By far my favorite climate crank is the Non-Lord Cristopher Monckton. He is prolific and pseudo-scientific and the darling of the denialosphere, but he is also a certifiable crackpot and a very colourful loon. He is great material to make fun of and I highly endorse his self-promotion as the spokesman-in-chief for the climate sceptic community.
Unfortunately, after the laughing stops, his nonsense continues to resonate in the anti-science echo-chambers. The arguments, gibberish dressed up in sciencey language and mathematical equations, need to be undressed and shown for what they are.
Enter Skeptical Science, and their newest excellent resource:
Now, the next time someone somewhere quotes a Moncktonism like Greenland is gaining ice, or sea levels are not rising, or climate sensitivity is very low, or any of his favorites, you know the actual science of the matter can be found here quickly and easily.
The next time someone posts a link to an article and says, yeah but Monckton says "Not the IPCC", you can find that article and what is wrong with it here.
Given his prolific output, this kind of reference is very valuable, but don't forget, as with everything you link to, read it, understand it and follow the links! Our denier friends don't worry about that, but we can set the bar a little higher for ourselves. After all, maybe one day Monckton will actually say something true!
But I'd say that is about as likely as next year's global average temperature anomaly coming in at or below the zero degree baseline.
After all, maybe one day Monckton will actually say something true!
He has, unfortunately the only truth spoken by him was to admit that he tells lies:
A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.
Christopher Monckton, the third Viscount of Brenchley, owned up to the duplicity yesterday as he launched a new version of the world's toughest jigsaw.
Keep mentioning his name. The more the alarmists bloggers fuss and bother about Monckton the more popular he becomes. I think he should be grateful for the free publicity. With alamists like you, who needs deniers. Cheers.
The more you mention TVMoB, claims Kelm, the more popular he becomes: just like this guy, in fact.
Oh, by the way, I think Monckton is technically a Lord, albeit one that is famously also a non-member of the House of Lords.
Re 2 kelm
Yeah. Right. Nice try.
Monckton CC'd Jo Abbess into an email conversation, possibly by mistake. Oops.
As for his claim about the Storyville docu shown last night on BBC Four, Meet the Climate Sceptics, give us a break.
Coby when are you going to create a similar thread dedicated to Al Gore?
Presumably just as soon as Al Gore becomes a kooky fantasist with a prolific output of nonsense and lies.
I take it you havent seen the movie?
I see Voltaire's prayer is still working...
> With alamists like you, who needs deniers.
You mean alarmists like Monckton who insists that this is all a world conspiracy to steal all your money and create a new communist world order?
Alarmists are crying out that mitigation will cause us to revert to the stone age.
Alarmists are crying out that they are being victimised and punished by "them".
Alarmists are saying that it's far too late and we cannot stop the warming no matter what we do.
Alarmists alarmists all around, but ne'er a one did think...
> Presumably just as soon as Al Gore becomes a kooky fantasist with a prolific output of nonsense and lies.
Says Vince who says this fantasist nonsense and huge whopper of a lie prolifically.
Whilst, oddly enough, not noticing that the errors in the great global warming swindle were so whoppingly huge that they had to severely edit the entire fantasist bullhockey story on every subsequent release.
Again, the denialist tries to hide their faults by placing them on the shoulders of their betters.
Wow...as in "wow, Wow". Maybe I'm 'reading' Vince all wrong, but to me it appears he says that Coby WILL make a thread for Al Gore whenever Gore would become "a kooky fantasist with a prolific output of nonsense and lies". That is, Gore isn't a "kooky fantasist with a prolific output of nonsense and lies" like Monckton, and thus does not 'deserve' a similar thread.
Monckton is really part of a plot to discredit any skepticism regarding global warming catastrophism.
I take it Coby that you dont feel the need for a dedicated thread where can talk about the merits of Al Gore?
Ok well how about Professor Ross Garnaut?
For those that dont , Garnaut is the climate change adviser to the Australian government here he is in full swing
Now it should be noted that Professor Garnaut has no qualifications in the science of climate his in fact an economist and like all peists of the faith he has a murky past.
So we know Garnaut is not pushing the AGW scare based on concerns of any environmental nature, one wonders what his real agenda is?
Let's talk about the merits of Andrew Bolt, who has no qualifications in the science of climate.
Bolt: "Global temperatures last month were at the long term average, or just below"
UAH adjusted their baseline to 1981-2010, not really a "long-term average". RSS came in at 0.08. Both appear to be very warm global average temperature for a strong la Nina.
Bolt: "La Nina events have historically brought more cyclones and rain to Australia,"
True, but BOM also notes that sea surface temperatures in the region have been at record levels, which isn't all la Nina-related.
Bolt: "The Bureau of Meteorology has noted a decline in the frequency of Australian cyclones, not an increase. "
Bolt: "- Even the warmist Bureau of Meteorology concedes there is no known link between global warming and cyclone frequency, adding: âSince that time [IPCC report 2001] there has been a growing number of studies that indicate a consistent signal of fewer tropical cyclones globally in a warmer climate.â
BOM didn't conclude Bolt's first statement. It's also a strawman, since Garnaut referred to increasing intensity of existing storms, not frequency of storms. He said "the greater energy in the atmosphere and the seas can intensify extreme events". BOM notes that frequency decline "may partly be due to an improved discrimination between tropical cyclones and sub-cyclone intensity tropical lows." and "decrease in total cyclone numbers may be associated with an increased frequency of El NiÃ±o events." and since the data only runs from 1970 to 2005, we only have a period running from la Ninas to el Ninos. BOM also notes "Each of the above studies finds a marked increase in the severe Category 3 - 5 storms." Since the data stops at 2005 in the graph, it might be relevant to look at cyclones since then:
Since the number of severe storms has trended upward slightly during 1970-2005 (although statistically insignificant), and we know la Nina causes more activity (Bolt agrees), one could remove the ENSO signal and find a greater increase.
Bolt: "Queensland has had worse and deadlier cyclones and floods a century ago, before any possibility of man-made warning."
From Bolt's link, the last one on the list in 2006 (Larry):
"Australian record wind gust of 293.7km/h was recorded on the eastern slope of Mt Bellenden Ker from a C.S.I.R.O. anemometer. "
From the Wikipedia list:
"Cyclone Monica, 2006 - Category 5; strongest cyclone ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere (in terms of wind speed). Arguably the world's strongest cyclone, based on a Dvorak estimation, which suggested central pressure reached a low of 869 hPa. The official JTWC pressure was 879hPa. "
Bolt: "Queensland had two huge cyclones in a single year - in 1918 each killing more people than have died in all Queenslandâs natural disasters this year, despite our much greater population. "
Thank goodness for computer models and the early warning systems they produce! What's that deniers say about computer models?
Bolt: "Total hurricane and cyclone energy around the world has decreased over the past few years.- There has been no statistically significant warming of the oceans since 2003, according to a new study. "
Bolt references a Maue and a blog by Curry to support an argument of short-term obfuscation.
"Says Vince who says this fantasist nonsense and huge whopper of a lie prolifically."
Don't be so utterly dense Wow. Why not read Vince's comment again more carefully?
Stu N could have said something more like Marcus, but I guess he doesn't swing that way.
Re Juice: "Monckton is really part of a plot to discredit any skepticism regarding global warming catastrophism. "
This really is the only possible explanation, isn't it? He's a secret agent, sent to destroy the credibility of denialists. I await the glorious moment when His Lordship exposes himself (figuratively, not literally), his nefarious plot, and the true meaning of the pink portcullis!
Mark B in 14,
I like you dodge and redirection, typical denier tactic.
I found a piece of Al Gore bullshit that you could use to kick off the Al Gore thread.
As you well know the snowiest DEC-JAN period for the NH has just been broken, the 2010/11 period beat the 2009/10 in third place we have 1977/78 and now in fourth place we have 2007/2008.
These facts have led to some people asking where the heck is global warming, well never fear true believers because Al Gore is here to rescue you.
Gore claimed "As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
âIn fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.â
1) I watched Als award winning movie and he never mentioned more snow in fact he only mentioned less snow.
2) If we need cold air, warm air and moisture to make snow then to make more snow we need to increase at least one variable. Here Al blames global warming on increasing moisture (more snow) but at the same time he also claims global warming will warm the atmosphere so if global warming is causing all this snow then surely global warming must be reducing the amount of cold air thus reducing the amount of snow or is AL just making shit up as he goes along?
3) ALL the models predict there will be less snow (well they used to at least) and less ice this will reduce the amount of albedo of the Earths surface leading to further warming. I am a little disappointed that AL did not mention the fact that now that they are predicting more snow this will reduce the amount of global warming, is this deception on Al's part.
Also if we are now to accept more NH snow as the last 3 of 4 years seem to indicate i suggest it is time for the IPCC and associated model makers to program their models with an increasing albedo not a reducing one and tell us all what the new end of the world date is.
ALL the models predict there will be less snow.
Then it should be easy for you to document *three* which have done so.
Please enlighten me.
Don't link me to Watts or CO2psuedoscience. Link me to the source of one of these "models" (a term you always use with ham-handed vagueness) used by climate modelers that predicts "less snow"--and be sure to mind your terminology.
Never gave this any real thought, did you?
Skip when i speak you and your opinions are furthest from my mind, sorry if your over inflated ego just went spinning across the room like a popped ballon.
Pure evasion from Crakar as usual--not that it does much for my ego either way but thanks for thinking of me.
Skip to answer your question you simply need to think about it.
When a wannebe scientist makes a prediction where do you think he gets his info from? He gets it from his computer model. For example some gravy train rider with his snout in the trough had a computer model that told him the Arctic would be ice free by 2020 or there abouts and he told Al Gore who in turn told you.
So think back a few years and tell me how many leeches of the public purse told you the NH winters are going to get harsher and colder with record breaking temps and snow falls? Of course the answer is none. In fact they told you there will be less snow.
Now all of a sudden their precious little computer models are telling them there will be more snow which is what Al Gore is telling you now.
So the question is Skip are you going to believe them again? Or to put it another way are you that fucking stupid?
So the question is Skip are you going to believe them again? Or to put it another way are you that fucking stupid?
My relative stupidity remains an open question, I suppose. Although I will say this in my own defense: I never blindly plagiarized proven absurdity.
On the subject of snowstorms, let's see what Trenberth has to say (in 2008):
".....As well as increased temperatures and heat waves, there is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However, the water holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1ÂºC warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation. Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing....."
So ummmmm - over two years ago Kevin Trenberth predicted that winter snow storms would increase in intensity.
Anything else you want to have an uneducated rant about crakar? Will you ever do any research before offering an ill-informed opinion about?
Yeah - my apologies. That was a stupid question. Crakar will NEVER do any real research, because that may invalidate the opinion that the deniers give to him.
Sorry Skip but the old "i'll hit him with the bullshit plagiarism attack" ran out of puff when you gave Trenberth a free pass. I suggest you come up with another form of deny, obfuscate and re direction.
Oh great one,
Thanks for letting me know what the plagiarist said sometime in 2008, of course any moron could have noticed the second snowiest winter in history in amongst the snowiest decade in history and made that prediction.
What i would like to see is Trenberth prediction these killer winters and increased snow back when it was not happening. I am sure someone who can debunk a study he does not like faster than a speeding bullet can dig up something that truly shows us Trenberths full Nostradamus qualities.
When did I give Trenberth a "free pass" regarding plagiarism? Did Mandas? Did *anyone*?
Please feel free to quote me directly.
Oh, and by the way, Crakar . . . whose "models" do you refer to?
ALL the models predict there will be less snow . . . --Crakar #19
"ALL" is a pretty big number. I asked for three.
Where are they?
"....What i would like to see is Trenberth prediction these killer winters and increased snow back when it was not happening....."
Gee crakar. Reading and science are definitely NOT your forte are they.
If you had a look at the Trenberth paper I linked to above (Did you even open it at all? I sincerely dount it!), you would have noticed a list of references.
One of those references was this one:
It was a paper written in 1999 by Trenberth himself - which was the exact source of the claim in the 2008 paper of the predicted increase in the severity of winter snowstorms.
So, since I provided EXACTLY what you asked for at #27, are you prepared to admit that - once again - you are wrong?
I guess its a forlorn hope isn't it? I know you are completely incapable of admitting you are wrong, because you are just too much of an arrogant arsehole with zero credibility to ever demonstrate that sort of integrity. So since you are such a poor excuse for a human being, I feel no compunction at all in saying this:
IN YOUR FACE!!!!! I LAUGH AT YOUR STUPIDITY.
I looked at your link and all it has is the abstract which makes no reference to *increased snowfalls*, could you please provide the entire paper to support your views.
Here are nine models that ALL predicted a decrease in snow cover used by the IPCC.
In the meantime snow fall levels are at record highs.
I *knew* this was the whiff you would make. I *knew* it.
When pressed for models predicting "less snow" you would find models predicting less *long term snow EXTENT*. I knew you would do this.
Increased snow/rain meteorological events resulting from AGW *does not* translate into increased predicted snow *extent*. There is no contradiction between what Trenberth described (nod to Mandas in finding that paper . . . .yap) and these *long term* models of snow *accumulation.*
This is why I told you specifically in 20:
. . . . and be sure to mind your terminology.
Does it bother in the least, Crakar, that your next mistake is being anticipated before you even make it?
Skip a few questions
1) are you saying that because a long term model predicts less snow in the short term and gets it wrong then the model should still be considered to be accurate in the long term before the events have unfolded?
2) If a long term model (ie a prediction of what will happen between now and 50 or 100 years)gets the "now" wrong how *do you* know the long term prediction is accurate.
3) If so then at what point do we consider the models to go from being inaccurate to accurate?
Not even a nice try, Crakar.
The models you cited did *not* predict "less snow in the short term." They predicted *less accumulation*.
You did not understand this and it is one more embarrassment that is now permanently added to your record.
*No one* can know if *any* long term prediction is perfectly accurate until the "long term" actually happens.
The bottom line is you could not even discern the difference between snow as weather and snow as accumulation. Its too late for you to switch the subject now.
Your rhetorical questions are an effort to smuggle into the dialogue assumptions which are still in dispute.
You will *never* fool me Crakar. The sooner you stop trying the sooner you will make an incremental step toward a rational understanding of the climate debate.
So I will repeat my question:
Find *three "models"* which preclude the possibility of "more snow" now.
You can't, of course. But keep trying. Your wasted effort is my contribution to the AGW debate.
When butter melts, it spreads across the plate.
Greater extent of a product, especially if it is supposed to be undergoing phase change, is no proof of greater product mass.
Skip you are so full of shit it must be oozing out your ears.
So the models predict less snow accumulation not less snowfall, but let me ask you a very simple question Skip, what dictates a decline in snow accumulate? One way would be that there is less snowfall can you think of another.
And this is a real bueaty "*No one* can know if *any* long term prediction is perfectly accurate until the "long term" actually happens." and despite your acknowledgement you still cling to them as your only evidence that AGW exists.
I have found 9 models skip and your efforts to magic them away have been found wanting.
Not sure what butter has to do with this so i will ignore your ramblings.
. . [W]hat dictates a decline in snow accumulate? One way would be that there is less snowfall can you think of another.
Yes. I can. Warmer average temperatures generally, and *warmer average winters* specifically--exactly as AGW predicts. (And, incidentally, as your mate Richard has found in Canada; fancy that.)
I do *not* rely on models as "evidence" for AGW. Nor does the IPCC. Nor does Coby, mandas, or anyone you have interacted with on this forum. You know this, have been told this probably on the order of 50 times or more by various sources, but you are simply recycling your old bullshit ad nauseum and this is the game we have to play.
I know the following quote is only from an opinion pieces, but it does put crakar's idiocy regarding models into perspective:
"....Now, only a few weeks later, we are waiting anxiously for the arrival of cyclone Yasi, hoping that family and friends in North Queensland will emerge unscathed. By the time this column appears, Yasi will have wreaked havoc along hundreds of kilometers of the coast and far inland.
The only thing that will make the damage from this massive cyclone less than it might have been is that we have had plenty of warning. Weather satellites detected dangerous cloud formations last week, and the computer models of the Bureau of Meteorology predicted the likely path of what became cyclone Yasi, even before the cyclone pattern formed.
Of course, cyclones behave erratically and donât always follow the predicted path as Yasi has done. But anyone who received the Bureauâs warning would have been foolhardy to ignore it. Anyone who justified such a course of action on the basis that âitâs only a modelâ would be, quite simply, a fool....."
The argument is sound but that isn't even the point, mandas.
The models for weather are not the evidence we use for our understanding of meteorology. They are *derived* from it. The same is true of climate models.
Crakar gets this. He's just delighting himself in being a pest.
"Not sure what butter has to do with this so i will ignore your ramblings."
It's called an analogy.
You see, replace butter with "sea ice" and change "plate" to "Polar seas" and you can see that even if you have greater extent of butter/sea ice, on the plate/Polar Sea, you haven't actually got any more butter/sea ice.
You are, however, of extremely limited intellectual talents, so this "analogy" had, quite understandably, passed you by.
Your side bar has a label for couple of other web sites, "The Lighter Side of Catastrophe."
I don't know why you don't just list your own site at the top there. Clearly, you endeavor to lead the same cateGorey.