tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post80011650059634976..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Hoity Toity Christopher Monckton sez the Earth is losing energy and other silliness at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13481774072794312952014-01-19T05:38:23.132+11:002014-01-19T05:38:23.132+11:00And the irony is that Der Spiegel is officially/tr...And the irony is that Der Spiegel is officially/traditionally a left wing magazine, but has a climate ostrich as climate reporter, writing articles WUWT would be proud of.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71488536010515722162014-01-15T22:01:01.602+11:002014-01-15T22:01:01.602+11:00You must be new.
Paranoid Conspiracy is a staple ...You must be new.<br /><br />Paranoid Conspiracy is a staple at WUWT. That's actually quite mild compared to some of the nuttery, the mods give it a pass cos take away the paranoia, pseudoscience, and ad hominems against scientists, well there wouldn't be much left to read over there ...PJ Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74164978943021025162014-01-15T17:25:54.990+11:002014-01-15T17:25:54.990+11:00If titles can be doled out for doing the country a...If titles can be doled out for doing the country a good turn, perhaps they should be revoked if an Entitled conducts himself (or herself) in a manner that brings about great damage to the country or the planet.<br /><br />To<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s" rel="nofollow">f</a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJpoOlCbBrw" rel="nofollow">f</a>er Monckton certainly does nothing that I can see that glorifies the anachronistic and largely undeserving English aristocracy.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47121941139380010222014-01-15T11:29:47.393+11:002014-01-15T11:29:47.393+11:00DirkH says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:55 am
Guardian...DirkH says:<br />January 14, 2014 at 12:55 am<br /><br /><i>Guardian is an MI5/MI6 PsyOp outlet, part of the NYT/Guardian/Spiegel axis (see Snowden releases). </i><br /><br />I'm surprised the mods let nonsense like this get postedAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43795468963540654982014-01-15T08:13:25.004+11:002014-01-15T08:13:25.004+11:00Court:
Actually, several sets of cases are under w...Court:<br />Actually, several sets of cases are under way:<br />1) Andrew Weaver versus Tim Ball and separately, National Post in Canada.<br />2) Mann versus TIm Ball in Canada.<br />3) Mann vs National Review & CEI, in Washington.<br /><br />That's actually useful, since there are 2 different legal systems in play.<br /><br />Sadly, such things take a while.<br /><br />And for legal amusement, of a different sort, see <a href="http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-climate-cranks-trust-folded-brill-et-al-try-to-escape-justice/" rel="nofollow">NZ climate cranks’ trust folded, Brill et al try to escape justice</a>.John Masheyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59979755993017059922014-01-15T04:06:25.954+11:002014-01-15T04:06:25.954+11:00ha ha. I just looked at a chart of HadCET. In 16...ha ha. I just looked at a chart of HadCET. In 1694 the temp anomaly is -1.83 degrees and in 1733 it is 0.97 degrees (from the twentieth century average). Christopher could have got much better numbers if he'd gone from 1740 (-2.66 degrees) to 1741 (-0.2 degrees). What's that? Around 260 degrees a century trend? Wow it got hot in Central England!<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/tony-browns-cooling-england.html#CETanimated" rel="nofollow">Here's a chart</a> if anyone is interested.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11942042824747565702014-01-15T03:50:38.596+11:002014-01-15T03:50:38.596+11:00No typo. Here it is:
"The world warmed by 0....No typo. Here it is: <br />"The world warmed by 0.72 Cº in the past 100 years (HadCRUt4, December 1913 to November 2013). This rate of warming is far from “unprecedented over the past 11,000 years”. In Central England, warming at a rate equivalent to 4.33 Cº/century (Fig. 2) was measured over the four decades 1694-1733. That rate, six times the rate observed in the past 100 years, occurred before the Industrial Revolution even began."<br /><br />Sure, six times. <br />Monckton discovered a cherry pick we meteorologists and amateurs on that terrain of course knew quite well from the stats: that de decade of the 1690's was very cold indeed - in Western Europe it is the pit of the LIA - and the decade of the 1730's was remarkably warm.<br />Perhaps the man can discover some volcanic activity for that half century.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25445252872789912742014-01-15T03:31:24.290+11:002014-01-15T03:31:24.290+11:00Actually, CET is Central England Temperature, not ...Actually, CET is Central England Temperature, not Central European Temperature. The period is 1694-1733, and its absolute temperatures, not anomalies, so the annual cycle (about 16 degrees) is not removed.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50313955792622913242014-01-15T01:32:33.203+11:002014-01-15T01:32:33.203+11:00Like from December to July of some year.Like from December to July of some year.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73918576869053555092014-01-15T00:11:26.069+11:002014-01-15T00:11:26.069+11:00I think you are trying to find sense where there i...I think you are trying to find sense where there is none. Deniers fixate on short term noise and imagine it has significance. So my guess is that when saying "4.33C/century" he's talking about the maximum <i>rate</i> of warming over a ludicrously short period of time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28033209237873301552014-01-14T23:48:16.599+11:002014-01-14T23:48:16.599+11:00FWIW, I tried to post to the WUWT thread. But I...FWIW, I tried to post to the WUWT thread. But I've been censored. I said:<br /><br />----<br />> Professor Lindzen.<br /><br />Lindzen isn’t a prof. He’s emeritus.<br /><br />> Actually, Galileo was wrong.<br /><br />That one is definitely going in the quote-books, long after the rest<br />of this article is forgotten.<br /><br />> Damages will be huge.<br /><br />No they won’t. Firstly, because L won’t sue, he isn’t stupid.<br />Secondly, because if he did the case would be thrown out – nothing<br />here raises to the level of libel, even if proved true, which they<br />wouldn’t be.<br /><br />> Sooner or later we are going to have to take someone to court<br /><br />Mann is doing that. Oddly, no-one here seems to be keen for that day<br />in court to happen.<br />----<br /><br />That makes the dbstealey comment on that thread "William Connolley tucked tail and ran when I suggested a debate over global warming" rather ironic; he's a mod there, and its probably him that censored my attempt to talk.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51794041438545226192014-01-14T23:41:28.272+11:002014-01-14T23:41:28.272+11:00"Since Anthony Watts is so anti-smoking I'..."Since Anthony Watts is so anti-smoking I'm surprised he let that one through."<br />Because the leader of the sekt, S. Fred Singer, tells him to. Conversely that's the reason tobacco regularly enters climate revisionists' talk. As do other classics like DDT.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60643314603573241782014-01-14T23:39:28.239+11:002014-01-14T23:39:28.239+11:00I think his argument runs ... trend in CET over mo...I think his argument runs ... trend in CET over modern instrumental period (1850 onwards) matches global series, therefore I can cherry-pick a 40 year period from 1694 where the CET rose at 4.33C / decade and argue that the globe did the same.<br /><br />Modern warming is not unprecedented QED.<br /><br />Which must mean that the modern CET is compiled from the same pre-Mercury thermometers and sites as those from the late 1600s, including indoor rooms and the inclusion of a 'non-instrumental' series from Utrecht - or he's talking through his hat. <br /><br />How many times now has Monckton raised the rabble with threats of legal action, then failed to consummate? Must be dozens.Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14687929306649802332014-01-14T22:48:21.711+11:002014-01-14T22:48:21.711+11:00Even so, he can't possibly have come up with a...Even so, he can't possibly have come up with a rise of 15 degrees over the past 350 years. That's colder than a deep glacial. It's nuts.<br /><br />Maybe he made a typo. I didn't see anyone pick him up on it at WUWT.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1628909156252545432014-01-14T22:27:19.869+11:002014-01-14T22:27:19.869+11:00You'll have noticed that Monckton uses the Cen...You'll have noticed that Monckton uses the Central European Temperature record in the late 1600s as the basis for the claim that temperatures have risen faster in the past, this is legitimate, he claims, because during the last century the CET and the global record correlate well.<br /><br />I pointed out the ridiculousness of extrapolating the modern CET back 3-4 centuries, before the invention of the mercury-in-glass thermometer, when readings were not even taken outdoors, and gaps in the series were infilled with readings <i>from another country</i>.<br /><br />According to Smokey, this is all fine, even though the authors themselves warn that 'no daily series truly representative of CET can begin before about 1770'. <br /><br />This from the home of the SurfaceStations project, who champion scepticism about surface temperature measurements, and temperature proxies. You can almost hear the coginitive dissonance. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Monckton instructs his lawyer...LOL!Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.com