural barrier created by the Antarctic Peninsula’s 2km-high mountain chain. On summer days when this happens temperatures in the north-east Peninsula warm by around 5°C, creating the conditions that allowed the drainage of melt-water into crevasses on the Larsen Ice Shelf, a key process that led to its break-up in 2002.
What next?
It is important that society and political leaders have access to the best scientific evidence and understanding of the likely scale and impact of global climate change. Attributing observed changes to either natural environmental events or to human activity requires reliable observations of past and present climate. A great deal of international effort is focused on using and improving sophisticated climate models that will analyse results of experiments and help determine future change.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere has increased beyond that caused by these natural events.
There is growing evidence that a large part of the recently observed rapid change is driven by human activity.
The lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was −89°C
The temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by almost 3°C in the last 50 years causing some of the smaller ice shelves to melt
Around 30 countries operate Antarctica research stations where scientists study global environmental issues like climate change, ozone depletion and sustainable management of marine life.
Science Briefing – Antarctica and climate change (BAS)
LikeLike
What the heck are you on about Cedric?
LikeLike
Andy, do you remember all that wierd shit about the hard left Marxists that you said before? The sockpuppetry and the rest of your bad behaviour?
Can’t you give yourself a little more credit than that and lift your game?
You should.
You see, all the scientific communities on the planet are independent from each other.
The BAS is independent from NASA. NASA is independent from the CSIRO etc.
There is no secret cabal. There is no mass conspiracy.
There’s no good reason to wed yourself to some aged kooks with a blog that are telling you only what you want to hear.
It’s not going to change.
Nothing.
Six month from now, six years from now or sixty years from now. There’s never going to be some wonderous announcement that, gosh darn it, those climate “skeptics” were right all along.
Six months from now, you will be forced to ignore the conclusions of NASA.
Six months from now, the moon landing deniers will also be forced to ignore the conclusions of NASA too.
Six months, six years or whatever.
There’s no moving forward. It’s not going to get “better” somehow.
Whatsupmybutt and Co. are writing endless checks that they can never cash.
You’ve been taken. For years, you have been taken. You’ve allowed yourself to be pursuaded to emotionally invest in some dumb no-name blogs at the expense of turning your back on all the scientific communities on the planet. Every single one on the planet.
It’s unjustifiable.
It’s insane.
Yes, friends of mine were working for it.
Contact their currently working collegues at the BAS. Send them an email.
Ask them if what they are telling you is really real or not.
You have nothing to lose. It won’t cost you a penny.
Contacts
To request an interview with Dr Nick Barrand please contact Catherine Byerley, International Media Relations Manager at the University of Birmingham.
Tel: +44 (0)121 414 8254
Email: c.j.byerley@bham.ac.uk
For information on ice2sea contact Paul B. Holland at the British Antarctic Survey Communications Office, Cambridge.
Tel: +44 (0)1223 221226
Email: paul.b.holland@bas.ac.uk
LikeLike
Fascinating, thanks for the links Cedric.
By the way, I am just returning from a fantastic weeks holiday in France and Spain, which have had record snowfalls, allowing me to enjoy some great backcountry skiing. Therefore, if I appear more relaxed than usual, this may be the reason.
LikeLike
By the way, I am just returning from a fantastic weeks holiday in France and Spain, which have had record snowfalls…
And someone’s Uncle Vinny smoked three packs a day until he died at the age of 101 when he was run over by a bus therefore there’s no link between cancer and cigarettes.
(shrug)
Somewhere in the world, there’s always going to be a record snowfall.
That’s the nature of statistics.
Climate is not weather. Weather is not climate.
The British Antarctic Survery is still not filled with Marxists.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week- “It’s cold. So there’s no Climate Change”
LikeLike
You global warming religion fanatics are amazing, always thinking up a new theory to justify you discredited stories. Why is Antarctica expanding? Quite simple really, because it is not warming.
LikeLike
Copie, why should that cause the “expansion”? Surely if there is no change in climate we should expect the status quo?
Come, on. You are so sure of yourself. Surely you must be able to explain it..
You don’t seem to have thought it through.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that there is no change in climate. Climate is always changing, sometimes hotter, sometimes colder. However, none of this has anything do do with human activity.
Antactica is expanding because it sometimes does this.
LikeLike
Copie – care to support your claim that climate change has nothing to do with human activity with some evidence?
Have a look at Climate change is complex.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Treadgold is seeing Lizardmen everywhere.
The man is a certifiable lunatic.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comments
LikeLike
How do you like this comment from Huub Bakker on Treadgold’s post, though Richard:
I can just see these horrible climate scientists “snucking” around and disabling air conditioning everywhere!
These guys are away with the birds.
LikeLike
Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN?
Agenda 21? Again?? Wow.
To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity.
Yes, it’s looks innocent. Rather innocent and boring. Yet the wheels within wheels within wheels continue to turn. Tinfoil hattery.
I don’t use the word conspiracy, nor do I believe it. I simply cite public documents. It’s a fact that the UN wrote Agenda 21. Read it.
Comedy that writes itself. Impossible to parody further.
Kook.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/behind-the-green-mask
LikeLike
Ken, might you please remove the (my) ISP info that appeared at the end of your last reply. I don’t know about assocoiated risks but better safe than sorry.
LikeLike
I heard the Hansen story before, at least the “it was a very hot day” part.
So according to Huub, Hansen can’t have climbed in the windows to disable the air conditioning, that would have forced him to use the secret tunnel.
LikeLike