Christopher Monckton has made a rare appearance at WUWT (archived here), complaining that an annual temperature chart stops at 2015. Presumably he thinks it should have included annual temperatures for 2016, 2017 and maybe 2018. The article that got Christopher's knickers in a knot was by Ryan Cooper at The Week. Christopher posted the chart below:
|Figure 1 | Global average annual surface temperature from 1975 to 2015. Source: The Week via WUWT|
The chart shows annual temperatures for CMIP5, HadCRUT4, Cowtan and Way, NCDC and GISTemp. Christopher weirdly complained:
Cooper carefully cuts off the observed-temperature trend line just at the peak, concealing the inconvenient truth that in the past two months global temperatures have plummeted as the el Niño comes to an end.
Does he know that the chart is showing annual average temperatures? Does he know that the latest year for annual temperatures was last year, 2015? Why would it include the "past two months" temperature on an annual chart? As for cutting off at the peak, well it's more likely that this year, 2016, will be the "peak" for the next couple of years.
Does Christopher know that the "past two months" aren't out for any of the above anyway. GISTemp hasn't released June data, and neither have any of the others as far as I know. The latest records show GISTemp with the latest of its two months as the hottest on record: the hottest April on record and the hottest May on record, while HadCRUT4 had May the second hottest on record, after May 2015. For GISTemp, every month from last October onwards was the hottest month on record for that month.
Christopher Monckton thinks dying is a natural defense mechanism
Christopher couldn't care less about the demise of coral reefs. He wrote:
No Clim-Comm piece would be complete without the usual catalogue of lurid supposed disasters: “Coral bleaching has reached epidemic proportions” (well, that natural defense mechanism happens whenever there is a severe el Niño, such as 1998 or two further great El Niños before that over the past 300 years, and the corals survive it just fine: they’ve faced a lot worse in the past 175 million years).I don't know where Christopher gets his odd notions from. Dying isn't generally regarded as a natural defense mechanism. Today's coral reefs haven't been around for anything like 175 million years although their ancestors formed millions of years ago. Most of today's coral reefs have emerged in just the last few thousand years. Christopher couldn't give a damn that we're killing off corals, some of which could have lived for hundreds of years.
Deniers are scared of scary temperatures
Christopher doesn't like it when he's shown to be wrong and he likes being scared just as little. He wrote:
How, then, has the scare been maintained for so long? The chief reason is that the climate extremists readopted an unpleasant tactic first developed by the totalitarians of the 20th century: organized, paid, structured vilification of anyone who dared to oppose them.It appears that deniers are the only people allowed unpleasant tactics and vilification. He also wrote a prediction:
In the end, though, the world won’t warm at anything like the predicted rate. By the time even the extremists have realized that scientifically illiterate pieces like Cooper’s can no longer sweep the growing discrepancy under the carpet, how many tens of millions will their cruel policies of opposing affordable electric power have killed in third-world countries?
We'll have to wait and see. So far the world is warming at the predicted rate as Figure 1 above shows.
Not taken seriously
In the article that Christopher Monckton didn't like, Ryan Cooper wrote that outright denial of an overwhelming scientific consensus was:
a bit too kooky for the more cosmopolitan brand of conservative. You can't espouse conspiracy derp and be taken seriously in high society.It's not too kooky for deniers at WUWT though, which i why they aren't taken seriously in high society.
Update: Anthony Watts takes a dim view of academics who stick up for science
Anthony Watts promotes an article by Christopher Monckton in which he implies everyone who is not a science denier is a "marxist". He even gave it the title "Party Line right, climate science wrong". Christopher also accused climate hawks of using:
an unpleasant tactic first developed by the totalitarians of the 20th century: organized, paid, structured vilification of anyone who dared to oppose them.Anthony turns around and outs benben for pointing out that marxism has nothing to do with climate science. Anthony doesn't like it when people correctly find flaws in his articles, which is why he first attacks them, then bans them. He obviously approves of Christopher Monckton calling people Marxist or he would have complained about that. Anthony used this excuse for his inexcusable bullying and piling on:
[Ben Ben has been hostile here by saying “Oh dear. WUWT and it’s ridiculous obsession with seeing Marxists everywhere. McCarthy would be proud.”. As far as I’m concerned, that’s an insult, because I certainly don’t see “Marxists everywhere”, yet he paints me and others with a broad brush of his own bias. If he can’t take the risk of using the university network to run his commentary under a fake identity, then he shouldn’t. You on the other hand aren’t using a fake identity, and clearly identify your university affiliation. That’s the difference. Besides, it is in our policy page. I take a dim view of academics hiding behind fake identities in order to hurl insults, and he’s certainly unapologetic for his behavior. – Anthony]Anthony takes a dim view of academics, particularly academics who point out the obvious. What's new? Anthony regards the accurate "marxist's everywhere" as an insult, but doesn't regard his fans labeling people marxist (or communists) as an insult. Anthony approves of all the insults piled on benben by WUWT fans, but takes it as an insult that benben has the temerity to stand up for himself or herself, and for science.
Anthony is jealous, feels insecure, and so lashes out at his betters. The thing is he also obviously approves of the disgusting flame attack, encouraging dozens of people to attack benben in a vile fashion (though that's the norm at WUWT). (benben takes it all in his or her stride and gives as good as is given.)
From the WUWT commentsThe article that Christopher didn't like was framed as conservatives running out of excuses to claim that climate science is a hoax. Most of the WUWT comments were about how everyone except science deniers are communists or worse. Fake sceptics are almost all right wing extremists who think that 90% of the world is out to get them.
benben doesn't take Christopher Monckton seriously and wrote:
July 7, 2016 at 3:16 pm
Oh dear. WUWT and it’s ridiculous obsession with seeing Marxists everywhere. McCarthy would be proud.
He was swiftly put in his place by Iain Russell, who is a fan of Joe McCarthy and probably still checks under his bed every night:
July 7, 2016 at 3:25 pm
McCarthy was correct. The US Government and academia were riddled with active, conscious agents of mass murdering Marxism.
Below umpteen comments from WUWT-ers who believe that communists are lurking everywhere, and claimed that benben was a communist, crystalofjedh didn't believe the evidence and wrote:
July 7, 2016 at 3:28 pmOh there were loads more comments from WUWT-ers who just know that communists are everywhere and who are scared stiff of them. Many of them were silly one-liners like this one from PA who wrote:
BenBen, your statement is ridiculous. WUWT does not see Marxists everywhere. There are people posting comments who believe government and bureaucracies are inefficient and thus making government and bureaucracies bigger will lead to more inefficiencies and thus more taxes, less growth, smaller middle class, and more poor.
July 7, 2016 at 4:53 pm
The only way Warmunists can avoid see marxists is by not using mirrors.
DWR54 quoted Christopher, who usually touts satellite data as the ants pants, writing:
July 8, 2016 at 1:04 am(Christopher didn't say what he thought the "serious calibration problems were" of course, nor provide any evidence to support his bold claim.)
“….Cooper carefully chose the satellite data, which have serious calibration problems…”
References and further reading
Have conservatives noticed their favorite climate talking point has been obliterated? - article by Ryan Cooper at The Week
From the HotWhopper archives